Seriously
-
Posts
439 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Seriously
-
-
On 12/19/2018 at 7:14 AM, 17D_guy said:
I've got my grievances with the HPO/Shiny Penny method of leadership selection we utilize. But there's got to be a difference between the APZ's you guys work with and the ones I do...because the ones I do are awful.
Maj's that can't communicate, can't lead, can't even manage, extremely risk averse and should just dress up in a Blue Falcon costume. Never mind failing training requirements, and still demanding to be "first out the door."Perhaps I'm just institutionalized since I hit 20 early next year.
I can name 5 APZers that would all do well commanding a squadron. There are some shitty APZs, but at least from what I've seen (F-16 world), there are some really good dudes too... far better than the few BTZers I've seen.
-
On 11/8/2018 at 5:13 AM, Skitzo said:
So in my limited experience those with truly the HPO stink usually say something like this...
Junior Captain—Future Squadron Commander
Senior Captain—Will Command an Ops Squadron
Junior Major—Will Command at Multiple Levels
Going to IDE—IDE next followed by ASG and Ops Sqd Command (usually after boarded to be a cc)
Groom/Monitor/Ready for command—-better than not having it in the pushline but not spectacular either.
Need a DP or the “if I had one more or if I had a DP to give” is necessary based on the amount of SRs there are vs Ps that got promoted to O-5.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkAssuming you're talking about pilots, those seem like prohibited statements. "When making an assignment recommendation on an OPR, there will be no reference to a higher grade, and it must be consistent with the officer’s appropriate progression of their professional development."
"3.17.4.5.2. Prohibited EXAMPLES:
3.17.4.5.2.1. “Make Lt Triska an FSS Commander.” (Inappropriate next level of progression).
3.17.4.5.2.2. “Send Capt Brown to IDE after selection to major.” (Reference to IDE is appropriate, but the comment “after selection to major” is an implied promotion statement).
3.17.4.5.2.3. “SDE in 2008, Group Commander in 2012, and Wing Commander in 2015.” (Goes beyond the scope of the next assignment).
3.17.4.5.2.4. “Capt Phelps is ready to be a flying Sq/CC” and “Make Maj Knisley a group commander.” (In both cases, the recommendations are clearly beyond the officer’s next assignment and are viewed as veiled promotion statements).
-
9 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:
I wonder when Kwast’s shenanigans as a young pilot will find the light. He did fly fighters at some point right?
Kwast has a fairly long history of not tolerating shenanigans.. instructor to student or major to cadet
-
2 hours ago, FourFans130 said:
You'll start seeing a lot more pilots reject staff assignments, and/or reject requal after those assignments. Separating at 12 years of service will become the norm...especially with BRS. We few caught in the middle before will probably punch instead of going for 20.
This is the logical conclusion of this change in policy coupled with the BRS and the fact that they don't select majors for school at the board anymore (i.e. you don't know exactly where you stand at decision time).
The #1 problem with the new ADCS policy is that guys hot for non-flying 365s will have to go on said 365, then they incur a 3 year adsc when they get requal'd to fly the plane they already knew how to fly. It's like getting caught in a hydraulic in the rapids.
Beatings will continue whether morale improves or not.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Engineer2Pilot said:
Socialism: I graduated bottom of UPT but I still deserve a Fighter because equality!
It used to be like that by the way. I think the current merit based system started in the 80s. Hacker posted a paper on the history of UPT a few years back that talks about that.
-
5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:
Seriously, I tried reading your post and seeing things from your POV. But it’s just so obvious— you say “not socialism: free college for everyone.” It just simply isn’t true. There is NOTHING free. Everything comes at a cost.
You’re describing the government taking wealth from one person and giving it to another. One person pays the cost, another benefits without paying, and the state is sole arbiter. It never works and can’t work, humans reject it.
First, I don't necessarily think free college is a good idea. I honestly just haven't made up my mind on it. I want to put that out there so that you don't automatically assume that I'm Karl Che Lenin Stalin reincarnated.
Second, the label of socialism doesn't apply to the government providing free college for everyone because the state doesn't own the means of production (in this case of knowledge), they're simply paying private institutions for the knowledge. This is a semantics argument which I feel dirty using, but it's important because if you're going to argue that a policy won't work because it's socialism, then you need to apply that label correctly.
Last, if free college is socialism, then is free K-12 education also socialism? How is that any different? All we would be doing is taking people from a 12th grade education level up to a 16th grade education level. This could be a complete waste of money, but again, I'm not trying to talk about that merits of free college. I'm trying to get you guys to realize that calling everything you disagree with "socialism" or "fascism" is specious.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned by the government (which you stated). A capitalist system is one in which the means of production are privately owned. But clearly you have trouble identifying real-world examples of socialism, so here are some examples of things commonly dubbed "socialism" that categorically are not.
Socialism: Nationalized health care (like the UK)
Not socialism: Affordable Care Act
Socialism: Publicly owned broadband
Not socialism: Net neutrality
Socialism: 100% taxes redistributed evenly
Not socialism: <100% estate tax
Socialism: Completely state owned education system
Not-socialism: Free college for everyone
I advocate for some of these policies but not all...
Yet, over and over again, anything the Democrats want is called "socialism" and anything the Republicans want is "fascism." These words are now completely meaningless outside of an academic setting and have resulted in both the Democrats and Republicans thinking the other has moved radically away from center.
So you blindly calling all taxes or welfare systems "socialism" is flat-out wrong, continues to polarize your own views, and starves the conversation of actual debate as you've demonstrated...
Your basic premise for argument follows this typical formula:
pick any topic -> call it socialism -> point out that socialism has failed universally -> reiterate that all redistribution of wealth is socialism-> repeat.
Often, you'll create a straw-man argument and attack that instead. If that doesn't work, then you'll just resort to personal attacks. Classy.
So here we sit. I've given some arguments for political topics like the estate tax and social security. You've given me, "That's redistribution of wealth, which is socialism, which is bad." You follow that up with more right-wing rallying cries against the Democrats. So who's argument is simple here? Because all I'm hearing is the same refrain repeated ad nauseum.
We started this conversation before Senator McCain's passing which makes his farewell message ever more poignant.
it's reread my posts over the last couple of pages then reread paragraph 7 & 8 of Senator McCain's farewell message. Here was my first post, if you don't want to scroll back through the conversation:
QuoteI agree with everything you said.
My post earlier was about the fact that people argue over the word socialism without giving any context. Everyone is essentially in agreement over everything except for the word "socialism" because people *do* want policies that make America a fair and equitable place to live in, where your success in life is determined by your own personal effort and not by who your parents are.
But because the toxic label of "socialism" is applied by anything the Republican party disagrees with, we can't have an honest debate on the merits of such social policies as the estate tax, universal basic income or tuition free college for everyone, and whether or not those make sense economically for the country.
Commence more straw-man arguments...
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Stoker said:
That's kind of a fundamental misunderstanding of how saving works. Very few people are literally Scrooge McDucking their savings in a giant vault. The estate tax hits productive enterprises that have a monetary value, or stocks that represent capital investments. Even if it's just cash in a bank account, the bank can now lend that money out to people who want to accomplish things with it.
The issue with the estate tax is that it's relatively easy to evade, and the incentives to do so are extremely high. People with $100 million estates are paying a smart lawyer to set up trusts and shells to avoid paying much, if anything. Heirs of people with a relatively small family business, say, $10 million, are forced to sell out in order to pay the taxes. You often can't really just sell half of a small company. Even in your farm example, it's not so simple as selling a few hundred acres. Now you don't really have the land to justify that $400k combine you bought, and maybe a fulltime manager just isn't really in the cards... in a few years, your productivity is down so much you sell the rest.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/11/23/a-hated-tax-but-a-fair-one This article addresses the pros and cons of the estate tax.
And the farm argument was interesting to me at first, but if you do the research, the number of farms hit by that is extremely low, so the tax as designed, goes towards preventing wealthy dynasties from continuing to amass wealth and power.
https://www.businessinsider.com/does-estate-tax-hurt-small-businesses-2017-6
My comment about "hoarding money" was an oversimplification used for brevity.
-
41 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:
You say you agree with limited government but just a few posts ago you were advocating for universal income and free college tuition for everyone. Those ideas are mutually exclusive to limited government.
Social security is the prime example. A temporary safety net has grown into a permanent “entitlement” that people think will take care of them after they retire. Wasteful government blew the nest egg that was supposed to fund it, and it is in danger of going insolvent. I’d rather keep the 6.2% of my paycheck and do with it as I damn well please, that’s what it means to be American. That’s what limited government and liberty are about.
5 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
The government's job is to ensure fair free enterprise. That's the difference. If you think there is free enterprise in Mexico then you're even less informed than I thought. Incredible levels of private and government corruption are the enemies of a free capitalist society.
Regulation is not socialism. It is a necessary function of government to ensure a fair system. But it must be conservatively applied, and every new regulation scrutinized to ensure it is not picking winners rather than preventing cheaters.
But these are details. The bottom line is that your philosophy ignores human nature, and you yourself are proof. People will always take care of themselves first. Always. You saving masses of wealth, contributing to the very problem you cite, is all we need to know about the possible success of your desired system. You have to be literally forced by the government to do something that you claim to believe in, how on Earth will that work for people like me who don't believe in your cause? And when I say no, then what? I suppose we should just be forced harder, maybe imprisoned? Killed? Don't scoff, no one in the USSR thought the grand plan would kill 60 million. But it did. Liberals never look past today.
Oh, and it's not even theory. Go ahead, show me all the ways redistributive systems have helped the world. Your plans, so loosely applied in the United States over the past century, have improved the lives of millions in America by the most generous estimates (aside from creating an entire class of dependant humans). Capitalist enterprise has improved the lives of billions across the globe with all the incredible invention you seem to think would just happen no matter what.
You say we need the Elon Musks if the world, but don't you think it's odd they never pop up in socialist, redistributive nations? Must be a coincidence.
I've said it before. I'm not for capitalism because I have no sympathy for the poor of today. I'm for capitalism because I don't want YOUR grandkids to know what a poor person is.Ratner.. why are you telling me about the evils of socialism? Please quote me where I advocated socialism. Everyone already knows that economic system does not work. My original post was talking about defining socialism because it isn't cut and dry like you try to make it out to be. there's definitely a spectrum, and we're finally starting to get there with MooseAg03's post.
I'm trying to stick to one topic at a time, so we'll continue with social security since MosseAg03 brought it up and that's a pretty easy kill.
Social security has definitely become a failure because the government has treated the money as if it's their own personal bank account. They haven't been good stewards of the money, and now that system is collapsing. It was poorly designed and poorly implemented.
It was a good idea though, and I'm sure there are ways to implement individual retirement accounts for everyone so that they can live into old age with the bare necessities taken care of so that they aren't homeless and starving. Not everyone has a loving family that can care for them, and not everyone has the means to plan properly for their retirement. There are a lot of people that lose their entire savings because they were tricked (by financial planner not held to a fiduciary standard), took bad advice, or just blew all their money on some addiction (shopping, gambling, what have you). You can call them dumb, and they might be, but they don't deserve to be thrown out onto the streets with no food and nowhere to go. I certainly don't want a bunch of bums milling around. They attract crime and bring down property values. So we need something as a society to prevent that from happening.
I don't call that socialism. I call that taking care of Americans.
-
Cool... I agree with that author and everything he said, but he didn't really say anything of substance. He said loving your country is good, you shouldn't burn the flag (but you have the right to), living in America is great, and that the American government was meant to be limited and self-governing. Then he lists a bunch of stuff that we get for free...
QuoteRunning water, indoor plumbing, and a grocery store with stocked shelves.
That stuff doesn't just happen. It happens because we have a well-funded government that is generally not corrupt. You get safe to drink water and a sewage system because of the government's regulations. You get a well built house because we have building codes and inspectors to ensure construction companies are complying with those codes. You get generally safe to eat food in the grocery store because our government has rules in place to safeguard them and the means to enforce those rules.
The free market didn't magically give us all of those things. Why is Nogales, Mexico a complete shithole, and Nogales, Arizona is only partially a shithole? Because good laws and the means to enforce them make a difference.
So then what exactly is limited government? Because I feel like we're having a pointless debate right now.
-
47 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
So you're just going to ignore the parts where your view of hoarding is completely out of touch with reality?
Let's start with a soft ball. Who's money will the banks loan out in your scenario?Banks loan out the money that kept in those banks. Whether that money is held by 1 million people or one thousand people doesn't matter. And I don't think saving money is dumb. I invest and I save roughly 50% of my pay check. If we're going to increase the wealth equality gap in America, then I'm gonna be on the right side of that gap. But this isn't a system that is sustainable. We've had a good economic run since the great depression because of the "socialist" policies that we've had over the past 90 years that have kept the money moving.
To answer your earlier comment, the effectiveness of trickle-down economics is debatable. 1 person just doesn't spend as much 1 million people, even if that one person is Elon Musk. On the other hand, we need people like him. Those entrepreneurs are absolutely vital to our country's continued dominance and the progress of the world, but the chances of his children (if he has any) turning out to be just like him are slim. Freakonomics radio did a good piece on this (http://freakonomics.com/podcast/new-freakonomics-radio-podcast-the-church-of-scionology/). This is why I am for an estate tax, not a 100% tax, but something more akin to what we had before the recent changes. It puts money back into the economy, keeps inflation at a healthy level, and gives the government funds to maintain and grow our infrastructure.
Edit: And thank you for your earlier comment about everyone here wanting what's best for the country. That doesn't get said enough, and if we ever want to actually get stuff done, then we need to work together to make compromises.
-
1 hour ago, MooseAg03 said:
I forgot to address estate and property taxes. Estate taxes are a bad idea because how fair is it to pay taxes on income twice? If I’m ‘rich’ I’ve already paid upwards of 30%+ on any income I’ve made or capital gains taxes if it is investment income. So because I’m smart with my money and I actually have a nest egg to give to my children or grand children, the government now wants to take another piece of my pie? No thanks. Also the other issue raised with that is large farms that are passed down to future generations but because of the value of the land they fall under the estate tax, now junior has to take out a loan or sell part of the property to cover the taxes after Paw dies. It’s un American.
Property taxes I have an issue with because many public school districts piss away the money and give a poor product in return. If we had vouchers where my money that I PAY in property taxes was portable to private education, guess what, it decreases class sizes in the public school and gives my kid the kind of education I choose (since it is my money after all), instead of being indoctrinated with left wing views like kindergarteners learning about a transgender teddy bear. F that noise.
One thing at a time so we don't digress on tangents.
Estate tax: How fair is it to pay taxes twice isn't a concern. Yes it's fair to tax money twice. The estate tax doesn't tax the income twice, it taxes the fact that you decided to hoard your money instead of putting it back into the economy. You pay taxes twice on a lot of things. You pay income tax (maybe even twice if your state also taxes that income, you pay sales tax, you pay property tax, you pay for the increase in prices caused by tarriffs, etc. So do you think that all of those taxes are unfair as well?
For the farm example, I honestly don't feel that bad about a son having to sell some of the land. The current exemption is $11.18 million, so I'm not sad if he only gets $6 million. He can easily make up the difference in less than a decade, and that money would go back towards repairing the infrastructure that keeps our country running.
Again, I don't endorse a 100% estate tax, and I do agree that you should be able to pass on a certain amount of money to your children if you wish, but there needs to be a limit. I don't want a future in which anyone with the last name of MooseAg03 automatically gets the best education.
-
1 minute ago, Lord Ratner said:
"I'll show myself the door" is sulking. And yes, I have.
Yes, it's a good idea. Wealth is not hoarded, it is not finite, it is created, it grows. Rich families are not depriving the poor of money, any more than you are depriving your neighbors of food if you raise a garden in your backyard and don't share.
The estate tax implies that you don't get to determine where your wealth goes. Obviously this is not a novel concept for progressives. Nor is it surprising that fiscal conservatives would oppose it. The only difference here is the application of death as some way to make the penalty for success more palatable.
I am against all progressive taxation, so the estate tax is no different.It was a rhetorical question, I know you have always been this way. /kidding
Wealth is absolutely hoarded, and wealthy families passively deny everyone else wealth when they hoard it because it ultimately hurts the economy.
Simply put, what makes an economy go is money exchanging hands. When wealth sits in a portfolio, it is not generating any more wealth for the country.
The economy is like blood in the body. There might be a constant amount in a system, but there's a big difference in one's health between it constantly flowing, versus it pooling in one place.
Example: Ten people, 20 dollars. Two dollars a piece. I might pay you $1 for cooking me lunch, and then you might pay $1 to John for babysitting. John needs his car fixed, which I do for $1. In the end, we have the same amount as we started, but our lives are all better through the transfer of goods and services.
Now, let's hoard the wealth. You get $17 of the dollars, and Bob, John and I have $1 each. Six others have nothing.
It sounds great for you at first, but the economy will struggle. Nobody will purchase from the store you open. The poor six can't buy, and they can't invest in their economic growth (like buying the supplies to sell me a lunch). The three with $1 need to save it for a rainy day, and overall most trade will cease.
We see this in times of economic inequality. The top two times of American economic inequality were about 1929, and again around 2007. Interesting how that factor predicts a crash..
- companies have fewer purchases in a depression, because some people have no income
- the poor can't invest in their personal growth. College would allow them to earn more, but they can't pay for the costs to attend.
- There becomes an excess of inventory, since people can't afford it anymore (Great Depression cars, 2008's foreclosed houses and vacant new-build homes, plane tickets, etc.)
The best thing to do to jumpstart economic growth is to lower the inequality by enhancing the income of the poor. Bill Gates does this with his foundation, taking his billions and spending it on healthcare and education. Henry Ford did it by raising wages to $5-a-day (in a $5 a week era) for his workers. The turnaround was that these workers now had the money to buy his cars and increase his sales.
Or they could sit there with the money hoarded. Which choice is better? sourceThis is why property taxes and the estate tax are good. They disincentivize the hoarding of wealth which demonstrably hurts the economy. Of course, you still need to find a balance. The answer isn't a 100% tax, nor is it a 0% tax.
-
3 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
It went exactly where you took it. You talked about the terminology of socialism, and used the example of conservatives calling everything socialist. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about liberals who call themselves socialist. You either don't know what the term means, or your willfully misrepresenting yourself, or you're in favor of the most dangerous political philosophy in the history of mankind.
Then I pointed out that the conversations you seem to be interested in having are actually happening on the internet.
What exactly is your question, since your estate question seems targeted for Brickhistory?Did someone piss in your Cheerios or have you always been this abrasive?
I want to know if you think it's a good idea to repeal the estate tax.
-
1 minute ago, Lord Ratner said:
F#$k what Republicans say. There are Democrats who happily use "socialist" to describe themselves. They are the enemy of the Free world.
Also, Dude, stay away from cable news and the MSM. The world of podcasts has the discussions you seek.lol... I see this discussion is going nowhere. I'll show myself the door.
-
8 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
The 40 hour work week has nothing to do with socialism. Zero. No one here is talking about work hours and child labor when they refer to socialism.
Socialism is easily summed up by the old Soviet mantra, from each according his abilities; to each according to his needs. Another simple socialist concept is an equality of outcome (not to be confused with equality of opportunity).
They are not fatal due to the evil intent of their promotors. They are fatal due to their irreconcilable conflicts with human nature.
Remember, there are no flawed political philosophies, only flawed human characteristics. The success of a political philosophy is measured by how well it mitigates and minimizes the effects of those human flaws.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
I agree with everything you said.
My post earlier was about the fact that people argue over the word socialism without giving any context. Everyone is essentially in agreement over everything except for the word "socialism" because people *do* want policies that make America a fair and equitable place to live in, where your success in life is determined by your own personal effort and not by who your parents are.
But because the toxic label of "socialism" is applied by anything the Republican party disagrees with, we can't have an honest debate on the merits of such social policies as the estate tax, universal basic income or tuition free college for everyone, and whether or not those make sense economically for the country.
Brickhistory... what are your thoughts on the estate tax?
-
3 hours ago, TreeA10 said:
A longish read totaling up the body count in regards to socialism. If polls of millennials showing their acceptance of socialism are accurate, history is a poorly covered topic is school these days.
https://www.newcriterion.com/blogs/dispatch/socialism-as-a-hate-crime-9746
3 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:In college I was told that Socialism was responsible for “the greatest increase in education and standard of living of the masses” in world history.
They’re not teaching anymore, just advocating.
What is socialism? At what point does a socialist become Stalin? You’re conflating a socialist economy with social policies. The two aren’t strictly bound together (unless you’re purposefully muddying the water for political attack).
Socialism as an economic system is what leads to a countries collapse, but social policies (i.e. policies for the people), like the 40 hour work week and elimination of child labor, are in fact what leads to a country’s progress.
-
1 hour ago, viper154 said:
How about no more PT uniform. Just wear your civilian gym clothes, or you’re grandpa jeans and kitty ear hat. No one gives a shit. One less thing to dig out of the closet for the annual pt test or ‘stan deployment.
When the current PT uniform came out, you were supposed to wear it untucked and could mix and match items with civilians clothes. Of course, that didn't last long.
-
5 hours ago, ARAMP1 said:
I thought that too until I was dropping a deuce in the BACN at FL500.
Still rolled up my sleeves though because eff the man.
Sleeve rolling is allowed now though..
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, Hunter Rose said:
TM is to give the illusion you have more input into your future assignments...
At this point, that's all it is. TM is too new for the functionals to put any trust into the system. They're basically just looking at the algorithm's output and modifying it to suit what the OGs want. Just like before, the process has worked out for some and robbed others.
-
37 minutes ago, pawnman said:
Hard to say. Wings told the last group to write them as well.
The order to not write PRFs on the last board came after all the PRFs were at the group level.
-
Cyber should have been the 6th department, not space.
-
2
-
-
As an F-16 guy, I enjoy every mission... even if I have no idea what I'm doing because I haven't flown that mission in a year.
-
1
-
2
-
2
-
-
51 minutes ago, Fuzz said:
I heard directly from one of the recorders for the board at AFPC that this was not the case. You had a 100% promotion opportunity (which has always been the case so I don't know why leadership started using this) but not everyone will get promoted even if you had no negative indications. I predict this is going to backfire spectacularly in leadership's face, based on how they sold this, when people get notified they were passed over. I can see the Air Force times headlines now: "100% promotion rate to major, does not mean 100%", "Top Air Force Leadership lied about promotion rates" etc.
So... why did we not just include the PRFs that everybody had already written anyways?
-
1
-
Commanders are dropping like flies this year
in General Discussion
Posted
It's easy to forget how many people lurk on these boards.