"Smaller government" advocates

[bripat9643]

Politicians (particularly Democrats) have been trying to get more and more control over the people. The only two vestiges left are energy and healthcare. Once government has total control over those two entities, they will have total control over the people.

Since they can't just take away our energy and healthcare, they will try to make us surrender it to them. That's how government benefits from global warming.

Setting up transparent competition between insurers and making fracking safer and more environmental, and helping alt energy to compete with China and the EU is not control, dupe, just intelligent. Ay caramba. All the New BS GOP has is big lie propaganda.

We need the richest and giant corps to pay their fair share, and help and tax cuts for the little guy and small business- DEMOCRAT POLICY, dupes.

How does the US Constitution (1787) defines fair share?


It doesn't.


Now try the Communist Manifesto, how does i defines fair share?


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share

When ALL the new wealth goes to the 1% and many giant corps pay nothing, only morons think nothing's wrong.

Wealth doesn't "go" anywhere. Wealth is created. Do you think money gets up in the middle of the night and walks to the wealthy people like Zombis?

The only time money "goes" anywhere is when government takes it from one group of people and gives it to another.

Good point

Wealth does not go anywhere....it is distributed

Guess who gets to decide how it is distributed? The wealthy

Is this a great country or what?

Wrong, moron, wealth is produced and earned by those who produce it. Your welfare check, on the other hand, was stolen from the people who earned the money.

 

[Indeependent]

Guess who gets to decide how it is distributed? The wealthy
Is this a great country or what?

100% stupid of course. Apple does not decide who buys Iphones, its customers do. Apple's desire is to slavishly distribute them to as many customers as possible, but customers decide to accept the distribution or not.

Do you have the IQ to understand?

Good point

How much does Apple pay the workers who assemble iPads ?
You know...the ones in China

What I like about Apple is that the hardware and software R&D is done by the best, even if the best aren't Indians.
What I don't like about Apple it that it uses FoxxConn.
As Tim Cook pointed out, an iPhone made in the US would cost about $112.00 more; I would gladly pay more for such a product.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do I think he govt can give people the skills? Yes and no. Directly no. However it is the govt's spending of tax money that makes mass education possible. I think the biggest problem is when politicians then try and micromanage education. I've met some people with wonderful ideas on how to get the best out of kids, and they're the sort of people who should be running things.

That's very fair. I liked this response right here. Thank you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

I think you've underestimated the effect of forty years of entitlements, Frigid. It's not longer about what makes "sense" or even what's ultimately good for people! Once you give out entitlements it's almost impossible to stop giving them out. That holds true in Greece...just as it does here. Take away welfare and you'd have riots in the streets of our major cities. There are far too many people who view welfare handouts as their "right".

I understand what you say. I think there is a problem. However it's also about the right message, doing things for the right reasons and telling people what those right reasons are, telling them you understand the impact it will have, and why this impact is a good thing. This almost never happens.

It's about using your brain, most politicians use their brain to keep their careers on the right path, rather than doing what is the right thing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I don't know of anyone who wouldn't like a smaller government as long as we don't cut national defense, food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, disability, environmental protection, disaster relieve, aid to education, college loans, or whatever services they depend on.

The reality is that a small government is not a real possibility. Every congressman knows it but many try to keep the dream alive to get re-elected. What we should be doing is focusing on making big government more efficient. Some years ago we seem to have given up on that idea.

Well efficiency isn't a key word in the US. You need to be getting your key words in so people see you as the sort of people who says key words, and that's the sort of person you vote for in a popularity contest. Er.. I mean presidential popularity contest. Er... I mean popularity contest, oh damn it, I mean presidential election.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

Yo, you might want to look at Ted Cruz? He is not the typical ass!!!

"GTP"

He's running for one of the two main parties. Wouldn't touch him with a barge pole.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Science was improved on MASSIVELY by government help.

Though, if government funds science, it can influence it. The so-called "science" of Global Warming being a prime example.

Is it a prime example? Eight years of Bush in charge, six of those with a Republican Congress, and still global warming was an issue.

Do you think the English government was forcing gravity upon Isaac Newton, and that there were people who were mightily pissed off that someone invented gravity? "You bastard Newton, I was having fun floating around my garden the other day, and then this conspiracy came that invented gravity and I landed on the ground with a massive bump."

Name one government that benefits from promoting global warming..... and then tell me why they benefit.

Politicians (particularly Democrats) have been trying to get more and more control over the people. The only two vestiges left are energy and healthcare. Once government has total control over those two entities, they will have total control over the people.

Since they can't just take away our energy and healthcare, they will try to make us surrender it to them. That's how government benefits from global warming.

Setting up transparent competition between insurers and making fracking safer and more environmental, and helping alt energy to compete with China and the EU is not control, dupe, just intelligent. Ay caramba. All the New BS GOP has is big lie propaganda.

We need the richest and giant corps to pay their fair share, and help and tax cuts for the little guy and small business- DEMOCRAT POLICY, dupes.

Yes, Democrat policy, or in other words, wealth redistribution.

As opposed to Republican policy, in other words, wealth redistribution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Guess who gets to decide how it is distributed? The wealthy
Is this a great country or what?

100% stupid of course. Apple does not decide who buys Iphones, its customers do. Apple's desire is to slavishly distribute them to as many customers as possible, but customers decide to accept the distribution or not.

Do you have the IQ to understand?

Good point

How much does Apple pay the workers who assemble iPads ?
You know...the ones in China

What I like about Apple is that the hardware and software R&D is done by the best, even if the best aren't Indians.
What I don't like about Apple it that it uses FoxxConn.
As Tim Cook pointed out, an iPhone made in the US would cost about $112.00 more; I would gladly pay more for such a product.

What I don't like about Apple is they keep forgetting my password. I enter a password and can use it for a few weeks. If I wait a month and try to use it again, it refuses it telling me I typed in the wrong one.

 

[1stRambo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

Yo, you might want to look at Ted Cruz? He is not the typical ass!!!

"GTP"

He's running for one of the two main parties. Wouldn't touch him with a barge pole.

Yo, then stop bitching when "Conservative Republican" wins!!!

"GTP"

 

[rightwinger]

I'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

Any third party would have to run from the middle drawing moderates from both sides

Running at an extreme only ensures the opposite side will win

EXCEPT THE LIBERTARIANS.


From our standpoint the government can ONLY protect your right to Life, Liberty, property and to pursue happiness. We are NOT going to change our position in order to be "electable" or attract moderates.


.That was our position when we first became a political party in 1971 and that is our position in 2015.

That will be our position in the year 2525 , if man still alive..........


.

Libertarians are glorified Republicans, only crazier and less fun to be around

A Libertarian candidate will draw votes from the Republicans....see where the Pauls pull their votes?

If you bothered to actually look at where Libertarians draw the votes from you would realize that they draw from BOTH republicans and democrats. They even do so about equally. That is also why the republican whine that we elect democrats because we will not vote for their trash candidates is bullshit.

That's funny

Tell me another one

 

[rightwinger]

Setting up transparent competition between insurers and making fracking safer and more environmental, and helping alt energy to compete with China and the EU is not control, dupe, just intelligent. Ay caramba. All the New BS GOP has is big lie propaganda.

We need the richest and giant corps to pay their fair share, and help and tax cuts for the little guy and small business- DEMOCRAT POLICY, dupes.

How does the US Constitution (1787) defines fair share?


It doesn't.


Now try the Communist Manifesto, how does i defines fair share?


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share

When ALL the new wealth goes to the 1% and many giant corps pay nothing, only morons think nothing's wrong.

Wealth doesn't "go" anywhere. Wealth is created. Do you think money gets up in the middle of the night and walks to the wealthy people like Zombis?

The only time money "goes" anywhere is when government takes it from one group of people and gives it to another.

Good point

Wealth does not go anywhere....it is distributed

Guess who gets to decide how it is distributed? The wealthy

Is this a great country or what?

Wrong, moron, wealth is produced and earned by those who produce it. Your welfare check, on the other hand, was stolen from the people who earned the money.

Wealth is produced by the workers
It is distributed by the Capitalists

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

Yo, you might want to look at Ted Cruz? He is not the typical ass!!!

"GTP"

He's running for one of the two main parties. Wouldn't touch him with a barge pole.

Yo, then stop bitching when "Conservative Republican" wins!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 54421

Did you really waste time writing that post?

 

[bripat9643]

How does the US Constitution (1787) defines fair share?


It doesn't.


Now try the Communist Manifesto, how does i defines fair share?


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share

When ALL the new wealth goes to the 1% and many giant corps pay nothing, only morons think nothing's wrong.

Wealth doesn't "go" anywhere. Wealth is created. Do you think money gets up in the middle of the night and walks to the wealthy people like Zombis?

The only time money "goes" anywhere is when government takes it from one group of people and gives it to another.

Good point

Wealth does not go anywhere....it is distributed

Guess who gets to decide how it is distributed? The wealthy

Is this a great country or what?

Wrong, moron, wealth is produced and earned by those who produce it. Your welfare check, on the other hand, was stolen from the people who earned the money.

Wealth is produced by the workers
It is distributed by the Capitalists

In other words, you're a Maxist. Is that what you're admitting?

 

[1stRambo]

I'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

Yo, you might want to look at Ted Cruz? He is not the typical ass!!!

"GTP"

He's running for one of the two main parties. Wouldn't touch him with a barge pole.

Yo, then stop bitching when "Conservative Republican" wins!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 54421

Did you really waste time writing that post?

Yo, don`t be jealous because your Party, the "Socialist Progressive Democrats" are failures!!!

"GTP"

 

[rightwinger]

When ALL the new wealth goes to the 1% and many giant corps pay nothing, only morons think nothing's wrong.

Wealth doesn't "go" anywhere. Wealth is created. Do you think money gets up in the middle of the night and walks to the wealthy people like Zombis?

The only time money "goes" anywhere is when government takes it from one group of people and gives it to another.

Good point

Wealth does not go anywhere....it is distributed

Guess who gets to decide how it is distributed? The wealthy

Is this a great country or what?

Wrong, moron, wealth is produced and earned by those who produce it. Your welfare check, on the other hand, was stolen from the people who earned the money.

Wealth is produced by the workers
It is distributed by the Capitalists

In other words, you're a Maxist. Is that what you're admitting?

Was Lincoln a Marxist?

 

[1stRambo]

Wealth doesn't "go" anywhere. Wealth is created. Do you think money gets up in the middle of the night and walks to the wealthy people like Zombis?

The only time money "goes" anywhere is when government takes it from one group of people and gives it to another.

Good point

Wealth does not go anywhere....it is distributed

Guess who gets to decide how it is distributed? The wealthy

Is this a great country or what?

Wrong, moron, wealth is produced and earned by those who produce it. Your welfare check, on the other hand, was stolen from the people who earned the money.

Wealth is produced by the workers
It is distributed by the Capitalists

In other words, you're a Maxist. Is that what you're admitting?

Was Lincoln a Marxist?

Yo, the CEO is no dummy!

"GTP"

 

[rightwinger]

Good point

Wealth does not go anywhere....it is distributed

Guess who gets to decide how it is distributed? The wealthy

Is this a great country or what?

Wrong, moron, wealth is produced and earned by those who produce it. Your welfare check, on the other hand, was stolen from the people who earned the money.

Wealth is produced by the workers
It is distributed by the Capitalists

In other words, you're a Maxist. Is that what you're admitting?

Was Lincoln a Marxist?

Yo, the CEO is no dummy!

"GTP"

Who said he was?

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, responding to your quote!

"GTP"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How does the US Constitution (1787) defines fair share?


It doesn't.


Now try the Communist Manifesto, how does i defines fair share?


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share

When ALL the new wealth goes to the 1% and many giant corps pay nothing, only morons think nothing's wrong.

Wealth doesn't "go" anywhere. Wealth is created. Do you think money gets up in the middle of the night and walks to the wealthy people like Zombis?

The only time money "goes" anywhere is when government takes it from one group of people and gives it to another.

Good point

Wealth does not go anywhere....it is distributed

Guess who gets to decide how it is distributed? The wealthy

Is this a great country or what?

Wrong, moron, wealth is produced and earned by those who produce it. Your welfare check, on the other hand, was stolen from the people who earned the money.

Wealth is produced by the workers
It is distributed by the Capitalists

No, wealth is not produced by the workers. Work is produced by the workers. Wealth is produced by taking a manufactured product (or service) and selling it at a profit. Workers don't do that, companies and CEO's do that.

 

[mgh80]

How does the US Constitution (1787) defines fair share?


It doesn't.


Now try the Communist Manifesto, how does i defines fair share?


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share

When ALL the new wealth goes to the 1% and many giant corps pay nothing, only morons think nothing's wrong.

Wealth doesn't "go" anywhere. Wealth is created. Do you think money gets up in the middle of the night and walks to the wealthy people like Zombis?

The only time money "goes" anywhere is when government takes it from one group of people and gives it to another.

Good point

Wealth does not go anywhere....it is distributed

Guess who gets to decide how it is distributed? The wealthy

Is this a great country or what?

Wrong, moron, wealth is produced and earned by those who produce it. Your welfare check, on the other hand, was stolen from the people who earned the money.

Wealth is produced by the workers
It is distributed by the Capitalists

Not necessarily, it really depends on the skill of the worker. Somebody flipping burgers at McDonalds for example, I guess if we get very technical of course they wont make money if that person isn't flipping burgers. However, the problem with the theory is very basic: anybody with an arm can do that job. So while that person might technically be fulfilling the order:

A) Without an owner there are no burgers to flip
B) The owner of the McDonalds is taking all of the risk (if the restaurant goes out of business they lose everything, whereas the work will simply flip burgers at Burger King)
C) The burger flipping is expendable. It's not PC to say it-but let's be honest, most people are expendable at their jobs. If I get fired tomorrow I'll be replaced with a week (temporarily) and by next July I'll be permanently replaced. I fully understand this.