**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

Of course government is a business. You still have to balance your books, you still have to pay for things like jail and policing.

So pay for jail and policing. To me that's more consistent with the mission of government than giving free money to morons.

law and order happen because people don't have to fend for themselves in the way you are suggesting.

Crime occurs because of poverty. The two are linked. People living on gov't assistance are still poor. Hence there will still be crime. You haven't solved anything.

I basically deem someone "unemployable" if I feel that their attitude means they won't be able to hold down a job.

ridiculous.

I'm just trying to avoid the morons from turning to begging and stealing to feed themselves...... do you suppose that at least some of those who then try and fail to get a job will have no choice but to either beg on the streets, or steal?

You're talking about a massively expensive, taxpayer funded entitlement program just to save us the aggravation of a minority few who decide a life of crime is better than working for a living.

everytime it happens, it is an inconvenience for a business, and ultimately a cost.

Dude....it is not the government's job to control business's costs for them. Employee turnover is a real thing, it has a cost, and businesses pay that cost. If they don't like it, there are ways to improve employee retention. There are entire disciplines of business dedicated to managing human resources. They dont' need the government's help.

You know what's a costly inconvenience for business? Big Government.

Right, so you're saying that just over a hundred bucks is "significant",

It's 20% more. Is that not significant? Besides, I'm only paying the $495 once every time a shit-employee needs to be replaced. Supporting a shit employee costs more than that every month. That's certainly a significant difference

while you pull numbers out of your arse.

False. I'm in charge of financial analysis for a company that employs over 1000 unskilled laborers in 20 us cities. Those are real numbers my friend.

The shit employee might earn $1500 a month for a 40-hour week, but only create £500 in value for the company, while a productive employee earns the company $3000.

Businesses are perfectly capable, on their own, of measuring the productivity of their employees and making staffing decisions based on the results. They don't need the government's help keeping out the riff raff. Where in the world did you get the idea that governments should be running private businesses?

Well, if someone is getting through a job every two months

C'mon man. How many people are you really talking about now? Who is this person who starts and leaves 6 jobs a year?

So based on the numbers I shat out, there's an economic argument in favour of benefits.

In favor of whom? Again, it's not the government's job to be trying to control business' costs for them.

Considering neither of us are in a position to know the economic cost of employing a moron, I'd call this point stalemate.

I actually do know the cost. Checkmate.

I'm not making excuses for myself.

Honestly. Your post(s) seem like a roundabout way of you validating your own lifestyle. That's my read here man. Take it for what it's worth.

You think "employability" is purely a physical matter. That's why you're wrong.

If someone has a mental impairment that prevents them from working, I'd agree they are unemployable as well. But laziness simply does not qualify. Behaviors can be changed, disabilities and impairments, can not

It's cut throat because if you're having a bad day and the boss doesn't like you, you're not paying the mortgage at the end of the month.

That's an unrealistic extreme. Also, I think this is simply a perception that is reflective of your own problem with authority. People competing for high paying, high-status job are cut-throat. Bus drivers and waiters...not so much. It's like you're saying "playing cards is cutthroat". But we both know there is an enormous difference between No Limit Hold em, and Go Fish.

Well yes you certainly identify my problem here. And you seem to think it's a choice.

It is, it totally is.

You can't change the way people's brains are wired, just so they can be more productive.

Yes you can. Yes, you totally can.

You think it's shitty that people pay for me to stay at home. Fair enough. I think there's lots more shitty things going on that are dwarfed by the laziness or attitude problems of those who can't hold down a job.

Just because you're not the worst case of injustice in the world, means that what you're doing is ok?

I'll sometimes get to see how many people have applied... it's usually 30-40 as a minimum, and that's the shit jobs that I might actually get. Take away benefits, and suddenly there will be hundreds of applicants for every job.

So what you're saying is.....people lose their benefits and DON'T turn to a life of crime? Those extra hundreds of people are at least attempting to get jobs rather than steal for a living? Doesn't that shatter your entire argument?

But where people are saying "if they don't give me money I'm fucked and I have no idea what I'll do", and then out of desperation steal some food from Tesco, t

Who are these people? ANd how many of them do you think there are? People don't suddenly become destitute to the point of stealing. Generally their lives deteriorate as a result of terrible choices, like leaving jobs for shitty reasons. So if someone's at the point where it's steal or starve, I'm fine with them doing either. What I'm not fine with, is having my tax dollars used to enable this entitled lifestyle.

I can go and live in France and claim their benefits, if I want. There's a sea between us, and that isn't a barrier.

That's because it's at sea level. You need something taller.

No, "hating work" might not qualify. Not being the kind of guy who is capable of being told what to do?.

That's insane. How many countries have mandatory conscription? How does that work with the guy who 'isn't capable of being told what to do'? Do they just let him off the hook? They just give him money and send him home? Unless there is a physical or mental disability that prevents you from working, then EVERYONE is capable of doing a job.

[QUOTE=OngBonga;2274983] I don't think it's possible for people to change their attitude on demand.
Of course its possible. And who said 'on demand'. Maybe you suck at a job for six months, get fired, get another job, get fired again. Eventually you learn to do better.

[OngBonga]

Honestly. Your post(s) seem like a roundabout way of you validating your own lifestyle. That's my read here man. Take it for what it's worth.

It's a misread. I'm not claiming that I'm not cut out for it. I'm defending the right of those who aren't cut out for it to be given a pittance of an income to avoid extreme poverty. The arguments I'm making don't apply to me, because push comes to shove, I get a job.

If someone has a mental impairment that prevents them from working, I'd agree they are unemployable as well. But laziness simply does not qualify. Behaviors can be changed, disabilities and impairments, can not

Well, who are you to say if my "attitude problem" is or isn't a "mental impairment"? Maybe there's something wrong with me.

It is, it totally is.

No, it really isn't.

Yes you can. Yes, you totally can.

This is basically the "you have depression? Eat these pills and get back to fucking work" attitude. It's almost like you see an individual's human rights as less important than an individual's obligations to society.

Just because you're not the worst case of injustice in the world, means that what you're doing is ok?

Of course what I#m doing is ok. It's legal.

Here's a question... which do you consider more immoral? Claiming benefits? Or growing weed? Because I'd prefer to do the latter, but the law won't allow me to.

So what you're saying is.....people lose their benefits and DON'T turn to a life of crime? Those extra hundreds of people are at least attempting to get jobs rather than steal for a living? Doesn't that shatter your entire argument?

It would shatter my argument if all those people ended up getting a job, and noone who wants a job gets left out and ends up living on the street. I'm not sure that is proven though.

Who are these people? ANd how many of them do you think there are? People don't suddenly become destitute to the point of stealing. Generally their lives deteriorate as a result of terrible choices, like leaving jobs for shitty reasons. So if someone's at the point where it's steal or starve, I'm fine with them doing either.

This is a very first world view. Try looking at Brazil if you want an example of what happens when you cast people aside in the manner you suggest. The people living in those shanty towns are certainly not choosing their life of poverty.

What I'm not fine with, is having my tax dollars used to enable this entitled lifestyle.

Fortunately for society, you're not the one who gets to make this decision. If you're not fine with it, that's a YOU problem. It's still happening. People are still being supported and kept out of the workforce. The government does this for a reason... maybe they know something you don't about what will happen if they pulled the plug. Maybe they know full well that there simply aren't enough jobs to support everyone.

How many countries have mandatory conscription?

Yeah, and the reason for this is to ram down people's throats a sense of authority. I guess you like mandatory conscription, people like me with stubborn anti-authoritarian views need breaking so we can be good little taxpayers instead of leeches, right?

So pay for jail and policing. To me that's more consistent with the mission of government than giving free money to morons.

I think we're in disagreement of what the role of government should be. I think government should create a safe environment in which the people have the opportunity to thrive. Part of that "safe environment" is making sure that those who fail to thrive are not forced into begging and stealing.

I think one of the problems you seem to have is that you think that a life on benefits is somehow preferable to a life of working. For the most part, that's not true at all. It's not exactly a life of luxury. I buy new clothes maybe once a year. I had one holiday last year... a weekend at a festival that a friend paid for. I don't own my own house, I don't have a car. If I want these things, if I want success in my life, then it will only happen if I get a job. The incentive to work is there, and for the most part, it works, because most people want more from life than what I have. But that incentive doesn't work for everyone. It doesn't work for me because shit work 40 hours a week makes me depressed, while having no money does not. My happiness is more important than wealth. This is how I justify my own lifestyle. The state owes me a survival because it dragged me through a fucked care system from which I emerged with a single poxy qualification which has a value of fuck all to employers. The state owes me a survival because I have a serious problem paying my tax which then gets spent on making weapons which we then sell to Saudi Arabia to use indiscriminately against Yemeni civilians. The state owes me a survival because it won't let me grow weed, which is something I'd happily do to support myself.

You might not agree that the state owes me a living. Fair enough, I do respect your opinion. However, we have social security for a reason... the state, reluctantly, agrees with me. It is neccessary, because it represents, in their opinion, the most viable economic solution to the problem of unemployable people. Whether I am unemployable, that's open to debate. But I am not the average long term unemployed person. I'm not drinking extra strong beer, nor am I a heroin addict. Nor am I aggressive in nature, I haven't had a fight in 20+ years. Lots of these people are. They will cause friction amongst staff. You laugh at the idea of someone getting through a job every two months, but it happens. After a few failed jobs, they might turn to benefits because they are not cut out for the life of working with normal people who function like adults. Without benefits, it's a matter of time before they are forced into crime, or begging.

I think you oversetimate the potential of the majority of the long-term unemployed to be functional members of society. I assume that the very existence of social security implies that the government recognise this problem.

[OngBonga]

I actually do know the cost. Checkmate.

Oh, and this, it would have more impact if you weren't splitting hairs over a hundred bucks or so where we're pulling numbers out of our arses. Unless you can be bothered to demonstrate that you have ways of quantifying the net value of employees relative to their salary, you're going to find it difficult to convince me that your position as head of whatever gives you any better an idea than I have thanks to smoking and talking shit.

Bad workers are obviously of negative value to the economy as a whole, compared to good workers. How much that lost potential value is worth, that's a game for expert economoists, of which neither of us fit the bill. It might well be a greater loss than the cost of social security.

No, it is not the government's job to interfer with individual businesses. However, it does have a responsibility to act in a manner which provides the best framework for business to thrive. It still has to act in the best interests of the general economy.

[OngBonga]

"economoists" is such a good typo I'm leaving it.

[OngBonga]

It might well be a greater loss than the cost of social security.

To split hairs over my own comment, I should say more "the cost of social security for the long-term unemployed", which is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how much social security actually costs the state.

You agree the "safety net" should be there... well, that's the bulk of social security. People simply moving between jobs and needing temporary support, people who have broken their leg, the real needy people, this will still cost the state money, even if we pull the plug for the long-term unemployed. You're not going to save a great deal of money, while you're creating a whole heap of awkward problems that take an iron fist to counter. If you're the state, then you have failed to create a safe environment where people have the opportunity to thrive. You're failing by my definition of the state to meet your basic obligations, all based on a matter of principle relating to your view that those who are physically capable of working should be forced to do so.

[BananaStand]

I'm defending the right of those who aren't cut out for it to be given a pittance of an income to avoid extreme poverty.

Why is income a 'right'? You're misunderstanding the role of government here.

The arguments I'm making don't apply to me, because push comes to shove, I get a job.

So you admit that you don't need government assistance, it just makes you happier. You really don't think that's wrong? There's probably a disabled war veteran, or an elderly person, or a poor widow with three kids on social security who could be getting more money if the system wasn't bogged down with people like you.

Well, who are you to say if my "attitude problem" is or isn't a "mental impairment"? Maybe there's something wrong with me.

Where in the DSM-V should I look to find 'bad attitude' as a clinical diagnosis or a chronic impairment?

This is basically the "you have depression? Eat these pills and get back to fucking work" attitude. It's almost like you see an individual's human rights as less important than an individual's obligations to society.

We're not talking about depression. That's a dubious situation worthy of a separate discussion. For now let's assume it's a valid diagnosis and a legitimate reason for missing work. Gov't safety nets should help those people, and they do. But if you're not clinically depressed, you're just lazy and pathetic, then you can't claim any infringement of your 'human rights'. You're certainly within your rights to choose a life of poverty. But you're not within your rights to demand that someone else pay for it.

Of course what I#m doing is ok. It's legal.

No it's not. They require you to look for work, and they expect you to make a good faith effort to actually find a job. Something tells me your job search efforts are not as robust as they could be. You're violating the spirit of the law, which is of course, unenforceable. That doesn't mean you're not a parasite.

Here's a question... which do you consider more immoral? Claiming benefits? Or growing weed? Because I'd prefer to do the latter, but the law won't allow me to.

So the question seems to imply that both are immoral. Why do you have to choose one? How about you don't do either?

It would shatter my argument if all those people ended up getting a job, and noone who wants a job gets left out and ends up living on the street. I'm not sure that is proven though.

Well, I can assure you, without a doubt, that the way to stimulate job growth is NOT to dis-incentivize work by offering generous gov't support programs to anyone who wants them.

This is a very first world view. Try looking at Brazil if you want an example of what happens when you cast people aside in the manner you suggest. The people living in those shanty towns are certainly not choosing their life of poverty.

That's Brazil's problem. My whole argument focused on Jimmy, or someone like him, who has all the privileges and opportunities that come with living in a place that's not Brazil.

People are still being supported and kept out of the workforce. The government does this for a reason..

The reason is supposed to be to help people who can't help themselves. Expanding it beyond that is a scheme to amass political power. Obama was great at this. He expanded entitlements to millions and millions of people thus ensuring they become dependent on the government. That makes it much less likely that those people will then go out and vote for the party that supports smaller government and less spending.

maybe they know something you don't about what will happen if they pulled the plug.

People might vote republican.

Maybe they know full well that there simply aren't enough jobs to support everyone.

That's what unemployment benefits are for. But they aren't meant to be a permanent solution. During the financial crisis of 2008-2009, I can support the government expanding those benefits, and allowing people to stay on longer. But still not indefinitely. Getting back to Jimmy....he could go out and get a job tomorrow. There are jobs available and plenty to go around. He just doesn't want to work. I wanna know why that's my problem.

Yeah, and the reason for this is to ram down people's throats a sense of authority.

So people's attitudes towards authority CAN change then?

I guess you like mandatory conscription, people like me with stubborn anti-authoritarian views need breaking so we can be good little taxpayers instead of leeches, right?

Or just be a reasonable person. Show up on time, do the work that's assigned. Don't be a dick. And collect your pay. I'm still not seeing what's so hard about that. You may not like it....but that doesn't entitle you to freeload off of everyone else. Lots of people don't like their jobs, they go anyway.

I think we're in disagreement of what the role of government should be. I think government should create a safe environment in which the people have the opportunity to thrive. Part of that "safe environment" is making sure that those who fail to thrive are not forced into begging and stealing.

You keep using the word "forced". No one is "forced" to commit crimes. And if they do, they go to jail. That works for me. Who are these people that think risking imprisonment is a better option than earning a paycheck?

I think one of the problems you seem to have is that you think that a life on benefits is somehow preferable to a life of working. For the most part, that's not true at all

You've written exhaustively on how you think that is exactly true. You said you absolutely couldn't deal with a boss. You said you'd get depressed if you had to work at McD's for more than a month. You've stated extensively how you're "fine" with your current situation, and that you chose it on purpose.

. It's not exactly a life of luxury.

Where's my tiny violin?

The incentive to work is there, ......It doesn't work for me because shit work 40 hours a week makes me depressed,

So don't do shit work. Or do shit work for a time, meanwhile educate yourself for a better job. This "depression" you claim to experience just sounds like a wimpy excuse.

The state owes me a survival because it dragged me through a fucked care system from which I emerged with a single poxy qualification which has a value of fuck all to employers.

I don't know what that means. is that some kind of degree or schooling?

Sounds like you're saying that the government provided you with an education so you would have the skills to compete in the marketplace. Now you think the government owes you more because you were unsatisfied?

The state owes me a survival because I have a serious problem paying my tax which then gets spent on making weapons which we then sell to Saudi Arabia to use indiscriminately against Yemeni civilians

.
if you don't like what the government is doing with your money, vote. This is a ridiculous double standard. I don't like my tax dollars going to support freeloaders. Yet I have to pay for your right to chose to not pay tax? Fuck that!

The state owes me a survival because it won't let me grow weed, which is something I'd happily do to support myself.

So grow weed and support yourself. The state only cares if you get caught.

I think you oversetimate the potential of the majority of the long-term unemployed to be functional members of society. I assume that the very existence of social security implies that the government recognise this problem.

I think you're underestimating it. So far, we've only seen two examples in this thread....you and Jimmy. And you both really should get off your fucking asses.

[Jack Sawyer]

By making so much information so accessible, social media has drastically changed the way we consume information and form opinions in the modern era. The danger, however, is that social media creates an “echo chamber” that filters the information people receive so that it largely supports their existing opinions.

Who knew? In other news, a science study claims water to be "wet" most of the time

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...amber-is-real/

[Savy]

Tbh this echo chamber argument is probably the biggest nonsense I've heard. I'm sure it's a thing but it's pretty minimal and it's being touted as an explanation for anything that's happened in the past two years.

[Jack Sawyer]

Paul Ryan Fundraised With Health Insurance Lobbying Firm Just Before His PowerPoint

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/09/...is-powerpoint/

[Jack Sawyer]

Tbh this echo chamber argument is probably the biggest nonsense I've heard. I'm sure it's a thing but it's pretty minimal and it's being touted as an explanation for anything that's happened in the past two years.

Echo-chambers cement views. It's how religions work IMO. Massive argumentum ad populum because of the echo-chamber, making it difficult for feeble minds to take any conclusion that differs from the accepted viewpoint in the echo-chamber.

Like peer pressure? That's a very similar concept, main difference being this one is more perverse

[Savy]

Echo-chambers cement views. It's how religions work IMO. Massive argumentum ad populum because of the echo-chamber, making it difficult for feeble minds to take any conclusion that differs from the accepted viewpoint in the echo-chamber.

Like peer pressure? That's a very similar concept, main difference being this one is more perverse

Stikes me more as liberal elitism blaming stupid people for not voting with them.

[Jack Sawyer]

**IMO**

Things you'd never have if not for echo chambers:

scientology/ flat earth/ 911 truthers/ birthers/ global warming denialism/ militant feminism/ muslim extremism/ christian fundamentalism/ herp-a-derp(they tuk our jubs) & many many more.

Echo chambers are not limited to the media/the internet either.

[Poopadoop]

Who knew?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...amber-is-real/

Although I can empathize with the sentiment that social science dollars are often being spent on 'proving the obvious' there is often a good case for doing so (although the above may not necessarily be in that category).

An example of such research that had an actual impact would be the psychological studies showing how distractions like mobile phones impair your ability to drive. In this case 'proving the obvious' with hard data led to actual changes in laws that otherwise might not have gone through (or at least not as quickly). Lives saved = good thing.

Personally I would not find this type of research very challenging or engaging to do, since you pretty much know the answer going in, but that doesn't always mean it's pointless work. Even the echo chamber research might have some utility if it encourages people to be more open-minded about where they get their 'news'.

[Poopadoop]

Tbh this echo chamber argument is probably the biggest nonsense I've heard. I'm sure it's a thing but it's pretty minimal and it's being touted as an explanation for anything that's happened in the past two years.

That's the more interesting question really. If there are people out there who only watch MSNBC news (which is basically anti-Trump propaganda) and others who only watch Fox News (which is basically right wing propaganda), they would certainly be getting two different views of the same world.

[OngBonga]

There's probably a disabled war veteran, or an elderly person, or a poor widow with three kids on social security who could be getting more money if the system wasn't bogged down with people like you.

Right, I should feel guilty. Disabled people and widows. I like how you use the word "could" here. They won't though, will they? Even if all of the people like me got off our arses and got jobs, still the disabled widow would get no extra money. The money saved, it would just get wasted. If government wasn't so corrupt, if government spent tax money wisely, I'd be more inclined to get a job. I'd have better opportunities thanks to the efficient spending of tax money. Free education, rather than distant war.

But if you're not clinically depressed, you're just lazy and pathetic...

Well, that's your opinion, and an ill formed one at that. Some people might appear "lazy and pathetic" because they are clinically depressed. However, proving depression is not easy, and doctors might not be inclined to diagnose it where they suspect it's a blag for benefits. Which means some people who are clinically depressed are dismissed as workshy and forced to get on with it.

No it's not. They require you to look for work, and they expect you to make a good faith effort to actually find a job. Something tells me your job search efforts are not as robust as they could be. You're violating the spirit of the law, which is of course, unenforceable. That doesn't mean you're not a parasite.

I do what is required of me. We have what's called a "claimant commitment", which is basically a contract stating what actions you'll undertake. Mine says I must apply for x amount of jobs per week, check my emails daily, attend interviews if offered, and accept a reasonable job offer. I meet these criteria. I haven't been offered an interview in over a year, because my CV sucks. But I apply for jobs.

How robust and sincere my search is, that's besides the point. We're talking law here, so what is written is what matters. I apply for jobs, and I check my emails daily. I will attend an interview if I'm offered one, and will accept a job if I somehow get offered an approriate one.

So yes, what I am doing is legal. Even if I wasn't applying for jobs, it's tenuous to say it isn't legal. You'd have to argue it's outright benefit fraud, rather than merely breach of contract, because the latter is civil. One only uses the term "illegal" when referring to criminal law. I'm not aware of anyone found guilty of benefit fraud simply for not applying for jobs. I doubt very much that failing to meet your obligations potentially amounts to a criminal offence.

So the question seems to imply that both are immoral. Why do you have to choose one? How about you don't do either?

Well it's clear you think both are immoral, I just wondered which you saw as worse. I consider neither to be immoral. The law says one is immoral and the other is not. I am acting within the law, rather than taking the riskier path.

That's Brazil's problem. My whole argument focused on Jimmy, or someone like him, who has all the privileges and opportunities that come with living in a place that's not Brazil.

Well my point about Brazil is that if you don't want America to be like Brazil, then you have to reluctantly accept that social security is necessary. Without it, the real cut-throat nature of capitalism is fully unleashed.

The reason is supposed to be to help people who can't help themselves.

I agree, we're just miles apart in who falls into this category.

You keep using the word "forced". No one is "forced" to commit crimes. And if they do, they go to jail. That works for me. Who are these people that think risking imprisonment is a better option than earning a paycheck?

People who either can't get a job, or those who can't keep a job. If they have no "safety net", and by that I mean a base income to avoid extreme poverty, then yes, I think the word "forced" is appropriate. Hunger is a powerful beast, it can definitely make people behave in ways they might not otherwsie have done.

So people's attitudes towards authority CAN change then?

Yeah if you indoctrinate people. Are you in favour of indoctrination?

You've written exhaustively on how you think that is exactly true.

Well it is preferable to me. The point was it's not preferable to most people.

Where's my tiny violin?

Same place you get your numbers from.

So don't do shit work. Or do shit work for a time, meanwhile educate yourself for a better job. This "depression" you claim to experience just sounds like a wimpy excuse.

I told you, I don't need excuses. I'm just telling you how I see it.

I don't know what that means. is that some kind of degree or schooling?

The "care system" is basically the system in place to care for and educate troubled children. It failed me. I was a smart kid, and I got one GCSE. That's less than the average moron, so on paper I look really fucking dumb. That certainly isn't my fault. You'll need that violin if you want me to go into more detail.

I think you're underestimating it. So far, we've only seen two examples in this thread....you and Jimmy. And you both really should get off your fucking asses.

I'm not getting off my ass any time soon. When they legalise weed, maybe.

[Savy]

I'd rather my money be going to Ong than rich fucking pensioners milking the system.

[Savy]

**IMO**

Things you'd never have if not for echo chambers:

scientology/ flat earth/ 911 truthers/ birthers/ global warming denialism/ militant feminism/ muslim extremism/ christian fundamentalism/ herp-a-derp(they tuk our jubs) & many many more.

Echo chambers are not limited to the media/the internet either.

Now you're altering definitions of words to such a general sense than you can't really call it that anymore because it isn't what it is.

[BananaStand]

Right, I should feel guilty. Disabled people and widows. I like how you use the word "could" here. They won't though, will they?

Of course they will

Even if all of the people like me got off our arses and got jobs, still the disabled widow would get no extra money.

False.

The money saved, it would just get wasted. If government wasn't so corrupt, if government spent tax money wisely, I'd be more inclined to get a job. I'd have better opportunities thanks to the efficient spending of tax money. Free education, rather than distant war.

That's something you imagined to validate your own behavior.

Well, that's your opinion, and an ill formed one at that. Some people might appear "lazy and pathetic" because they are clinically depressed.

So? Go see a shrink.

However, proving depression is not easy,

Completely, utterly, and in all other ways...false. Depression is one of the easiest disorder to diagnose. There's a huge list of symptoms, many are vague, and you only need to show a handful of them to get a diagnosis. Psychologists would be completely out of business if not for depression.

and doctors might not be inclined to diagnose

False AGAIN! A diagnosis means a treatment plan. How do you think doctors make money? Dude, I was married to a psychologist for ten years, I'm somewhat closely acquainted with the business side of things. No one over comes in and gets told "you're fine, you're just having a bad day". Never.

I do what is required of me

.
I think you're required to give an honest effort

But I apply for jobs.

Just ostensibly.

How robust and sincere my search is, that's besides the point. We're talking law here,

No we're not. We're talking about gaming the system to be a freeloading leech.

One only uses the term "illegal" when referring to criminal law.

don't de-rail a perfectly good debate with petty semantics.

Well my point about Brazil is that if you don't want America to be like Brazil, then you have to reluctantly accept that social security is necessary. Without it, the real cut-throat nature of capitalism is fully unleashed.

That's outrageous fear-mongering.

People who either can't get a job, or those who can't keep a job.

Who ARE these people? And why can't they keep a job? IF it's because they refuse to show up on time, or if they refuse to perform simple tasks that are assigned, then fuck them. Seriously, fuck them.

Hunger is a powerful beast, it can definitely make people behave in ways they might not otherwsie have done.

Like work?

Yeah if you indoctrinate people. Are you in favour of indoctrination?

Couldn't hurt

Well it is preferable to me. The point was it's not preferable to most people.

And a life of crime is?

Same place you get your numbers from

.
Planet earth

I told you, I don't need excuses

.
LOL, yes you do. So much of your posts are you validating your own behavior. Anyone can see right through that.

The "care system" is basically the system in place to care for and educate troubled children. It failed me

.
No system is perfect. It's unfortunate that you didn't find it useful, but why does that mean you're a victim for life? this is just more of you making excuses to validate your exploitative lifestyle.

I was a smart kid, and I got one GCSE. That's less than the average moron, so on paper I look really fucking dumb

.
So get another GCSE. Or a college degree.

That certainly isn't my fault.

Everything you've done since then, IS your fault. choosing a life of freeloading is totally on YOU

I'm not getting off my ass any time soon. When they legalise weed, maybe.

More excuses.

[Savy]

Spoon adding back story to his character.

[Jack Sawyer]

Now you're altering definitions of words to such a general sense than you can't really call it that anymore because it isn't what it is.

To me, an echochamber is not just a place in which your ideas are echoed. The echoing of ideas happens. But this echoing of ideas tends to have an indirect, and at other times purposeful effect on you. That is what I call an echochamber. This concept and the "safe space" concept are intricately intertwined **IMO**.


E.g


If you are already a 911 truther, and then go to Alex Jones' channel, there is a chance that you will now be convinved of something you previously thought were true, by the alternative facts he presented to you which you ardently already believe is true. It just reinforces your beliefs. By not exposing yourself to any kind of contra argument, there will come a point where every single conspiracy theory will ring true for you, and you will simply start denying reality if you will.


If you are super mightily christian religious, and surround yourself only with people who share the same faith as you do, there comes a point where you will not accept any other religion as capable of existing, or that yours is superior and others are shit. Only your own brand of mythology will be the one you accept as being true; all others will be confirmed to be shit by your peers and argumentum ad populum. They will start calling people devils, and then probably believe that they actually are.


Fervently believing in something, and then surrounding yourself uniquely and exclusively of like minded people, and then rejecting other beliefs (which is what happens over time in those circumstances) is simply a recipe for disaster. The internet makes this all the more easier nowadays.

[Savy]

I'm not arguing that you're right or wrong I'm just saying you should use a different term because the confusion that will get created as a result of your word choice is going to waste a lot of time for you if it's a subject you intend on talking about with people.

[OngBonga]

Of course they will

You have too much faith in government.

So? Go see a shrink.

Again, you seem to think I'm arguing for my own benefit here. I'm not. I am lazy and pathetic, I'm not depressed.

How do you think doctors make money?

Yeah I mean we're on totally different planets when it comes to this. Doctors don't get paid by the prescription here, they get paid a salary (and a large one at that), which is maybe why depression is not so easy to diagnose here... they're actually trying to diagnose the problem, rather than sell pills.

I think you're required to give an honest effort

I think you're naive when it comes to contracts. What I am required to do is put in writing. It doesn't say anything about an "honest effort", and if it did, it would need to define it.

No we're not. We're talking about gaming the system to be a freeloading leech.

Yes, but within the law.

don't de-rail a perfectly good debate with petty semantics.

It's not "petty semantics". There is a heavy distinction between criminal and civil law. Breach of contract is not criminal behaviour, and as such is not "illegal" in the normal context of that word.

That's outrageous fear-mongering.

I don't think so. I think that social security is the reason we don't have shanty towns. We just have homeless people living on the street. It's a problem, but it's not out of hand. Take benefits away, and homelessness will get out of hand, and in my opinion, over time, it will result in dirty pop-up communities rife with crime not too dissimilar to what we see on the outskirts of Rio.

Who ARE these people? And why can't they keep a job? IF it's because they refuse to show up on time, or if they refuse to perform simple tasks that are assigned, then fuck them. Seriously, fuck them.

You're gonna be doing a whole lot of fucking. There's nearly a million long term unemployed here in the UK, and we have like a fifth of your population. How many of these people are people I would deem "unemployable" is obviously not something I can find out on google, but it's gonna be a healthy chunk of them, simply because they have been unemployed for so long.

I'm not just talking about those who turn up late or refuse to do what they're told. I'm also talking about people who, over time, can't settle into jobs, cause friction amongst staff, fail to live up to the standards their peers are setting. You're in no position to know why people have these flaws, so you can have no way of knowing if these flaws can be overcome.

Like work?

Made me chuckle. Hunger won't make me work. Not having weed might.

Couldn't hurt

Arguable.

And a life of crime is?

It's certainly easier for some.

LOL, yes you do. So much of your posts are you validating your own behavior. Anyone can see right through that.

No, only you see that. Everyone else just sees me talking shit like I do.

No system is perfect. It's unfortunate that you didn't find it useful, but why does that mean you're a victim for life? this is just more of you making excuses to validate your exploitative lifestyle.

I'm not a victim. I would be if I was unhappy with my life.

So get another GCSE. Or a college degree.

I would if it were free, and if I were able to claim benefits while doing so. We're not quite that socialist, I'm afraid.

Everything you've done since then, IS your fault. choosing a life of freeloading is totally on YOU

It's a good job I don't think I'm acting immorally then, isn't it? Othewise I dunno how I'd sleep.

[Savy]

It is very easy to get a depression diagnosis ong.

[OngBonga]

It is very easy to get a depression diagnosis ong.

Yeah and if I were truly gaming the system, I would have long ago.

[Savy]

Yeah and if I were truly gaming the system, I would have long ago.

But you said like 4 times it's hard to get?

[boost]

I'm confused. Savy, what terminology do you think Jack Sawyer is using loosely?

[OngBonga]

But you said like 4 times it's hard to get?

It's hard to get a long term depression diagnosis. Your average high street doctor doesn't give a fuck and will happily sign you off for a month or two to get you out of his office. This won't work for long though, not unless you're prepared to keep lying about your mental health, pretend to take the pills he's prescribing, and go and see shrinks and whoever else he tells you to see, while filling in forms saying how your mental disability affects you ability to work.

I should rephrase. It's really hard to get a depression diagnosis long term and not tread very dangerously into outright benefit fraud territory.

[Savy]

I'm confused. Savy, what terminology do you think Jack Sawyer is using loosely?

Echo chamber, in that it is currently a buzzword relating to media, be that news sites, social media.

As to his more general use of the word I agree with parts of what he is saying but I also think that a lot of this can be attributed to various things not just echo chambers (in my wording above) and is why it's a bit of a nonsense. I wonder if anyone will ever do the research (I'm looking at you poop) as to the blaming of echo chambers for results of things by various echo chambers to further strengthen the echo chamber.

It's hard to get a long term depression diagnosis. Your average high street doctor doesn't give a fuck and will happily sign you off for a month or two to get you out of his office. This won't work for long though, not unless you're prepared to keep lying about your mental health, pretend to take the pills he's prescribing, and go and see shrinks and whoever else he tells you to see, while filling in forms saying how your mental disability affects you ability to work.

I should rephrase. It's really hard to get a depression diagnosis long term and not tread very dangerously into outright benefit fraud territory.

I think this is somewhat more down to the fact that at some point most people in their lives are going to get depressed to some degree and it isn't all that uncommon, whilst it can be debilitating to the point where it stops you working for periods of times for most people this isn't really the case.

Getting a depression diagnosis long term and not being depressed is obviously benefit fraud lol. I imagine I'd be quite safe in thinking that getting a false diagnosis for time off work is grounds for dismissal & would get the person who gave that diagnosis into a bit of shit.

[BananaStand]

It's hard to get a long term depression diagnosis.

Completely false.

Your average high street doctor doesn't give a fuck and will happily sign you off for a month or two to get you out of his office.

Are you saying that doctors don't care about patients? Are you serious? Is that your argument? That's nonsense. Doctors give a fuck.

This won't work for long though, not unless you're prepared to keep lying about your mental health, pretend to take the pills he's prescribing, and go and see shrinks and whoever else he tells you to see, .

Are you for real man? Again, I have some insight into the business end of the mental health industry. What you're describing only exits in your imagination.

No one has to lie about their mental health. Have you ever had a bad day? Ever worry about something? Ever feel anxious? If so, then you can be diagnosed with depression. No lying involved.

And going to see shrinks.....THAT'S THE POINT. You mentioned earlier that doctors get paid a salary. FALSE. At least that's not how my ex wife worked. She got a % of every service she provided. So when someone comes in with a depression diagnosis, and their health insurance will authorize 26 weeks of therapy.......well, no one is EVER cured in 25 weeks. Catch my drift?

Who 'pretends to take pills'? Anti-depression drugs, are drugs! Just like weed, or anything else. A drug, is a drug, is a drug, is a drug. The drugs the psychiatrist gives you makes you feel good. People take them. People like them. People get hooked on them. And when they run out, they go see their dealer/doctor, to get more. In order to prescribe more, the doctor has to charge you for more therapy sessions or office visits. Plus he probably gets some kind of commission or kickback on the drugs he prescribes.

I should rephrase. It's really hard to get a depression diagnosis long term and not tread very dangerously into outright benefit fraud territory.

Even rephrased, you're monumentally wrong. It's easy to get a long term diagnosis and milk it for life. You'll have doctors confirming your diagnosis and possibly feeding you pills throughout your life if you want. It's not fraud if you believe it, and a doctor agrees with you.

[OngBonga]

No one has to lie about their mental health. Have you ever had a bad day? Ever worry about something? Ever feel anxious? If so, then you can be diagnosed with depression. No lying involved.

lol right this just shows that you don't actually have a fucking clue what depression is, so just shut up.

[OngBonga]

You mentioned earlier that doctors get paid a salary. FALSE.

I mean it's almost like you think that the entire world is USA.

[OngBonga]

Who 'pretends to take pills'? Anti-depression drugs, are drugs! Just like weed, or anything else. A drug, is a drug, is a drug, is a drug. The drugs the psychiatrist gives you makes you feel good. People take them. People like them. People get hooked on them. And when they run out, they go see their dealer/doctor, to get more. In order to prescribe more, the doctor has to charge you for more therapy sessions or office visits. Plus he probably gets some kind of commission or kickback on the drugs he prescribes.

Right, so because some people eat happy pills for breakfast, everyone who has depression can't fucking wait to eat these pills.

I have been diagnosed with depression before, and was given pills. I didn't like them. I do like ecstacy though. How curious that there's a person who exists that likes one drug but not another.

[OngBonga]

Even rephrased, you're monumentally wrong. It's easy to get a long term diagnosis and milk it for life. You'll have doctors confirming your diagnosis and possibly feeding you pills throughout your life if you want. It's not fraud if you believe it, and a doctor agrees with you.

If you believe you have depression, then you probably do. I mean honestly, you're just shouting "FALSE" at me without any shred of knwoledge about the system here in the UK. You seem to be applying the USA system to the rest of the world. It doesn't surprise me because that what's Americans do. But, here, doctors get salaries, paid for by the taxpayer, and long term depression sicknotes require either a genuine case of depression, or constant lying.

[BananaStand]

lol right this just shows that you don't actually have a fucking clue what depression is, so just shut up.

I know exactly what depression is. It's what an exploitative pharmaceutical industry uses to deal drugs.

I mean it's almost like you think that the entire world is USA.

So you're saying that salaried doctors have incentive to 'get people out of their office'. That's a pretty powerful argument AGAINST socialized medicine. Sorry for not addressing your shitty medical system.

Right, so because some people eat happy pills for breakfast, everyone who has depression can't fucking wait to eat these pills.

Right. Actually, abruptly stopping a lot of these medications has very bad consequences.

I have been diagnosed with depression before, and was given pills. I didn't like them. I do like ecstacy though. How curious that there's a person who exists that likes one drug but not another.

What's your point? Lots of people don't like oxycontin so they go out and shoot heroin. Some people, just stick with the oxy. The point is, people are hooked on using drugs to treat both real and perceived depression. If you're a drug dealer, you want more depressed people. the ultimate dream for a drug dealer is to be the one who determines if a person is depressed, and sell that person drugs.

If you believe you have depression, then you probably do.

Right, that's pretty much the clinical definition of depression. That's why so much of it us bullshit.

long term depression sicknotes require either a genuine case of depression, or constant lying.

It's not a lie if you believe it. And if you believe it (see above), it's genuine.

[Poopadoop]

Don't forget that if bananaman hasn't experienced something personally it's not a valid issue.

Ten years married to a psychologist and he still doesn't have a clue about what psychology is - that would be funny if it weren't kinda pathetic.

[BananaStand]

Ten years married to a psychologist and he still doesn't have a clue about what psychology is

It's a racket

[Poopadoop]

It's a racket

Like I said, no clue.

[BananaStand]

Like I said, no clue.

Puhhh-leeeeeze. Science really knows about 2% of what's going on in the human brain. The idea that psychologists and psychiatrists know what they're doing is completely berserk.

Once upon a time 40,000 kids/year were diagnosed with ADD in America. Then one day Ritalin was invented, the next year 400,000 kids were diagnosed.

Ever heard of someone who has Aspergers? No you didn't. It's not a real disease. There is literally no such thing as Aspergers. It used to be a thing. But there wasn't a lucrative way to treat it, so when the new DSM was released, Aspergers got cut. if you used to have Aspergers, you probably still have something. it's somewhere on an autism spectrum. Autism is a horrible affliction whose name has been co-opted as means to scare people into paying for more therapy, more testing, and more experimental drugs.

Once upon a time, if you ate a lot of food, you were just considered a fat ass. then they invented drugs to suppress appetite. So, in the last revision to the DSM, they added 'Binge eating' as a clinical disorder.

How do you not see what's going on here?

Psychiatrists are drug dealers, and psychologists are little more than professional friends. Hookers are a far superior alternative

[wufwugy]

I really wish I saved that link of the meta analysis that found most neuro research is not what its claimed to be. It was things like >50% of replicated studies didn't find statistical significance, p-values correlated with journals the studies were published in, some other stuff.

[Poopadoop]

How do you not see what's going on here?

How do you have such a cynical outlook?

I see people who previously had undiagnosed mental illness being diagnosed and treated. Just because there may be some unscrupulous types who take advantage of that for personal gain doesn't mean it's all contrived.

Depression is such a clear example of a disease where a) the neural correlates are well understood; and b) psychology has made great strides in treatment, that the fact you discount it entirely as an illness suggests you have really no clue.

Either you're completely ignorant or you're a troll.

[BananaStand]

You have a field of study that devotes 99.9% of it's time to treating bad feelings, while spending almost NONE cultivating good feelings.

I blows my mind that people give that any credibility.

[wufwugy]

Depression is such a clear example of a disease where a) the neural correlates are well understood; and b) psychology has made great strides in treatment

What are those strides?

[Poopadoop]

I really wish I saved that link of the meta analysis that found most neuro research is not what its claimed to be. It was things like >50% of replicated studies didn't find statistical significance, p-values correlated with journals the studies were published in, some other stuff.

There's a whole load of issues with so-called 'failures to replicate' that make the bolded statement a poor interpretation of what they mean. I've summarised these a couple of weeks ago in the physics thread, so if you want to have a look there.

[Poopadoop]

You have a field of study that devotes 99.9% of it's time to treating bad feelings, while spending almost NONE cultivating good feelings.

I blows my mind that people give that any credibility.

You're completely wrong, but whatever I can't be bothered to argue with a goalpost.

[BananaStand]

What are those strides?

More profitable drugs.....duh!

[Poopadoop]

What are those strides?

Well, in terms of therapy, in a nutshell it's gone from 'tell me about what you dreamt last night' to 'let's examine your ways of thinking and responding to the world and see if there's a better way'.

In terms of drugs its gone from no treatment at all to medicines that increase serotonin levels, thereby improving mood.

[BananaStand]

In terms of drugs its gone from no treatment at all to medicines that increase serotonin levels, thereby improving mood.

Ong....if you're listening....this is why weed is illegal. It's competition.

[wufwugy]

Well, in terms of therapy, in a nutshell it's gone from 'tell me about what you dreamt last night' to 'let's examine your ways of thinking and responding to the world and see if there's a better way'.

In terms of drugs its gone from no treatment at all to medicines that increase serotonin levels, thereby improving mood.

Are there strides being made towards addressing lifestyle?

[wufwugy]

Ong....if you're listening....this is why weed is illegal. It's competition.

In part.

Christians who want to maintain the work ethic, family structure, etc., are a big deal.

Frankly, I don't necessarily disagree with them. If the vote in WA came around on weed again, I would probably vote to make it legal like I did (because principle), but I have been having second thoughts. This state's embrace of pot may be doing a good deal to undermine its more productive institutions. Maybe, maybe not.

[Poopadoop]

Are there strides being made towards addressing lifestyle?

What do you mean by lifestyle?

Another example is the development of anti-psychotics. Prior to their discovery in the 1950s, violent schizophrenics had two treatment options - lobotomy or straitjacket. And that's not just being dramatic, it's a fact. Nowadays, these people can live more-or-less normal lives, or certainly enormously better than they had before.

[Poopadoop]

In part.

Afaik the jury is still out on whether pot is a useful treatment of depression. It certainly doesn't seem to work on everyone.

[Poopadoop]

One of the early treatments of long-term depression was electroconvulsive therapy - essentially running a large enough current through someone's brain that they forgot what was bothering them (and most of everything else they knew). That we've found better ways than this to treat depression is a clear sign that treatment has moved forward.

[wufwugy]

What do you mean by lifestyle?

Another example is the development of anti-psychotics. Prior to their discovery in the 1950s, violent schizophrenics had two treatment options - lobotomy or straitjacket. And that's not just being dramatic, it's a fact. Nowadays, these people can live more-or-less normal lives, or certainly enormously better than they had before.

Regarding "simple" depression (not schizo and others):

Lifestyle is things like this: a 300 pound, lonely, jobless, sexless person says he depressed and wants help. He's likely depressed for reasons of lifestyle. His interests would be served best by eating healthy, exercising, being productive, helping people, etc..

[BananaStand]

His interests would be served best by eating healthy, exercising, being productive, helping people, etc..

-EV for doctors

[Poopadoop]

Regarding "simple" depression (not schizo and others):

Lifestyle is things like this: a 300 pound, lonely, jobless, sexless person says he depressed and wants help. He's likely depressed for reasons of lifestyle. His interests would be served best by eating healthy, exercising, being productive, helping people, etc..

Certainly a good psychologist would be aware of the mood-enhancing properties of a healthy diet and regular exercise and would encourage him towards those things. His doctor should be doing the same thing for reasons of more general health. The jobless and sexless parts don't necessarily follow from the obese part though, and so a good therapist would (I assume) want to explore with him why those issues are present and how they could be addressed, assuming they're contributing to the patient's unhappiness (which seems likely).

There's also a lot to be said for just having a sympathetic, non-judgmental ear to listen to you. I think a fair bit of the benefit of therapy comes from that, especially where the patient sadly doesn't have that kind of relationship with anyone in their own life.

[Savy]

-EV for doctors

You mean the shit that literally everyone gets told when they go to the doctors for issues that are related to this?

[OngBonga]

So you're saying that salaried doctors have incentive to 'get people out of their office'. That's a pretty powerful argument AGAINST socialized medicine. Sorry for not addressing your shitty medical system.

I find it amusing that this is your interpretation of socialised healthcare. Here, doctors have no incentive to sell drugs, because they get the same amount of money every year regardless of the amount of drugs they prescribe. The incentive to "get people out of their office" is a reference to those they think are just trying to milk the system. Doctors don't want to be wasting their time with some scruffy twat who can't get a job saying he's depressed. There's people in the waiting room with problems the doctor can help with.

In America, it seems, based on your comments, that doctors are incentivised to prescribe drugs. You seem to think they prescribe happy pills to make money. And it's our health system that's shitty?

Right, that's pretty much the clinical definition of depression. That's why so much of it us bullshit.

No, it's not. Clinical depression is distinct from depression. I have been diagnosed with depression in the past, but not clinical depression. If I had been diagnosed with the latter, I would have got more money, and a longer sicknote. The former, that's a temporary condition, perhaps brought about by the loss of a loved one. The latter, this is a different ballgame. This is where people are depressed because the chemistry in their brain is abnormal.

You seem to think that anyone claiming to be depressed is simply unhappy because of a specific event in their life. That's why you don't know what depression is, as demonstrated by your "clinical definition". You have no empathy for those who actually have fucked brain chemistry, it's easier for you to call them lazy and pathetic.

Ong....if you're listening....this is why weed is illegal. It's competition.

You're probably right about this. But it's not competition from the doctor's point of view, because here, the doctor does not get paid by the prescription, something which you seem to find cause for alarm. I'm confused why you think our system is shitty, to be honest, when you sit there and shout out the problems of privatised healthcare. The solution to the problems you cite, well one of them is to pay the doctor a salary instead of a commission, taking away the incentive for the doctor to diagnose things like depression.

[wufwugy]

It appears that it's possible I was totally wrong about Trump on Ryan's healthcare bill. It's looking more and more like this might be a tactic to expose Ryan and the GOPe and turn the primaries for the midterms into a referendum on the GOPe, and then get a much better bill with a much better Congress and Senate and less GOPe opposition.

[BananaStand]

I just saw Paul Ryan a few minutes ago explaining 'Phase 2' of the healthcare bill. He claims it won't be a legislative act. He didn't elaborate, but he was emphatic that the Secretary of HHS can implement insurance competition over state lines and pricing transparency on his own.

Sounds kinda promising.

[wufwugy]

I've heard that can be done and can't be done. I don't know which is which.

[JimmyS1985]

I got back from the funeral just now.

"Well, I can assure you, without a doubt, that the way to stimulate job growth is NOT to dis-incentivize work by offering generous gov't support programs to anyone who wants them."

I'm not really a history buff. I know a "little" bit. But I do know that most social programs in place today, did not exist in 1932.

In 1932, you had no SNAP, Welfare, EITC, SCHIP, TANF, Meals On Wheels, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Pell Grants, GI Bill, Public Housing, and so on and so forth.

If you didn't work, you risked starving, or as today would put it "Food Insecurity" which is short of starvation, but still very bad. If you lost your job? You lost all your possessions, assuming you had loans out on them which most citizens did. You lost your car, your house, if you were a farmer you lost your farm. Upon getting fired, it didn't take long for you to find yourself out on the street.

With all these "incentives" to work in place, I don't know much about history, but I assume, 1932, was a golden economic boom year for the United States, because it's basically your ideal economy in action.

So, again, I don't know much about history, but I will look up 1932 and see what the economic conditions, just a quick google search...

Hmm...

Well, what can I say. This is "odd". I'm sorry, I have to plead ignorance, I assumed with so many of your ideal economic forces in action, and a total lack of a safety net, that 1932, would have been one of the greatest years in the history of the US Economy.

Has anyone here ever heard of "The Great Depression"? I haven't. Lets see, we got 25% unemployment despite massive survival instincts to find "work". We have massive shanty towns called "Hoovervilles" where the homeless live outside of every major US City in wood shacks and cardboard boxes, without things as basic as heating, plumbing or electricity. Massive bank foreclosures on peoples houses, farms, and property. Bread lines and soup lines were the only means of obtaining food if you had no income in the day, and these had massive lines around the block. Actually, I hate to say it, but this sounds like, economically speaking, one of the WORST times in US History.

I just don't understand how the economy could have so much of your economic ideals in place, and then turn out mass homelessness. Fluke? I got no idea. It just stuns me, that your ideal economy, actually heralded the worst economic times in US History, for the ordinary American at least.

[bigred]

Regarding "simple" depression (not schizo and others):

Lifestyle is things like this: a 300 pound, lonely, jobless, sexless person says he depressed and wants help. He's likely depressed for reasons of lifestyle. His interests would be served best by eating healthy, exercising, being productive, helping people, etc..

This is an incredibly myopic view of depression and reeks of the "Have you tried not being sad?" approach to treatment. I think your treatment activities are supportive at best to a formal treatment plan involving counseling/therapy and possibly medication, if needed. It's incredibly easy to dismiss depression as an outcome of lifestyle choices and not a complex disease.

[BananaStand]

Trump's taxes are out. Democrats look dumb.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...rn-report.html

[CoccoBill]

Only had to go back 12 years to find a partial sample of having paid some taxes, nice.

That reminds me, someone explain why corporate operating losses are tax deductible?

[BananaStand]

That reminds me, someone explain why corporate operating losses are tax deductible?

Same reason that corporate profits are taxable

[BananaStand]

I'm not really a history buff. I know a "little" bit. But I do know that most social programs in place today, did not exist in 1932.

Dude, there are ALOT of things we have now that didn't exist in 1932.

In 1932, you had no SNAP, Welfare, EITC, SCHIP, TANF, Meals On Wheels, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Pell Grants, GI Bill, Public Housing, and so on and so forth.

So?

Upon getting fired, it didn't take long for you to find yourself out on the street.

Ok, so? I kinda wish it was that way today.

With all these "incentives" to work in place,...... I assume, 1932, was a golden economic boom year for the United States,

How glib can you be? You're equating the existence of social welfare policies with prosperity. Not so.

because it's basically your ideal economy in action.

No my friend. In my 'ideal economy' 9,000 banks would not have failed just three years before. Maybe there's more to the equation here hmmm?

So, again, I don't know much about history, but I will look up 1932 and see what the economic conditions, just a quick google search...

Do some more google searching. Did anything significant happen in 1929?

Well, what can I say. This is "odd". I'm sorry, I have to plead ignorance, I assumed with so many of your ideal economic forces in action, and a total lack of a safety net, that 1932, would have been one of the greatest years in the history of the US Economy.

Rather than argue with this, let's just agree that economics is NOT your strong suit. How's that preventing you from getting a job today though?

Lets see, we got 25% unemployment

Do you think that was caused by a lack of social programs?

Bread lines and soup lines were the only means of obtaining food if you had no income in the day, and these had massive lines around the block.

So there actually were social welfare programs to feed the hungry?? And the worst part about it is that the line was long. Boo....friggen.....hoo buddy. Sorry that in 1932 they didn't have EBT cards, sheesh.

It just stuns me, that your ideal economy, actually heralded the worst economic times in US History

See you're just filtering what you want to hear, ignoring the rest, and hopelessly misconstruing 'my ideal economy'.

First of all, the stock market crashed, and NINE THOUSAND BANKS FAILED in 1929. Of course unemployment was high. That's what happens when businesses don't have access to capital. Same thing happened in 2008, just on a smaller scale. We had massive unemployment then too, and by then, welfare was already a thing. So what's your point?

Your entire premise here is that a lack of social safety nets = high unemployment. That's positively absurd. How does giving free rides to people increase employment??

For the record, I know I mentioned somewhere in this thread that I DO support expansions of social welfare programs in times of crisis. Expanding federal unemployment benefits in 2009 is a fine example. If the government fucks things up resulting in high unemployment, then as stewards of the economy, it's the government's job to fix it.

But that's all based on NEED. My whole point with you Jimmy, is that you don't NEED shit.

You just don't like working, and you expect the rest of us to carry your ass.

It's pathetic.

[wufwugy]

This is an incredibly myopic view of depression and reeks of the "Have you tried not being sad?" approach to treatment. I think your treatment activities are supportive at best to a formal treatment plan involving counseling/therapy and possibly medication, if needed. It's incredibly easy to dismiss depression as an outcome of lifestyle choices and not a complex disease.

I don't recommend that as treatment. You're right that it doesn't really work. Regardless, it can also be the case that lifestyle is a significant cause of depression. There are a lot of depressed people who would likely not be so depressed if they did something like work with their hands, save some of their income consistently, and go mountain hiking on the weekends.

In our society, it is easy to live the kind of life that breeds sadness.

[wufwugy]

I got back from the funeral just now.

"Well, I can assure you, without a doubt, that the way to stimulate job growth is NOT to dis-incentivize work by offering generous gov't support programs to anyone who wants them."

I'm not really a history buff. I know a "little" bit. But I do know that most social programs in place today, did not exist in 1932.

In 1932, you had no SNAP, Welfare, EITC, SCHIP, TANF, Meals On Wheels, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Pell Grants, GI Bill, Public Housing, and so on and so forth.

If you didn't work, you risked starving, or as today would put it "Food Insecurity" which is short of starvation, but still very bad. If you lost your job? You lost all your possessions, assuming you had loans out on them which most citizens did. You lost your car, your house, if you were a farmer you lost your farm. Upon getting fired, it didn't take long for you to find yourself out on the street.

With all these "incentives" to work in place, I don't know much about history, but I assume, 1932, was a golden economic boom year for the United States, because it's basically your ideal economy in action.

So, again, I don't know much about history, but I will look up 1932 and see what the economic conditions, just a quick google search...

Hmm...

Well, what can I say. This is "odd". I'm sorry, I have to plead ignorance, I assumed with so many of your ideal economic forces in action, and a total lack of a safety net, that 1932, would have been one of the greatest years in the history of the US Economy.

Has anyone here ever heard of "The Great Depression"? I haven't. Lets see, we got 25% unemployment despite massive survival instincts to find "work". We have massive shanty towns called "Hoovervilles" where the homeless live outside of every major US City in wood shacks and cardboard boxes, without things as basic as heating, plumbing or electricity. Massive bank foreclosures on peoples houses, farms, and property. Bread lines and soup lines were the only means of obtaining food if you had no income in the day, and these had massive lines around the block. Actually, I hate to say it, but this sounds like, economically speaking, one of the WORST times in US History.

I just don't understand how the economy could have so much of your economic ideals in place, and then turn out mass homelessness. Fluke? I got no idea. It just stuns me, that your ideal economy, actually heralded the worst economic times in US History, for the ordinary American at least.

The Great Depression was a result of the country's favorite monopoly (the Federal Reserve) conducting monetary policy that collapsed the price level and created instability. There is not a thing in the world anybody can do when the condition of money doesn't allow them. You can have perfect fiscal and regulatory policy in every imaginable way, but if the money monopoly fucks up, havoc will ensue.

[CoccoBill]

Same reason that corporate profits are taxable

Then why aren't my poker losses tax deductible?

[BananaStand]

Then why aren't my poker losses tax deductible?

They are

[JimmyS1985]

The Great Depression was a result of the country's favorite monopoly (the Federal Reserve) conducting monetary policy that collapsed the price level and created instability. There is not a thing in the world anybody can do when the condition of money doesn't allow them. You can have perfect fiscal and regulatory policy in every imaginable way, but if the money monopoly fucks up, havoc will ensue.

Yea?

Well I looked up the history of Depressions in this country.

Andrew Jackson ended the centralized bank in place during his tenure. We had "The Panic of 1837" "The Panic of 1857" "The Panic of 1873" "The Panic of 1893" and "The Panic of 1907". No centralized bank the whole time. Since the FED came into place, we've had ONE depression, but believe me just because these other ones weren't nearly as bad, they were still massive economic suffering. And by 1907, the politicians of the era, were getting sick of having a depression every 20 years. I think to argue to disband the FED, is essentially arguing in favor, of having a Depression every 20 years in this country, because that's essentially what we had without the FED in place.


I can not name a single developed country on planet earth, that doesn't have a centralized bank.

[Savy]

I can not name a single developed country on planet earth, that doesn't have a centralized bank.

So if every country has something it must be a good thing?

Aids.

[wufwugy]

Yea?

Well I looked up the history of Depressions in this country.

Andrew Jackson ended the centralized bank in place during his tenure. We had "The Panic of 1837" "The Panic of 1857" "The Panic of 1873" "The Panic of 1893" and "The Panic of 1907". No centralized bank the whole time. Since the FED came into place, we've had ONE depression, but believe me just because these other ones weren't nearly as bad, they were still massive economic suffering. And by 1907, the politicians of the era, were getting sick of having a depression every 20 years. I think to argue to disband the FED, is essentially arguing in favor, of having a Depression every 20 years in this country, because that's essentially what we had without the FED in place.


I can not name a single developed country on planet earth, that doesn't have a centralized bank.

A topic change used as a refutation is often a tell for cognitive dissonance.

[BananaStand]

Well I looked up the history of Depressions in this country......I can not name a single developed country on planet earth, that doesn't have a centralized bank.

Dude.....what are you trying to prove here? A little bit ago, it was Republicans 'fucking you over'. Now you want to talk about banks in 1907?"

I really don't know what your problem is. America isn't perfect, but it's certainly provides more than enough opportunity for someone like yourself to enjoy a prosperous life. If you're gonna roll your eyes and go on foolishly believing that the system is stacked against you, you're going to be fucking miserable forever.

[JimmyS1985]

Dude.....what are you trying to prove here? A little bit ago, it was Republicans 'fucking you over'. Now you want to talk about banks in 1907?"

I really don't know what your problem is. America isn't perfect, but it's certainly provides more than enough opportunity for someone like yourself to enjoy a prosperous life. If you're gonna roll your eyes and go on foolishly believing that the system is stacked against you, you're going to be fucking miserable forever.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...-dream-europe/

I'm just pointing out the fact that you are actually more likely to achieve the "American Dream" in Western Europe, than you are here in the United States.

"The United States is "behind many countries in Europe in terms of the ability of every kid in America to get ahead.""

I told you my work history. Long hours, shitty pay, poverty stricken at the end of the day. If a cop pulls me over during one of my commutes, I'm losing weeks and weeks, and weeks, of disposable income.

Besides the mailroom ,the only job I held that paid me decently for time/work invested was drug dealing, but unfortunately, that's highly illegal.

Furthermore, considering I was 1 of a room full of autistic people to NOT be on disability, I think you should be glad that I'm the only guy there not withdrawing government benefits when everyone else. Boo fucking hoo, my healthcare is covered. If we can afford $1.5 trillion for the failed F35 program, my healthcare is the least of this country's concerns.