I've started to respond to a few of his opinions this morning but it just isn't worth it. I'm honestly starting to believe that it's just a time4fun alt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Printable View
I've started to respond to a few of his opinions this morning but it just isn't worth it. I'm honestly starting to believe that it's just a time4fun alt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
You guys act so confident but don't know shit. Believe me, I've had this talk for 30+ years about silencing weapons, how to make your own, how to buy them, how effective they are etc... That doesn't change the fact that they're called silencers. They can also be called suppressors and that's become the popular word by people who are trying to sell them, but the two words are at best interchangeable.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
That is unless you're dealing with federal regs and licensing with places like the ATF. In that case the proper word is silencer or muffler even, but not suppressor.
Firearms Verification
Gun Control Act Definitions
Silencer
18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(24)
The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
This link even has a nice picture of a silencer. How the fuck do none of you know this?
Fine, they are also called silencers. Do you have any other point other than their name? Are you scared of the name? Do you still think they actually make weapons silent? What about all these cops that are getting assassinated by suppressed weapons?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
So your entire rebuttal to what we're saying is focused on terminology and not actual function? If you want to go around calling magazines "clips", semi-auto rifles "assault rifles", or a barrel shroud a "shoulder thing that goes up", go ahead, you just come off as someone who's incredibly ignorant about guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Check this out. This article by the ATF uses the term silencer 16 times on this webpage and the term suppressor 0 times.
Quote:
Eight Men Indicted for Manufacturing and Dealing AR-15 Type Rifles and Silencers Without a License
Scores of Unmarked Assault Rifles and Silencers Seized
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal grand jury returned a 70-count indictment today against eight men, charging them with various firearms offenses involving manufacturing and dealing firearms without a license, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner and ATF Special Agent in Charge Jill A. Snyder announced.
Joseph Latu, 29, of Elk Grove, is charged with conspiracy to deal firearms without a license, dealing firearms without a license, conspiracy to manufacture and deal firearms without a license, possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle, possession of an unregistered silencer, possession of an unserialized firearm.
Algernon Tamasoa, 27, of Sacramento, is charged with conspiracy to deal firearms without a license, dealing firearms without a license, possession of an unserialized firearm, and distribution of MDMA.
John Ortiz, 43, of Vallejo, and Keith White, 40, of Vallejo, are charged with conspiracy to deal firearms without a license, dealing firearms without a license, and possession of an unserialized firearm.
Charles Tucker, 29, of Stockton, and Ionel Pascan, 28, of Riverbank, are charged with dealing firearms without a license, conspiracy to manufacture and deal firearms without a license, possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle, possession of an unregistered silencer, and possession of an unserialized firearm.
Daniel Bennett, 39, of Stockton, and David Bennett, 27, of Stockton, are charged with conspiracy to manufacture and deal firearms without a license.
According to court documents, between February 6 and September 28, 2015, on 24 occasions, the defendants, either individually or together, met with an undercover ATF agent and sold him a variety of firearms, including rifles, AR-15 type rifles, AR-15 type short-barreled rifles, revolvers, pistols, and silencers. In all, the sales involved 67 firearms and 38 silencers. Additionally, 71 firearms and 62 silencers were recovered during the arrest of certain defendants and ensuing execution of search warrants. In total, 238 firearms and silencers were recovered. Many of the firearms did not have a serial number or other identification markings and were manufactured from unfinished lower receivers, commonly known as “80 percent” lower receivers or “ghost guns.” None of the silencers had a serial number or other identification marking, as is required for firearms under the law. Further, many of the firearms were short-barreled rifles, which must be registered on the National Firearms Registration and Record. None of the short-barreled rifles sold to the undercover agent were registered to any of the defendants.
They're called silencers. They have always been called silencer. Suppressor is a recent term and I'd bet my bottom dollar it's use is in vogue today because of industry jargon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
The bottom line is this: Use either word. Don't be so sanctimonious about it and good luck looking for the ATF Suppressor Application.
Fine cwolff. You were right. they can be called silencers too. Whoopty doo.
You going to address the stuff we've actually been saying about them other than the name?
Is that kind of like informant being a synonym for spy? :spin2:Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You're retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
BUT WHY WOULD THEY BE CALLED SILENCERS IF THEY DON'T MAKE GUNSHOTS SILENT? - cwolff, probablyQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
You'd be retarded if you did, because there isn't a specific application for them. You do a standard ATF Form-4.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
A .22LR with a suppressor is still 112 decibels. According to Purdue, it compares to... Steel mill, auto horn at 1 meter. Turbo-fan aircraft at takeoff power at 200 ft (118 dB). Riveting machine (110 dB); live rock music (108 - 114 dB).
A suppressed M1911, .45 is 130 decibels, which according to Purdue is the same as Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft carrier with afterburner at 50 ft (130 dB).
In response to Gelston's comments that it will be ovious a firearm discharged even with a suppressor:Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Quite fankly you fucks owe me an apology. First of all I addressed concerns around the use of silencers early in this discussion, I know what a silencer is, I'm not scared of the name (FFS I was an 0311) and you're all butthurt because I taught you something you didn't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Quite fankly, you didn't address anything. Again, where are all the people assassinating police officers?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
lol soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Actually you're just spouting more motherjones bullshit and claiming it as fact, but that's not really surprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Well cwolff? They are legal in 43 states? WHERE IS ALL THE SUPPRESSOR CRIME?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
https://i.imgur.com/eYlA3xx.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Where did I say that all these people are assassinating police officers? I'll help you out. I never did. We do have Dorner's example. When he shot those cops they were baffled why neighbors never reported gunshots. The reason they didn't? Take a guess...Silencers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Make these things ubiquitous will mean they'll be used more and more often in crime. Does anyone not agree with that? If so, please explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
They are out there in large numbers. Where are they assassinating cops at?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
OMG. You fuck. That did make me laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
They're not out there in large numbers. Quit trying to propaganda this or at least do some googling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
According to the ATF, as of 02-03-2017, there are 1,297,670 suppressors registered with ATF under the National Firearms Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
There have been 44 crimes involving them in the last decade.
But, 1.3 million isn't a large number I guess.
It's not. How any firearms are in circulation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
You're retarded, especially when you have the ATF itself saying they want suppressors to be unregulated because it costs too much, bogs them down with paperwork, and is statistically used very rarely in crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
It's this easy:Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
http://blog.westernpowders.com/wp-co...et-paper72.jpg
The law is stupid and impossible to enforce.
I notice you keep bouncing around without addressing shit. I'll take that as your concession to my points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
You didn't address jack shit. The main thing we're all saying is that suppressors are nowhere near as effective or as widespread as you seem to think they are, but you decided to go off on suppressors vs. silencers terminology. Police gunshot detectors aren't defeated by a few decibel drop - that is a fact. Movies or games where someone screws a suppressor on their rifle and they become undetectable are not real life.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
What? you actually wanted me to tell you the number of firearms in the US? Really? You are bitching at me to google shit and you can't look up an easy to find number yourself? Make your fucking point instead of trying to stretch it over multiple posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You are assuming too much. I do not think they are widespread and I do not think they are silent like in the movies. I've never said they were. It's on you for making these assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
I pointed to Christoper Dorner as an example of the effectiveness of the silencer in the commission of crimes. Make them ubiquitious and this will happen more.
I made it from the beginning you steaming asshole and I've pasted it again. Go back and read you slimy little fucking worm. God Damn Gelston. You're really a piece of shit sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
You haven't addressedQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
that anywhere. Even when I point out the BATFE ITSELF wants them deregulated because they are barely even used in any crimes. 44 crimes total in the past decade, out of 1.3 million registered and untold unregistered.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Here's a link to gunfire locator technology.Quote:
The FBI estimates that 1% or fewer of crimes that involve gunfire are committed with silenced guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfire_locator
Why should anyone go back and read your posts. You don't read ours, you don't go back and look at ours and you usually don't read sources we post. You demand actions you are unwilling to take. You call be delusional yet you believe in Socialism and tacts and policies that have always ended in tyranny and oppression and still you complain that we won't bow to your wishes. Here is a simple fact, you are barking up the wrong tree, your sudden concern for police is highly suspect and your position is simply bad.
You're simultaneously arguing that suppressors are ineffective and supereffective. Either suppressors are able to let you stealthily kill people and are about to come into widespread use in crime, or they are nowhere near as effective or in widespread usage as media portrays them. Sort your shit out dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You sound like a child. "Mommy, why should I share my toys, kevin doesn't"Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
You also assume too much. You've called me a communist and a socialist and a fascist and keep spouting this theory that socialism is a 1 way street to the gulag. WTF dude. Get a grip. What's this sudden concern bullshit also? I've let that go, but you need to address this. Am I anti-cop? Am I out here pasting "fuck the police" or something? Here's a hint. I'm not. Not anti-police, not anti-government. I'm glad to pay my taxes and glad that those taxes go to provide a safe community for me and my family thanks to the police.
You can always say you're right if you say everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Bullshit Taernath. I'm saying nothing of the kind. 1) Suppressors are effective. 2) Put a shit ton of them into circulation and they'll get used in crimes to good effect. It ain't no riddle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
The BATFE disagrees with you. and yes, they are very effective for not fucking up the shooters hearing. You still need to wear hearing pro with them though.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Give it a few years, let them get out there en masse and we'll see what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
If you know what they actually do, you wouldn't be saying that. A handful of decibel reduction isn't effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You got that from one data point?Quote:
2) Put a shit ton of them into circulation and they'll get used in crimes to good effect. It ain't no riddle.
A few years? I mean, they've been legally obtainable since they were invented.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Legally obtainable and easy to make one yourself. They aren't the boogey man you think they are.
You have repeatedly supported socialist positions and systems so if the shoe fits, wear it. Socialism always leads to totalitarian oppressive government. Always. The so called "successful socialist" countries are not socialist they are capitalist welfare states on the verge of collapse and they know it as evidenced by the cutting of services, more oppressive laws, restrictions on firearms, self defense and free speech. I seem to remember you were against the police in dealing with the riots after the election and supported BLM. So, sorry your memory is so short in your support of the position de jour of the Leftist, your idiocy is your burden to bear.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I think the biggest thing keeping suppressor crime down is the mandatory 30 year prison sentence.
Is that for using one without a proper stamp?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
In February 2013, Americans watched in horror as a disgruntled former Los Angeles police officer, Christopher Dorner, terrorized Southern California. Over nine days, Dorner killed four people and wounded three others during a mass manhunt.
As police investigated, they wondered why nearby residents weren't reporting the shots. It turned out that, in an effort to conceal his murders, Dorner was using a silencer, which distorts the sound of gunfire and masks the muzzle flash of a gun. (Silencers do not completely silence gunfire, as some Hollywood movies would have you believe.) In expert hands, say SEAL Team Six, silencers have been used to help covertly take down the likes of Osama bin Laden. But in the hands of criminals, like Christopher Dorner, they pose a serious threat to law enforcement and the communities they serve.
What data points? Zero data. This is me talking. My opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Is it your opinion that silencers will not have any positive value for criminals?
Don't be like this Gelston. Just don't. Be better. You surely know that they've been heavily regulated since 1934 much like machine guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
And those regulations haven't changed, yet you are freaking out about an NRA post.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Ya, I support BLM. I'm anti police brutality and abuse of power. I support Law Enforcement. Those things aren't separate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Socialism's working well in much of the world no matter how many times you say it's one the verge of collapse. It's simply a system and not inherently evil. That's a biased point of view you're expressing and far too simplistic to be taken seriously.
Laughing at it. Not freaking out. Making fun of their stupid Valentine's day style BFF handgun silencer video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Yes, I read that breathless opinion piece too. The fact that they compared him to Seal Team Six is what makes it clear neither you nor the author understand what it takes to make a gun actually quiet.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You keep referring to Dorner in your arguments. You clearly seem to think it supports your position.Quote:
What data points? Zero data. This is me talking. My opinion.
I don't believe suppressors by themselves are effective at making gunfire undetectable, nor are they or will they become widely used.Quote:
Is it your opinion that silencers will not have any positive value for criminals?
Don't be disingenuous. They clearly say that silencers aren't silencing like in the movies and don't compare dorner to SEAL's. You're reaching.
Dorner does support it. He killed cops and no one reported gunshots when the police figured they should have. His suppressors were effective.
You're speaking in absolute terms and that in itself is dishonest. They won't make gunfire absolutely undetectable. They can make the sound and flash less detectable. They are effective. They work. Whether that's for killing cops more quietly or hunting with less potential hearing damage; they serve their purpose.
"In expert hands, say SEAL Team Six, silencers have been used to help covertly take down the likes of Osama bin Laden. But in the hands of criminals, like Christopher Dorner, they pose a serious threat to law enforcement and the communities they serve."Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Well... ok...
That HAS to be because of the suppressors, right? There's literally no other way it could be anything else.Quote:
no one reported gunshots when the police figured they should have.
I'm not being dishonest. I'm speaking from a position of knowledge. I understand how suppressors work and their limitations. This might come as a surprise to you, but I'm for more gun control, I just realize that suppressors aren't the frightening thing a lot of people make them out to be.Quote:
You're speaking in absolute terms and that in itself is dishonest. They won't make gunfire absolutely undetectable. They can make the sound and flash less detectable. They are effective. They work. Whether that's for killing cops more quietly or hunting with less potential hearing damage; they serve their purpose.
There's no fucking way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
I'm sorry your father wasn't a part of your life. It's clear that when you don't have a father figure in your life, you turn into your mother.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I'm sorry your mother didn't ween you off soy milk sooner.
I'm sorry, but only an idiot believes you were ever in the armed forces. Or the boy scouts. Hell, I've seen tougher girl scouts than you turned out.
In conclusion: I'm sorry you turned out the way you did.
They're not super duper frightening but they will be used in the commission of crimes to the advantage of criminals. When that becomes more prevalent there will be a backlash. Right now would be a good time for responsible gun owners to police themselves. If not now the legislature will do it for them later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
And that NRA video making out a love story between silencers and firearms is not responsible. They're selling toys. Moving product for their customers for whom they lobby and those customers are manufacturers not sportsmen.
https://media.giphy.com/media/2Tn10AXN6B98k/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
1) No. The best suppressors reduce the noise by maybe 30 decibels. That's still louder than a rock concert.
2) No. There are already 1.3 MILLION suppressors out there. Do you think that 1.3 MILLION is a low number?
Conclusion: stop being a retard in Every. Single. Post. You. Make.
Are you saying that nobody should worry about their house being broken into or be prepared for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I assume you just leave your doors and windows open at night, since there's no chance anything bad could happen like an intruder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rj02JmKipk
^ Are you saying this story is fake too?
Stop being such an unhinged pussy.
He's probably lying about that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Oh Methais is here. Time for outrage!!!!
Oh Back is here. Time for cheap booze and delusion fueled emotional instability!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Its Methais talks shit and over reacts too much day every day.
Jake TapperQuote:
It hasn't even been a full week since POTUS canceled the @Eagles visit to the WH
12:02 PM - 11 Jun 2018
All that whit talking can be exhausting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Also:
https://media.giphy.com/media/Gt4FaBEFngjL2/giphy.gif
I don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Don’t worry, neither does cwolff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Holy fucking shit, the amount of incompetence is astounding!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/10/us/fl...cks/index.html
Quote:
Florida revoked almost 300 concealed weapons permits after discovering that a state employee failed to review criminal background checks on applicants because she couldn't log into the system, according to a report by state officials.
As a result of the problem, which lasted for more than a year, 291 people got concealed carry permits who should not have received them, said Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam.
The employee was found negligent for not carrying out her job duties, which included making daily checks of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), according to a 2017 investigation by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which processes applications for concealed weapons licenses. The results of the investigation had not been made public until now.
If it wasn’t Florida I would be surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
But I need a silencer for ma rifle!
https://i.imgur.com/OktIWiW.png
RIP right eyeball.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
Not so sure.. she's leaning the wrong way.. she might just fall over instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by drauz
Didn't Mattis say this wouldn't happen or was he talking about different service members?Quote:
Some of the service members say they were not told why they were being discharged. Others who pressed for answers said the Army informed them they'd been labeled as security risks because they have relatives abroad or because the Defense Department had not completed background checks on them.
Spokespeople for the Pentagon and the Army said that, due to the pending litigation, they were unable to explain the discharges or respond to questions about whether there have been policy changes in any of the military branches.
Eligible recruits are required to have legal status in the U.S., such as a student visa, before enlisting. More than 5,000 immigrants were recruited into the program in 2016, and an estimated 10,000 are currently serving. Most go the Army, but some also go to the other military branches.
https://apnews.com/amp/38334c4d061e4...mpression=true
Family of young cancer survivor bombarded with abuse by Twitter trolls because they thanked Eric Trump for donating $16.3 million to the hospital that cured their little boy
When hating Trump is more important than kids with cancer.
One of 982948394818 reasons the #WalkAway movement keeps growing.
what a bunch of tards. The trolls I mean. Not the family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
confirmed cwolff wants cancer kids to die. Even more than Paul Ryan wanting to throw grandma off a cliff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Only if they are white.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
cwolff is a self hating individual... not that anyone would blame him.
I get the point but it's missing a lot of impact without the context of knowing who the fuck he is and what he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
It isn’t Backlash, in case that helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Anyone know what these people have in common?
Quote:
Paul Combetta
Cheryl Mills
John Bentel
Heather Samuelson
Bryan Pagliano
Tony Podesta
They all have first and last names.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/fckya.gif
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...-than-estimat/
Quote:
Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes
Voter fraud anyone?Quote:
A research group in New Jersey has taken a fresh look at postelection polling data and concluded that the number of noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections is likely far greater than previous estimates.
As many as 5.7 million noncitizens may have voted in the 2008 election, which put Barack Obama in the White House.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-fra...ech-companies/
Quote:
Lavish free lunches are the stuff of Silicon Valley legend, and a treasured perk in the roster of on-campus benefits that tech companies use to lure workers. But two San Francisco legislators are looking to do away with the practice, saying it hurts local businesses who can't compete, reports CBS San Francisco.
"We see thousands of employees in a block radius that don't go out to lunch and don't go out in support of restaurants every day," said Ryan Corridor, owner of Corridor, a restaurant blocks from San Francisco's city hall. "It's because they don't have to."
On the other hand, when Square, a nearby payment processing company, closes its cafeteria every other Friday, Corridor sees such a surge it sometimes has to increase its staffing, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
"You can't compete with free. Free food is a wonderful amenity but doesn't do anything to extend the community around it," said Gwyneth Borden, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.
San Francisco Supervisors Ahsha Safai and Aaron Peskin introduced legislation Tuesday prohibiting in-house cafeterias in new office buildings and tech campuses. They insist the city has the legal right to do this through a zoning amendment using certain planning and public health codes.
Quote:
If passed, this new law would only apply to new companies, not existing companies in the city like Google, Twitter and Levi Strauss & Co. There are currently 51 such employee cafeterias in San Francisco.
https://i.imgur.com/5MMgB9q.gif
Talk about grade A bullshit.
Wait what? They want to ban companies from offering free lunches to their employees to help nearby restaurants?Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
What's nex, forbidding a company from employing their own cleaning crews so they have to hire outside help? Think of the boon to the local public transportation if they forbid employers from providing employee parking!
Ban on sack lunches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What about the company that supplies the food for these lunches. Or the cafeteria workers? Are they not as important as local businesses? Not to mention the effect it would have on future locations of tech businesses. They'll just move south or east.
This is what really gets me. Who are these politicians to dictate where these corporations spend their money? Restaurants are not magically entitled to anyone's money just because they exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
But fucking why though? What do failing local businesses have to do with a person bringing in a sacked lunch? You're not hitting a very wealthy part of the population in the first place when people are bringing food to work to fucking survive. Are we positive this isn't satire of some kind?
The bag lunch was satire on Richard's part. The part that is real is the lawmakers are looking to stop tech companies from giving their employees free food at their place of business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Astray
They claim this is encouraging people to eat at their place of business (because yeah, free food > paying for food) and thus it is leading to empty streets and local businesses not receiving as many customers as the lawmakers feel they should. They even offered a solution that the businesses should instead pay for their employees' lunches and the employees can go to a local restaurant. Really just sounds like a roundabout way of taxing a company.
Shitty. What a sham. What a fraud. What a sham of a fraudulent fuck.
Normally I would say this has no way in hell of passing, but it IS San Fransisco so who the hell knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Astray
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGwQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It will be illegal in CA to give customers plastic straws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
As one of those tech employees who works at one of those big tech companies everyone loves to hate- I absolutely understand the sentiment behind this law. The job I do is very similar to my non-tech job 7 years ago, and I get paid over 5x as much now to do it. The kind of income inequality this creates is destroying tech hubs. Tech workers get all of the money, and everyone else has to deal with the consequences of that money- insane rent, huge increases in costs of living, etc. Some of that money does go into the local economy but not nearly enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Right now the food perks we get aren't taxed, and that money tends to get funneled into a few large catering companies who likely aren't sourcing their food locally. So the money that we would be spending at the local restaurants is going to some food distributor in Utah. That's not good.
Having said that- this law isn't likely going to do what they're hoping it will do. Most companies will just have their catering companies make the food off-site. They're not going to stop giving free food perks because the market for good tech talent is extremely competitive, and they honestly don't want us leaving the office any more than we have to.
What I'd rather see is a tax on the food benefits that goes directly to tax breaks for local restaurants, and for tech companies to start contributing to their communities.
They are communists, you support them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1J3VrxnM0
Trump is getting ready to give farmers billions of dollars because of his disastrous trade policies. Does that make the farmers communists? Why should those farmers get a handout, they should just learn a new trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
The thousands of people they employ doesn't contribute to the community?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
https://media1.giphy.com/media/lvXYaGPsIUmqs/giphy.gif
I'm sure you're doing your part though and giving 50% of your income to a needy black family.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I love how if the government pays for health care it's dangerous socialized medicine, but if we throw a bunch of money at farmers to help them handle a REALLY stupid trade war Trump started for literally no reason- it's totally fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Republicans are insane.
Why are you asking me, I don't support any form of subsidy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I'm just not going to cry like a little bitch and make up Russia bogeyman stories because my guy didn't win an election.
You're always calling the Democrats losers because of handouts, are you going to call Trump a loser because he's getting ready to dish out $12 billion in welfare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
They've really jumped the shark this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
US healthcare spending is over 3 trillion dollars a year, that's peanuts compared to the 10 billion Trump is asking for, stop comparing the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Not to mention I haven't heard too many Republicans defending Trump's subsidies for farmers.
Lastly Trump has already secured some concessions from the EU in regards to the so called trade war with them. So I guess this is the real reason you're bringing up these subsidies now, right? Gotta get this "bad" news out for Trump before the good news starts making the rounds. You're so predictable.
lolnazi
[QUOTE=Neveragain;2040945]The thousands of people they employ doesn't contribute to the community?
Mostly we destroy the community, actually. People who aren't in tech jobs can't keep up with the inflation that results from 20% of us making 5x what everyone else is making.
There are fast food restaurants in the Bay Area who only open half days because they literally can't find anyone to work. The BK down the street is paying $19 an hour right now, and they're having a really hard time finding anyone. No one can afford to live here on $20 an hour. There are people making $50k in SF who are living in tents.
Extreme income inequality is BAD policy for a reason.
But it's adorable that you think you have any concept of what's going on when your comment makes it clear that you do not.
Why would you say any of this like it's a good thing? You aren't enlightened, progressive, or forward-thinking. This is a sign of failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Erm, I think you need to re-read my post. None of this is good. It's why I support the sentiment behind this new law. We have to fix this.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
You think you are personally involved in this extreme "income disparity" that is causing so many problems in the area you work, and you think outlawing company cafeterias is going to help. You're nothing but a joke at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
When are you going to give 50% of your income to a needy family of color?
Do you ever think before you post? Or do you just start mashing the keys together randomly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You might want to go back to the start of this thread and read everything again. Do it slowly. Sound out the words as you go.
Just answer the question, when are you going to give 50% of your income to a needy family of color? I sure as shit ain't gonna read over 130 pages of this thread just to see if you made some sort of point.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Yeah so the thread about this is about 10 posts long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Let me give you a spoiler alert- I said I support the sentiment of the law, but I don't think it will work.
Seriously why is your reading comprehension so bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
The problem is the denseness of the tech companies. Since it has already happened you are basically fucked until they move their buildings to other cities. Unless you want to force relocation.
Even more of a reason for you to personally do something to help solve a problem that you yourself say you are a part of.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
And you complain you make too much money. What are you waiting for?
Right- which is all the more reason why we should just tax the food benefits and give that money directly back to local restaurants.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
And, honestly, they're running out of room in SF anyway. Tech companies are increasingly building in the surrounding areas. Though Mountain View has the same law in effect, and it didn't keep my company from leasing a building for a year or two.
Why not just tax tech employees 50% of their income?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Why does it matter if I call him a loser, I didn't vote for him? That being said I respect that he won the election, he is the president of these united states. I respect the people that voted for him and why they voted for him. He was a far better choice than clinton or any other democrat that was running. Personally I don't think we should allow the import of any products from China, so really the tariffs are much less than what I would want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I don't have to agree with everything the guy does, but in honesty he and his supporters have been treated like shit by democrat fucks for nearly a decade. As far as I'm concerned this is all just deserts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLfvXjKMwtI
The money is better spent on text based one-handed blunts of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'm not an Ultracapitalist or anything, but I'd rather see that bubble burst on its own than subsidize businesses that can't compete.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
They will get around laws like that pretty easily. It'll never work, those restaurants are going to have to find a way to survive or move to more hospitable locations.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
So what are you doing to help the community? Surely you’re doing something and not just rolling around in your 5x money being a 20 percenter and destroying your community while assuming someone else will help instead. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Right?
She is commenting on a message board, duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
If this dumbass law passes they should start charging 1 cent for meals. What’s the government gonna do, force them to charge more?
asj tke ksdkf fh jejt al tjhejemkd fgljsj lt anllcmcfktg tlfjf fkfks]s gohk waa dkgkgQuote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
She's making so much money that even she thinks it's disgusting. She fully admits that she's part of the problem of people making too much money and it's just totally ruining surrounding businesses. So what is she doing? Is she asking for her income to be taxed an extra 10-20%? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Is she giving all of her excess money to a needy family of color? No.
She's asking for her meal benefits to be taxed, so if her work values her meal benefits at 5 dollars a day she might pay an extra 100 dollars in taxes a year. This coming from the woman who supposedly makes over 100 dollars an hour. This is her solution.
I don't see any reason to be impressed by a $100/hour salary. Even if earning that amount made your opinion more valuable (which of course it doesn't), there are a few semi-active/active users on this board who make more. Skilled engineers (especially software and hardware engineers) with experience tend to be well-paid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Impossible! time4fun has assured us that she makes more than the top 10 income earners on the PC combined. You're not suggesting someone on the internet just lies are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
Well, to be fair, that's hardly a wage that is unattainable. Sure, she could be lying but really, who cares?
I've got you all beat. Well, my combined income anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Prove that I don't!
That's right, I'm a fucking Rockefeller. Or fucking a Rockefeller. Hey, it could happen!
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Salaries aren't impressive. They aren't a reflection of your value or your work- they're more often a reflection of your spot in the privilege cycle. The whole point of my post was that tech workers are getting paid A LOT more money than most to do the same exact jobs, in many instances. People often don't realize that most of us aren't actually doing technical work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
It's just the latest installment of America's continuing obsession with keeping wealth in the hands of the same small group who always seems to end up with it.
Though point of correction- software engineers don't usually have higher salaries than other people in tech. It's equity that makes up most of their compensation.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3otWpL...hVQs/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
For someone who makes top 1% money.. you sure do seem to hate the top 1% people...
So either you are a self-hating, hypocritical dumb bitch.. or you are a full of shit dumb bitch.
Which is it?
Trumplicans demanding to know what a Democrat is doing to help fix income inequality.. :lol2:
Right? Whenever I picture them, I just see Statler and Waldorf, the two old guy Muppets, heckling in the stands. "Rabble, rabble, rabble! That was some good heckling today guys! We really showed those liberals and that one moderate- all smug with their fancy facts and reasoning! Same time tomorrow?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Not sure you were following the conversation very well. Here, let me help:Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
When an alt-left liberal, who claims to make more than everyone here combined and that she pays more in taxes than what everyone makes is faux outraged that there is a wage gap and that she supports far larger taxes and really, really stupid laws that punish companies.. it makes no sense. Either she is full of shit in her outrage, or she's full of shit about her situation.
Maybe you can talk her into sending you some cash to finally hire that lawyer to get those IP subpoenas rolling to Kranar?
https://media.giphy.com/media/3otWpL...hVQs/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://www.latimes.com/resizer/Fx9SI...BOHLPKAGYQ.jpg
What "facts and reasoning" have you presented? That you're going to save local businesses and solve "income inequality" by taxing free food employees receive?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c5/26...14125ff3cf.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
http://forum.gsplayers.com/image/jpe...zyZ9TpyoooD//Z
1) Alt left doesn't exist. Stop normalizing white supremacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
2) I never said I made more than everyone combined- you said that because it seems to make you feel more comfortable for some reason.
3) I don't know how to explain to you that it's normal to care about other people.
4) If this was intended to make you NOT look like an angry, one-dimensional muppet heckler- it was a failure on the merits.
Alt left does exist.. sorry. It's more left than the current Democrat Party.. which makes it extremist.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
You stated this:Quote:
2) I never said I made more than everyone combined- you said that because it seems to make you feel more comfortable for some reason.
and this:Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
.....Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Care about other people, offering lip service and nothing else.. isn't caring for other people. It's an attempt to make yourself feel better, while not actually doing anything.Quote:
3) I don't know how to explain to you that it's normal to care about other people.
This was intended to illustrate yet again, what a crazy fucking wacko alt-leftie with severe emotional control issues you are.Quote:
4) If this was intended to make you NOT look like an angry, one-dimensional muppet heckler- it was a failure on the merits.
Why do local restaurants deserve the money more than the people tech companies already employ serving food?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
And what if the tech companies respond by charging 1 penny for their meals? What would time4fun have the government do next? Force them to charge a certain amount of money? She'd love that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
time4fun is "thoughts and prayers" personifiedQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Plus those tech companies often have company buses and shuttles that take employees to work. I guess those need to be shut down as well, as they deprive the local economy of bus fare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Let the record show that she revealed her multiple Feminist Studies degrees in response to a post I made. I hereby take all credit for the discovery of this massive source of lols.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
You're looking at this the wrong way. Income equality isn't just a question of morality- it's good policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
The consequences of extreme income inequality are rampant inflation, increased poverty rates, increased crime rates, exploding rents, etc. None of that is good for an economy. Redistribution of the wealth to other sectors helps them combat the rising inflation and also slows it down. And on a less dire note- we all benefit from having a thriving restaurant scene in our city.
Sometimes the moral option is also the practical option ;)
Because she "knows" the catering companies they hire source their food from out of state, because as we all know restaurants always buy locally grown organic foods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
She wants to see tech companies "do more" for the local communities they are in, because apparently paying their employees an insane wage which leads to higher tax revenues isn't enough.
How do you figure? If the local economy is growing at 10% why would it matter if 9% of that growth is in one sector or if it's more evenly distributed?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Hey Einstein- I didn't say I supported the law. I already pointed out that it's probably not going to work. I said I supported the sentiment of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Learn. To. Read.
No! I did all the "work" of looking up her stupidity. Do you realize how much stupidity I had to sift through of hers to get the special gems of stupidity???Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
So.. what's your idea of a law that WILL work in both enforcement AND actuality?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
That's the problem with liberals... they feel that something should be done, but have no actual method of doing it.
But as long as they feel.. that's the important part!
Yes, I get that income inequality is a big deal and should be discouraged/fought against. But what does subsidizing other businesses do to directly combat income inequality? You've said elsewhere that some fast food places are offering $19/h wages but it doesn't matter because you can't live on anything close to that in the area. If the government steps in and keeps those businesses afloat by allowing them to offer even higher/livable wages, that won't magically cause living costs to go down. If anything, they'll go even further up.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Now you are talking like a greedy capitalist.. you better watch it or your DNC Card will be seized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
time4fun once suggested the government should set a cap for rentals. Because nothing bad could possibly come from that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
You're right- subsidizing by itself doesn't necessarily fix things: taxing the entities that are holding the most wealth and then subsidizing with that money can. Right now, we're having a hard time just keeping restaurants open during lunch hours in SF because there's not enough business. It makes it hard for restaurants to stay afloat (and it's already really tough for restaurants to stay afloat in general)Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
There's also a difference between counter help and severs. Servers will generally make far more than $20 an hour, but they can't get a job for a lunch shift if the restaurant can't afford to be open during lunch. Being able to pick up some extra shifts may be the difference between being able to live in the city you work in or having to live 40 miles away.
Ultimately, though, you're right that this isn't a magic bullet. (just to re-emphasize here- I don't think the proposed law is a good one) It's not like we'll solve systemic income inequality by targeting this one small slice of it. But it's a start.
What really needs to happen is we need to start taxing top income brackets at the rates we used to, and we need to outlaw stock buybacks again. Those two issues are the biggest drivers of income inequality right now. The Bay Area is just feeling the consequences more than most areas because it has a ridiculously large number of millionaires and a significant slice of the population is compensated with equity.
What are you doing to help, since you've already admitted that you're part of the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Fun fact: Lip service isn't considered helping
So this already happened. The tech companies used to provide free lunches, but the IRS ruled that it was a taxable fringe benefit. So if they charged $0.01 for lunches, they'd either need to provide a lunch that actually costs 1 cent to produce (gross), or the difference between the actual cost and what the employee pays would be taxable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Hey Cuntstein, you know you'd be thrilled if the government somehow got to dictate how much they charged people for lunch.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Ah I see. This makes much more sense.Quote:
I said I supported the sentiment of the law. i.e. "Thoughts and prayers" but literally nothing else because all I do is provide lip service while being a gigantic hypocrite in pretty much every way possible.
I think you're arguing something that's separate from what the rest of us are arguing. We're not talking about income inequality, we're talking about a business being forced to subsidize smaller businesses who can't compete. If you open a pizzeria in a place that has a bunch of other pizzerias, you better have some damn good pizza otherwise you'll go under. Likewise trying to open a vegan place in Satan's Butthole, AZ (population 15), or a small general store next to Walmart. If you can't compete, you go under. That's especially true in the restaurant business which has fairly small profit margins.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
This is where the confusion comes in, because the sentiment of the law seems to suggest larger businesses need to support smaller, competing ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I got you a present:Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
https://www.gop.com/activate-your-membership/
Let me be the first to welcome you into our fold, you dirty reformed hippie.
Ha. Make no mistake, I'm very liberal but I'm fine with capitalism as long as there are checks in place. I think most dems are too, it's just that the ones that aren't tend to hog the mic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I don't know, the left in general is increasingly going insane at an exponential rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Ever increasing minimum wages, more and more social services, more free stuff, subsidizing one industry after another, government take over of entire industries. Most of this stuff would have been considered fringe a short 10 years ago, but now it's very much mainstream and Democrat candidates are running on these positions and winning.
In an area rife with income inequality. These things go hand in hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Not so sure anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
You are probably closer to moderate than "very liberal".
Very soon your party will consider you an outcast for holding such racist views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
:lol:Quote:
Trump administration plans $12 billion in farm relief
"Center-left", maybe. I agree with most of what Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez say, but I don't believe they can realistically accomplish it without moderating their positions, so I support more moderate dems in the meantime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I've just snapped my fingers and now Google et. al have ended their cafeteria programs and are giving money to local restaurants, allowing them to stay open for multiple shifts and pay their workers $19/h wage. Explain how you believe that will affect income inequality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
It wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
I don't know why I even bothered. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Do you think these problems happen in every single city or they're more likely to happen in areas like SF, Mountain View and other places with massive levels of income inequality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
It's strange how pk was laughing at this bill but then did a 180 once time4fun gave her opinion on it. If I didn't know any better I'd say pk found a new sugar momma.
Nope, still laughing at this terrible bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Buttery males.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
So you support:Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
1) A federally guaranteed job
2) Abolish ICE
3) Housing is a human right, which means government will guarantee housing for it's citizens.
4) Healthcare is a human right, which means government will guarantee healthcare for it's citizens.
5) Congressman can take no money from the gun lobby.
6) Restore Glass/Steagall.
7) Cancel Puerto Rico's debt.
8) Free higher education for all.
9) Cancel student debt for all.
10) 100% fossil fuel free by 2035.
You'd be surprised. The girlfriend is all about it. I asked her how she proposed to pay for all of this. "Taxes." I told her it would take 50+% federal tax. "So?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It would take a great deal more than just 50% taxes...Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
Out of those, the ones I agree with that can be 'realistically' accomplished would be 4 and 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I like the ideas of 8 and 10, but they will take years/decades of work (10 especially probably won't be feasible until after we're all dead).
Undecided on 1 and 6, the 'guaranteed jobs' thing sounds interesting and similar to what other politicians have proposed but I haven't seen much on how they'd implement it. I'm also fairly ignorant on Glass-Steagall (I know what it is, just haven't really weighed all the details)
The rest are no.
I love her so I was being kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
4.. ok, I can understand that. If there was a feasible way for paying for it without penalizing the political foe du jour, I too would be all for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
5.. I don't understand why the gun lobby would be different from any other lobby. I would agree to it if, say.. we eliminated unions from giving money to candidates.
8.. Some kids just don't have it in them for college. And again.. how to pay for it?
10.. I would absolutely be behind that if decent alternatives were found.
We aren't all that dissimilar in our political views... but I think you are far closer to the center than you believe.
I have a sister like that.. so I understand. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
Just no money from the gun lobby or any lobby?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
I'm fine with that too. All lobbyists should go imo, as a liberal gun owner I just bear a special grudge against the NRA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, and I remember reading from a bunch of government sources that the amount they spend on grants and federal assistance would be similar to the amount they'd spend if they just did full tuition. Of course, that's not including room & board and book money, so it's not perfect and probably would need a tax increase (like healthcare) to cover those. And you're right that some kids just wouldn't go to college anyway - the amount of people who serve in the military and never take advantage of the GI Bill for example is something like 30%.Quote:
8.. Some kids just don't have it in them for college. And again.. how to pay for it?
Or maybe...Quote:
We aren't all that dissimilar in our political views... but I think you are far closer to the center than you believe.
you're a liberal???
that's nuts..Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
What is that grudge? I don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
If the government started paying for college.. you don't think they tuition rates would increase?Quote:
I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, and I remember reading from a bunch of government sources that the amount they spend on grants and federal assistance would be similar to the amount they'd spend if they just did full tuition. Of course, that's not including room & board and book money, so it's not perfect and probably would need a tax increase (like healthcare) to cover those. And you're right that some kids just wouldn't go to college anyway - the amount of people who serve in the military and never take advantage of the GI Bill for example is something like 30%.
As far as the GI bill goes: Some people just aren't school types.
:shrug:
https://media1.tenor.com/images/7a81...itemid=5388253Quote:
Or maybe...
you're a liberal???
Here's the connection: tech has mastered the art of centralizing money in the hands of a few. The criticism is that the wealth isn't shared with the community, and that's a big factor in local income inequality (and all the toxic, downstream consequences that come from it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
The argument here is that we need to make sure the wealth is redistributed to the sounding areas better than it currently is. That slows inflation and helps non-tech industry people deal with the inflation that is already there.
That's the driving philosophy behind these laws. They're trying to tackle income inequality through income redistribution.
Not really. Poor social safety net and the fact that people with lower income backgrounds are highly overrepresented in the military make it extremely difficult for parents to leverage The GI Bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
It's not the way things should be, but that's the reality
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
Keep in mind that during some of our country's best economic years the top marginal tax rate was 90%.
Heck, up until Reagan it was in the 70s. Reagan was also the start of the ballooning deficit. It wasn't about an increase in spending, it was a HUGE decrease in revenue.
The economy actually does better when you have a strong social safety net and also curb income inequality. This myth that low taxes and low government spending are great for an economy is dead wrong.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3otWpL...hVQs/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
What needs to be done is put an end to work visas, sanctuary cities and jail business owners that hire illegal aliens. Tech needs to train american high school graduates instead of expecting people to drop 10's of thousands of dollars on colleges.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Nobody that sits at a desk all day deserves to make more than "skilled labor" or what we once called tradesman.
These days the GI Bill is worth a shit ton of money, covering tuition, books, and living expenses.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
They're a partisan organization focused on selling guns and exerting political influence rather than an organization about gun education. That "fight them with the clenched fist of truth" video was insane and I think they wind up demonizing gun ownership by portraying 2A supporters as dangerous lunatics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
They probably would try, but I think if the government was the primary source of tuition they would be in a better position to keep tuition in step with inflation. As it is, when I finished up my degree a few years ago with the GI Bill, I saw an increase of about $500 per semester. Even though things like the GI Bill are one of the reasons for skyrocketing tuition, without it I probably wouldn't have been able to attend.Quote:
If the government started paying for college.. you don't think they tuition rates would increase?
someone sounds jealous, maybe you should learn a new trade that makes big $$$?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Why do people keep saying this? Our economy is miles ahead now compared to when the marginal tax rate was 90%.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
We don't have enough people to fill jobs as it is and the birth rate is going down. Work visas and illegals are a benefit to all of us. We're also cutting taxes so why waste tax dollars focusing on arresting and deporting people who are here to do out shit work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
That's a relatively recent phenomenon, thanks in part to Trump's policies which have encouraged growth and discouraged illegal immigration.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I have no problem with work visas, but you're just spewing left wing bullshit in regards to illegal immigration. Instead of encouraging more illegal immigration which just brings in more unskilled labor why don't we try increasing the number of legal immigrants we allow in? Is it because we might get more immigrants from white countries?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
It's not jealousy at all, it's the fact that most these desk dwellers are idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
It really depends on the industry. American steelworkers are happy because they get more opportunity to work, but the end guys who buy that steel are winding up having to pay more or wait longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You're retardedQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Its ok to give Obama credit too. You act as if trump showed up and waved a magic wand to fix everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'm glad you support increasing work visas. POTUS doesn't and he needs to hear from rightists that do. To,be fair, he loves work visas and foreign made products as long it saves him money. Theres a hige disconnect between his rhetoric and his actions. Itd be nice if his followers would make the point that he needs to walk the walk.
As for left wing talking points they are correct. Illegals are a benefit for our society. It'd be a struggle to get by without them. One also needs to consider NA's point that they are being employed by our corporations. If you want to lay blame do it with some objectivity.
I guess by that logic we thank Bush for ending the recession and getting the economy back on track. Thanks, Bush!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff