fustakrakich's Journal: More Complete Fraud... just like your 'debt'

...the company had made government unemployment benefits a part of its buyout package... you go voluntarily and we'll agree that we laid you off.

The penalty for perjury is pretty light for some people... and for everybody when it's a matter of convenience.

That's right

[smittyoneeach]

When we're huddled around the fire, burning tires for warmth (I'll never forget the reek of a January morning in Kabul) let's just keep the blame on Walmart.
That way, none of the analysis ventures in the direction of the culprit: government.
No one's forcing you to shop/work at Walmart.
The amount of crap that legislation is forcing you to do grows hourly.
Sweet, sweet Progress!

Re:

[sjames]

No one's forcing you to shop/work at Walmart.

You mean other than being broke and without an adequate safety net? Because, otherwise there certainly is something that forces people to work at Walmart.

Or did you think people routinely resign from their high paying jobs to work at Walmart for the indescribable fun and deep sense of fulfillment?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

What is this "adequate safety net", in the face of the debt tsunami that will engulf us all, then?

Re:

[sjames]

You do know that the entire basis of the austerity budget was solidly proven to be a spreadsheet error, don't you?

In any event, that most certainly provides a reason that people *DO* have to work at Walmart.

We could get rid of the 'debt tsunami' if there is one by folding up the tents on our foreign military operations and handing anyone who feels endangered our rate card. If we can't afford to bail out our own Citizens, we sure can't afford to bail out other countries.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

What sane budget do we have? We've been putzing along on Continuing Resolutions for years.
But you don't have any real opposition from me on a total review of our jacked up foreign policy.
Given that neither isolation nor Team America: World Police are sustainable, what do you realistically prescribe?

Re:

[sjames]

Most countries manage to trade internationally without having a significant military presence beyond their own borders. That should be our goal as well. We have a good navy and long range strike capability as it is, we don't need bases all over the world. We should re-deploy all that money towards strategic resource development at home to insulate us from some of the risks involved in international trade (for example, energy and rare-earths).

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

These are excellent thoughts. But consider that the Chinese don't like the Koreans don't like the Japanese don't like the Chinese. They buy our debt to keep significant U.S. presence in the Far East. IOW, among our chief exports is stability.
So, badly as most would agree we need to trim that DoD budget, everybody else has to start picking up their own local tabs. Which they are rushing to avoid.

Re:

[sjames]

If they want our stabilizing presence, we should show them our rate card.

I don't really want to see those countries go to war with each other, but perhaps it's time for them to pay their own way.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

They do pay their way. The arms merchants are making billions off these wars. 60 billion from Saudi Arabia alone. To really understand the nature of things, look at it from a businessman's point of view, and discard all the philosophical bs. It is simply an area of dispute amongst the great powers, more like great pirates. It is a gangland turf war. Like all things in life, it's dominate or die. If you want to survive a day in the prison yard, you gotta pick sides. Take all that into account, and then decid

Re:

[sjames]

I don't care what they are paying the arms merchants. What I care about is the huge amounts our DOD is spending on policing the world. Not our job and we're certainly not paid to do it. You need to read the whole thread, I think you're missing a lot of context.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

But you are overlooking the context. This is business, nothing else. 'Policing the world' is necessary if you want to secure your contracts. Nobody likes a deadbeat..

Re:

[sjames]

I see, you're being 'cute' by obliquely claiming that the DOD is just trhe collections department for the arms dealers. Fine, let THEM pay for it then, so long as the people of the U.S. don't.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

I see, you're being 'cute' ...

Obviously you don't see. Whether by intent or by accident, I can't say. Your trolling doesn't bother me. In fact it put a smile on my face. Personally, I don't care anymore. Some of us can see things as they are, not as we want them to be, leaving detachment to the maximum extent possible as the only option. Feel free to continue the charade if that's what makes you happy, though you may as well spend your time complaining about the weather. I might even listen, for what's wort

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Weirdly, I think we're kind of converging here.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, I put a little Pacino into it..

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Yeah! Nobody's forcing you to shelter, clothe, and feed yourself. Why can't you just DIE?!

No wait! Who's gonna change the bedpans??? Who's gonna pre-chew my food?? Where are the wipers?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Oh, I'll probably be taken by the plague readily. Those wretched capitalists are predicting a bitter winter => http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57600023/farmers-almanac-predicts-a-bitterly-cold-winter/ [cbsnews.com]

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Call your bookie... er, broker!

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I've got neither.