• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

And Mitt Picks...

Bren S. said:
Invest??? Seriously?? He was referring to the leeches who rather than earn a living choose to sit on their butts and collect government handouts.
Rewarding laziness is not investing in people.
Click to expand...

The guy is trying to get disability, it often can result in depression. Many people are highly paid "to sit on their butts and collect government handouts", such as defense contractors.

Give examples of "rewarding" laziness. Perhaps you're thinking of that joke, They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.
 
ylexot said:
So, you grabbed the quote, but failed to see who said it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I admitted I got the twins confused:(

So would you like to respond to "That's interesting considering that I have an IQ of 142 which puts me in the genius category." which I gather is your way of disputing cited article based on a smaller population sample size, shorter study time frame and unorthodox study methodology.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
The guy is trying to get disability, it often can result in depression. Many people are highly paid "to sit on their butts and collect government handouts", such as defense contractors.

Give examples of "rewarding" laziness. Perhaps you're thinking of that joke, They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.
Click to expand...

I take offense. know a number of defense contractors and they work some long and very, very hard hours. I know me who works on some of their contracts and it is tough work.
 
saptech said:
So you don't apply for the UI benefits if/when you are laid off?
Click to expand...

I have been fortunate in that I have never been laid off. If I was, I wouldn't see a huge problem taking unemployment. I've been paying into it out of my paycheck for 15+ years now, why not? If I did take unemployment it would simply be as a supplement. I've got 6 mos+ of living expenses in the bank. It would supplement that while I looked for work. If I didn't take it, I'd go work some crap job delivering pizzas or something to supplement my savings while I looked for work.

These are government provided benefits though that we pay into. It's a big difference from requiring employers to give severance packages to all their employees.
 
A.Nonymous said:
I have been fortunate in that I have never been laid off. If I was, I wouldn't see a huge problem taking unemployment. I've been paying into it out of my paycheck for 15+ years now, why not? If I did take unemployment it would simply be as a supplement. I've got 6 mos+ of living expenses in the bank. It would supplement that while I looked for work. If I didn't take it, I'd go work some crap job delivering pizzas or something to supplement my savings while I looked for work.

These are government provided benefits though that we pay into. It's a big difference from requiring employers to give severance packages to all their employees.
Click to expand...

We all just need golden parachutes.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Right. That's who I'm talking about. We're talking about people who are able bodied and capable of working. It is their responsibility to take care of themselves. It's not their employers responsibility to take care of them.



Possibly. I'm not sure. There's a risk they will simply stay home or worse, go vote for a 3rd party. Romney cannot win without them voting for him.
Click to expand...
They won't stay home, they hate Obama too much. And its getting too late for a third party to get on the ballot. Using the VP pick to energize your base seems a little desperate, and it didn't work too well for McCain. He needs the undecideds to win, which are generally more moderate. That's why this is a bad pick.
 
A.Nonymous said:
If a company decides to offer that, it's the companies prerogative. I fail to see why they should be required by law to offer that. Personally, I have my own parachute. It may be hand made, but it works.
Click to expand...
No one said it's a law or should be a law. And for UI, alot of people don't make enough money to save and it can depend on how long one is laid off before the savings get depleted.
 
saptech said:
No one said it's a law or should be a law. And for UI, alot of people don't make enough money to save and it can depend on how long one is laid off before the savings get depleted.
Click to expand...

Actually Elastic Ninja said it should be law. That is who I was responding to originally. A lot of people don't make enough money to save because they don't live below their means.

ElasticNinja said:
There is a responsibility on both the employer and employee of course. While in the the US employees are very much at the will of their employer and can be done with as their paymaster wishes, in other parts of the world it is almost the other way around, unfortunately.
There needs to be a culture of employee/employee responsibility, backed up by legislation. It should not be impossible to fire someone. Likewise it should not be possible to lay someone off without adequate compensation. And if possible, if the employees are needed and the economy is in trouble, it should be possible to have the workers put on less hours and still have an adequate income.
Click to expand...
 
ylexot said:
Gary Johnson is already on the ballot.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Mr. Potato is too.

A.Nonymous said:
Actually Elastic Ninja said it should be law. That is who I was responding to originally. A lot of people don't make enough money to save because they don't live below their means.
Click to expand...

If you work for over 2 years with a company, and are made redundant, where I live, you are entitled to so much compensation based on how long you have worked with the company. The state then rebates a certain percentage of it.

Live below their means? Do you want people, in the one of richest countries in the world, to live like working class Colombians?
 
ElasticNinja said:
If you work for over 2 years with a company, and are made redundant, where I live, you are entitled to so much compensation based on how long you have worked with the company. The state then rebates a certain percentage of it.
Click to expand...

Here, you are on your own. Same way the company is up a creek if you have been there 10 years, are the only one who knows how to work a certain machine and you decide to quit and go work for the competitor. I believe that people should ultimately be responsible for their own financial fate. The person responsible for you is the one you look at in the mirror every day not some politician in the capital. I don't believe it is the feds responsibility to take care of me. I'm a grown up. I'm perfectly capable of taking care of myself. If I don't, that's on me and no one else.

Live below their means? Do you want people, in the one of richest countries in the world, to live like working class Colombians?
Click to expand...
I want people to simply live below their means. People here make $35k and spend $50k. If they get a raise and make $50k, then they spend $60k a year. The savings rate here is negative. The average net worth in America is down nearly 40% in the last 4-5 years. The average American owes $7k in credit card debt and that's down over recent years. Why? Because people are living above their means and borrowing the difference. That is why they can't save. It's a cultural thing here.

I work with a guy and we both make good money. We both started at the same time and the job we've got we both make good money. He just went out and bought a $5,000 washer/dryer and plans to buy a Lamborghini because on the salary we make he feels he can make the payments at least for a short while. He's not unusual though. He's not an outlier. Many Americans do the exact same thing. I work with another guy who deliberately opted out of the 401k plan even though it's got a 100% corporate match. He claims he'd rather have the money to spend. I used to work with a guy who quit and when he did he took all the money of his retirement, took the 45% hit on taxes and thought it was a great deal. He told me about another former co-worker who did the same thing and how they took their $6-7k that they had left over out of taxes (out of $12-14k if they'd just left the money there or moved it to another retirement account) and spend it on fun toys. Again, this, sadly, isn't unusual. It's what we Americans do. We make poor financial decisions, live way above their means and wake up one day with nothing and pray for the feds to bail them out. It's ridiculous.

In short, if you make $30k, live on $29k. If you make $50k, live on $49k. Or live on $30k and bank $20k if you want. Living on more than you make is a foolish long term plan.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Actually Elastic Ninja said it should be law. That is who I was responding to originally. A lot of people don't make enough money to save because they don't live below their means.
Click to expand...

There needs to be a culture of employee/employee responsibility, backed up by legislation.
Click to expand...
You are correct, my apologies. I was telling him there is some form of payment of Severence, but it's up to the empolyer.
 
It doesn't matter if it died in committee or not, it shows their intentions. Besides, it's part of the official Republican platform now.
 
Gmash said:
It doesn't matter if it died in committee or not, it shows their intentions. Besides, it's part of the official Republican platform now.
Click to expand...

Have you actually read the bill? The full text is available online. Actually I was wrong earlier. It died in committee in 2009 but was re-introduced in 2011 where it is currently stuck in comittee and will likely die again. Govtrack gives it a 1% chance of passing. The current bill (HR 1096) has no sponsors beyond Ron Paul so claiming that Ryan or Akin support it at the moment isn't entirely accurate. While it's likely they would vote for it if it came to the floor, they're not currently sponsors of the bill.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the bill requiring a woman who was raped to carry her child. Nothing at all. Making that claim is a bald faced lie. There is nothing in the bill requiring a woman to prove that she was raped "legitimately". So that's another bald faced lie. In short, Akin is an ass therefore the left is saying that every single Republican on the face of the planet believes the same thing.

The article cited says, "Three years ago in 2009 Paul Ryan and Todd Akin presented and co-sponsored the Personhood Bill outlawing abortion, birth control, Morning after Pill and In Vitro Fertilization, in effect taking control of women’s reproductive rights and their bodies."

The fact is that is a bald faced lie and is obvious if you actually read the freaking bill. It's only a couple of paragraphs and basically says that the feds would recognized a fetus as a person. Now, that could well lay the groundwork for outlawing abortion, etc... but the bill itself does not do that. I'm not saying the bill is a good idea, but let's call a spade a spade here.

Did anyone actually read the bill or did they just look at the blog, assume it was accurate and get their knickers in a twist? Furthermore, where is your source for the Sanctity of Life Act now being part of the official platform? I'm seeing that Ron Paul is the only Republican supporting the bill officially.
 
A.Nonymous said:
... The article cited says, "Three years ago in 2009 Paul Ryan and Todd Akin presented and co-sponsored the Personhood Bill outlawing abortion, birth control, Morning after Pill and In Vitro Fertilization, in effect taking control of women’s reproductive rights and their bodies."

The fact is that is a bald faced lie and is obvious if you actually read the freaking bill. It's only a couple of paragraphs and basically says that the feds would recognized a fetus as a person. Now, that could well lay the groundwork for outlawing abortion, etc... but the bill itself does not do that. I'm not saying the bill is a good idea, but let's call a spade a spade here. ...
Click to expand...

Talk about a bald faced lie "feds would recognized a fetus as a person". Any means a zygote is terminated is murder period, once a human egg is fertilized by human sperm it's human. Therefore the taking of human life is murder. Not only is abortion murder, but any birth control that terminates pregnancy after fertilization is murder. This is what Ryan attempted to make the law of the land.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Talk about a bald faced lie "feds would recognized a fetus as a person". Any means a zygote is terminated is murder period, once a human egg is fertilized by human sperm it's human. Therefore the taking of human life is murder. Not only is abortion murder, but any birth control that terminates pregnancy after fertilization is murder. This is what Ryan attempted to make the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Does not necessarily mean that, but why not extrapolate to a ridiculous conclusion so we can smear someone we politically disagree with. That sounds rational.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Does not necessarily mean that, but why not extrapolate to a ridiculous conclusion so we can smear someone we politically disagree with. That sounds rational.
Click to expand...
Lets be intellectually honest here. We all know that's what it meant. We all fall into the trap of trying to score political points sometimes, but come on, they wouldn't even deny it if asked.
 
Banning abortion. Sure. Banning in-vitro, all birth control, etc.... is a stretch. This bill alone wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade anyway if we've being honest.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Does not necessarily mean that, but why not extrapolate to a ridiculous conclusion so we can smear someone we politically disagree with. That sounds rational.
Click to expand...

"feds would recognized a fetus as a person" means exactly what it states. Killing persons in most circumstances is a crime, unless you are arguing killing a zygote is a "Stand Your Ground" defense.
 
There is a difference between a zygote and a fetus. Just saying.

Anyway, honest question. Is there anything about Romney/Ryan or the Republican party that you like? Anything at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom