Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire A No-Smoke Employer-- how does this hit you

The objective here is to eliminate people who have a vested interest in making the government bigger, more powerful, and more confiscatory. In other words, if you are dependent upon the charity of other people, it's bad form to complain that they should be giving you more money than they do. If you're dependent upon money that is extorted from those people by force, rather than being given freely by choice, using the government to coerce them to pay you more money to stay out of prison is even worse form.

Hence my proposed choice: Would you like to live off the system, or would you like to have a say in the operation of the system? Pick one.

I'm not a big fan of democracy in general, but I think it's pretty clear that that version is at least fairer than what we have now.

But in specific answer to your questions, I think all of those people who take out more than they put in should be summarily disenfranchised until such time as they become productive.

There are other arguments that can be made as well: for example, why should we assume that people who can't even turn a profit would know anything useful about operating a government? Also, much of the corruption in government comes from politicians who are kept in power by a stable of constituents to whom they direct streams of government extortion money in exchange for votes. And so on.

But in specific answer to your questions, I think all of those people who take out more than they put in should be summarily disenfranchised until such time as they become productive.--------------------------------------------------


Does this include you're grandfather's generation, the ones who have already taken out of SS much more than they ever put in?

I agree that nobody should get more than they contribute, but the greatest generation was sold this plan & I think it is too late to deny them.

I think all goverment programs should all be run like our Un-employment benifit, you get what you put in, for a limited time, and only after you have contributed.

If somebody is laid off in your system, you would disenfranchised them until they found a new job?

My grandfather's generation is mostly all dead, so they vote in Chicago.

But living folks who get more from SS than they put in, yes, I say disenfranchise 'em.


Deny them what? I never promised anybody but my wife and my parents that I would support him in his old age. Maybe some politician somewhere promised that I would, but he clearly had no right to make that promise, and anyone who believed him is a sucker.


I'd have no disagreement with that, because if you did that, you'd have no takers, since the free market would provide a return on investment that far outstripped anything a coercive government could achieve.

Unless your government program forcibly extorted money from people in order to survive, which is probably what would happen in real life. Then I'd have a problem with it.


Did he save up enough of a contingency fund to live off until he finds another job? Then no: that shows independence, initiative, and foresight. We want to benefit from the ideas of somebody like that.

Did he go straight from being productive but unprepared to sucking the government teat? Then yes: we have no use for his input until he's once again standing on his own two feet.

Or, put more generally, anyone who receives more tax money than he generates should be disenfranchised.

Barak,

I agree with you that conflict of interests (self-interest?) should disenfranchise many voters. It could be argued that in an honorable society the opposite should be true - the weak have a voice.

Now that statement is a set-up for someone...

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />Numba 7 GI! They haven't figured out how to justify that one to GAO. It's enough to make me gag....

Deny them what? I never promised anybody but my wife and my parents that I would support him in his old age. Maybe some politician somewhere promised that I would, but he clearly had no right to make that promise, and anyone who believed him is a sucker -------------------------------------

A sucker?
I don't think at the time they had the foresight to see fifty years up the road.
SS was sold to them as pay into, and then collect on. I don't hold them responsible because the plan has now become a leviathan, and I don�t support cutting them off.
How about the workers at Enron, more suckers not worthy of a vote?
Well, hell, they lost their jobs, lost their retirement, let�s strip them of their dignity too.


Did he save up enough of a contingency fund to live off until he finds another job? Then no-------------------------------------

No, maybe he couldn�t save that much, but he paid into the unemployment program on the chance he should get laid off.
Pay into it, but if you use it, lose your right to vote?


Then no: that shows independence, initiative, and foresight. We want to benefit from the ideas of somebody like that.------------------------

What % of the workforce are we talking about here? What % can get that far ahead? If you aren�t College educated and making $XXXX.XX a year, you aren�t as worthy as those who do? If he was laid off he becomes too stupid to vote, but once he finds another job he is now worthy again?
This is pure arrogance.


Did he go straight from being productive but unprepared to sucking the government teat? Then yes: we have no use for his input until he's once again standing on his own two feet.---------------------------------------

Any factory worker who has a hard time making ends meet, then has his job sent overseas to Pakistan is now not as worthy as you to cast a vote?
Sheeeeet.

Then whenever there was an issue on the ballot to decrease Social Security benefits, presumably you would vote against it--provided you had a vote, of course. The nice thing about that is that even if your side lost, you'd still be able to contribute whatever you wanted to them of your own free will.


What has Enron to do with anything? Enron was a private company--that is, as private as any corporation can be these days. Where are the government entitlements that would disenfranchise people?


Imagine, if that were the case, what a huge stink would be raised by people who had their income involuntarily confiscated to finance a government unemployment program. If you're right (and I suspect you are), they'd be very emphatic about putting their money into private accounts and investments, so that if they were to be laid off they'd be able to live on it without losing their vote. And that would be a good thing. Personal responsibility, investment in the economy, market interest rates, less government--hey, I'm liking this idea better all the time!


Whether or not you're poor has very little to do with how much money you make: it has much more to do with what you do with that money. It's not universally true, but in a large number of cases, if you make a rich person suddenly destitute, within five years he'll be rich again; and if you give millions of dollars to a poor person, in five years he'll be poor again.

When it comes to having somebody else's will coercively imposed on you through the democratic process, wouldn't you like it to be somebody who has demonstrated an ability to keep his own affairs in order, rather than somebody who demonstrably has no idea how to keep his head above water?


Is it really your position that if I can't (or don't want to) keep a job, then I am entitled not only to A) extort money from you on pain of imprisonment, but also to B) decide how much money will be extorted from you? Please send me your home address: I know a number of prisoners who'd like to come see you when they get out.


Please don't play the class-warfare card on me. I wasn't always financially comfortable; I've done my share of dumpster diving. Possibly more than you have, even. Why? Because my parents didn't pay a nickel to put me through college or grad school.

Also don't play the outsourcing card on me. I'm a software developer: I'm one of the folks whose jobs are being most aggressively outsourced. Yet I manage to stay valuable enough to my employers that they continue to pay me two or three times what a programmer in India would cost. And if one day my job is outsourced, it'll be because I vegged out and fell behind the curve, and neither you nor anyone else will owe me a dime because of it.

I'm not sure I understand. It sounds like you're saying that the unproductive should help themselves to the produce of the productive. Is that what you meant by a setup line for somebody?

Barak,

The "set-up" was the invitation I left for someone to call America "dishonorable" � there�s been a lot of that going around lately <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

The point of my post is what I see as a flaw � in a system where only the strong have a vote, only the strong will benefit � probably at the expense of the weak. I agree that the leeches of society shouldn�t get a vote, but there are plenty of rich leeches too.

Is this still about the No-Smoke Employer? Seems to me the employees had two years to either quit smoking with company support, or find a new job. Sounds fair to me, it's not like they just went out to the smoking area one day and fired everyone there without any warning.

Quit for two weeks, your still a smoker son.

Barak you never cease to amuse me.

Really? Let me see if I understand.

Some who do not smoke are smokers. Kinda like saying...
Some who do smoke are not smokers

I think mabie its time I stay away from these messageboards.

Sometimes things just dont add up. 2 plus 3= 6

W
T
F
?

I've been a smoker for 45 years, have quit several times for as little as 6 hours to as long as 2 years, but for one reason or another started back smoking again. I have gone cold turkey and tappered off (this lasted the longest), for me the toughest times to get through was periods of high stress or out drinking with the boys. I hope it works for you, it is a nasty habit that does you no good, please just be aware that there are circumstances in life that can make you weak for a moment.
The best to you, Snuffy

Smokers being more healthy than non-smokers????????? Maybe I should start lighing up, eh? If a smoker is more healthy than a non-smoker, I can only say, "it isn't because they are a smoker." It has nothing to do with it. 55,000 non-smokers die every year because of second-hand smoke. Show me a doctor who would prescribe smoking to improve someone's health. Now that's Bull^%$t! No one has my permission to poison my lungs with your smoke. If you want to damage your lungs, heart and overall health, be my guest, but don't impose your poisons onto me and the rest of the public who elect to live a healthy life and not smoke. Rules are rules and to be followed, whether we agree with laws and rules, or not. They are made for a reason.

Hunter01

I agree with you Downwinder. Second-hand smoke it a health problem. Actually second-hand smoke is often worst and more dangerous to be inhaled by the non-smoker, than the smoker themselves. The smoke inhaled by a smoker is often drawn through a filter and has less tar and other chemicals in it than the unfiltered smoke a non-smoker breaths in.
I laugh at some of the ridiculous mentality and rationalizations, excused, etc. that smokers use. Like, most smokers aren't overweight. Make me laugh some more. Heeee. Because some people who quit smoking gain weight because they eat now instead of smoke is no proof that smokers aren't as heavy as non-smokers. I know lots of heavy, out of shape, overweight, smokers. Look at any top notch athlete, and see how many packs a day they smoke. Come on, get real. These folks can't REALLY be serious!! The amount of moneys spent each year on medical bills related to smoking is huge. They don't put the warning on the pack,(required by law) becasue it is good for your health. Smoking doesn't make you a bad person, don't get me wrong, but it DOES make you a person with a bad, unhealthy, habit.

later,
Hunter01

As a non-smoker i think that quote is bullshit. If those 55,000 people were not exposed to secondhand smoke your telling me they would be alive today. Lung cancer , emphasema, heart attacks, stroke have been killing people that have never been exposed to smoke for centuries. Just because you get lung cancer dosen't mean it was caused by smoking. It just seems to me that they blame every case of lung cancer on smoking because the non-smoker was exposed to a whif of secondhand smoke once. Every heart attack a smoker has is blamed on smoking, they likely would have had the heart attack anyway even if they didn't smoke. I'm not saying smoking is a good thing but it has been villianized more than its due. There are a lot people doing stupider more unhealthy things than smoking, yet they look down their noses and chastize smokers.

Not rationally. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I'm not sure I buy this.

I don't smoke cigarettes, but I occasionally smoke cigars. (Maybe one or two a month, only in temperate weather: I'm not addicted.) When I discovered that I liked smoking cigars, I did a bit of research on the health effects of smoking cigars. I didn't look specifically at second-hand smoke, but I noticed a few interesting things.

Cigarettes are designed specifically as nicotine-delivery mechanisms, with all other aspects considered strictly secondary. Cigars are designed specifically for pleasure and flavor, with all other aspects considered strictly secondary.

One of the things I learned about nicotine is that it has a pretty high boiling point. Unless you get it really hot, it wants to condense out of the smoke and settle on something. Cigarettes operate at the optimum fuel-air mixture so that the smoke starts out hot, and are designed to be short, so that when the smoke gets into the smoker it's still hot and full of nicotine vapor. Cigars, on the other hand, operate at a fuel-air mixture that's as rich as it can possibly be and still burn, so that the smoke will be thick and creamy and laden with flavorful products of incomplete combustion. (If you set a cigar down and don't actively smoke it for awhile, it'll go out. Some cigars will go partially or fully out even if you are actively smoking them.) Cigars burn cool and are built longer and denser than cigarettes: so not only does the nicotine start out not nearly as well vaporized, but it has farther to go to get into the smoker and travels slower, since cigars have a tighter draw. Therefore, the smoke the smoker actually experiences is much lower in nicotine than that of cigarette smoke, unless the cigar has burned really short and is being herfed by a wild-eyed maniac.

So...I'm thinking that secondhand smoke that has been hanging around in the air cooling for several seconds or even minutes is going to have very little nicotine, if any, still in it.

Now as we know, a room that is constantly suffused with cigarette smoke will take on a dingy layer of smoke residue. My guess is that that is where the nicotine goes, and that if you made a practice of licking that off the walls and the floor, you might be able to get a fairly decent buzz on.

So I start out skeptical of the-sky-is-falling alarmist propaganda about second-hand smoke. Perhaps one day I'll be convinced, but right now my eye is pretty jaundiced on the matter.

The smoker gets both the first hand smoke and the second hand smoke. He should die on the spot. miles

Where are you from Barak?

The unemployment fund is only available to you if you put into it. Somebody can pay into it for twenty years, and then if by chance they lose their job they can collect from it. I don�t understand what about that constitutes you looking down your nose at them, & wanting to take their vote away?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You said: Imagine, if that were the case, what a huge stink would be raised by people who had their income involuntarily confiscated to finance a government unemployment program. If you're right (and I suspect you are), they'd be very emphatic about putting their money into private accounts and investments, so that if they were to be laid off they'd be able to live on it without losing their vote.
-----------------------------------------------------
Assuming they had any left over at the end of the month! Assuming they have JACK to invest. You think the guy who is trying to survive gives a rat�s ass about his vote? He is trying to make the house payment before his credit is ripped to shreds.

Your assumption that only the irresponsible or stupid could ever need help is not in touch. Not everybody excels in the academic world, and not doing so is making it harder & harder to survive.

People in the trades are seeing their wages dwindle because of the sudden influx of people who are willing to do the same job for less. Soon, ANY job that can be done without an education will pay JACK. In the trades a guy used to put in years to learn a trade, become good at it, and then make some money at it. Now days the builders here in CA hire the cheap unskilled labor. Take a look and any housing development, it is riddled with shotty workmanship, but the general doesn�t care...profits! Now the skilled carpenter has to work for less to compete against the unskilled carpenter.

In CA those without an education are finding their lifestyle slowly dragged down to Mexico�s standards. I�m a firm believer that within my lifetime we will see the middle class dwindle away, leaving rich & poor, just like Mexico. Next up, the American trucker.
Where a guy used to make a decent living driving, our politicians in their infinite wisdom are to now allow Mexican truckers to drive through the border (NAFTA). Where they used to drop their trailers at the border for American truckers, we now plan to let the Mexican trucker and his cooked log book to go anywhere in the states he wishes at a fraction of what the American trucker is paid. It is bad for the truckers, bad for illegal immigration, bad for border security, but by god it will send the profits up for the fat cats.
A lot of truckers are going to end up looking for work. We will spend millions to beef up border security, and then let millions of unsearched Mexican truck�s come through it, & WE DON�T HAVE TO.
I can�t wait to see how many American trucking companies close their doors and move their business down to Mexico and pay a quarter of what they pay their American drivers. Thousands will lose their jobs, and then I guess the right to vote.

I think it is totally disrespectful to take the stance that anybody who is uneducated, or falls on hard times is not worthy of a vote.

I didn�t make this a post on class warfare, you did.

Excuse me AGAIN while I laugh at Smoker's mentality. Bushrat is another example of a smoker in denial of the documented evidence of the health hazards of smoking. Making up excuses won't help you when you're on your death-bed dieing of a smoking related illness. Face the facts. Read the numbers and statistics. How can anyone argue with the FACTS. It is your life. The only one you have. You can only live it once. NO Reruns on life. Mess it up, and there's no second chance. Smoking Kills. Thousands and thousands. Quit, before it kills you and others around you.
I've been a teacher for over 25 years, and I can also tell you that kids with parents who smoke are sick more often, and specifically with respiratory illness more often than kids with parnets who don't smoke. Ahhhhhhhh, duhhhhh, go figure, again. Get your head out of the sand and face the facts.

Hunter01