**** Elections thread *****

[Jack Sawyer]

Why don't you think the government is out of control?

Because if the government was out of control, you'd have a situation not unlike Chávez Frías/Castro/The Kim-Jong's/Erdogan/Putin/Pinochet/Afewerki/al-Assad/al-Bashir/Mugabe/Mbasogo/Karimov/Zanawi Asres etc.

It's definitely not like those situations atm in the US, but that corruption though (highlighted by Trump's ironic cabinet picks despite claims of "draining the swamp" during his campaign). Pay to play at its finest

[wufwugy]

Because if the government was out of control, you'd have a situation not unlike Chávez Frías/Castro/The Kim-Jong's/Erdogan/Putin/Pinochet/Afewerki/al-Assad/al-Bashir/Mugabe/Mbasogo/Karimov/Zanawi Asres etc.

It's definitely not like those situations atm in the US, the corruption though (highlighted by Trump's ironic cabinet picks despite claims of "draining the swamp" during his campaign)

"Out of control" only consists of the most extreme scenarios?

When I think of out of control, I think of things like taxes going from the intended ~<5% to ~50% in order to pay people to be less productive. Or regulations increasing by 1000000whateverX and providing little to no real protection. For the Intel Community to be out of control, government itself probably has to be out of control in the first place. Can you think of some other way a corrupt IC would get its funding and legitimacy?

[Poopadoop]

For the Intel Community to be out of control, government itself probably has to be out of control in the first place. Can you think of some other way a corrupt IC would get its funding and legitimacy?

For this example I can think of a plausible scenario arising whereby the 'top secret' nature of their work makes it difficult to hold them accountable.

If the taxpayers knew (e.g.,) that the CIA was planning to dust off some foreign leader ahead of time they'd be all up in their shit. But since that never happens and we only hear about it years later, it becomes a fait accompli by then.

That is until Putinleaks puts out some stuff about the CIA watching you on your own TV.

[Savy]

Sounds like someone's a bit upset about not being able to look at sheep porn any more.

I make my sheep porn viewing habbits very well hidden compared to the average internet user.

[Jack Sawyer]

"Out of control" only consists of the most extreme scenarios?


When I think of out of control, I think of things like taxes going from the intended ~<5% to ~50% in order to pay people to be less productive. Or regulations increasing by 1000000whateverX and providing little to no real protection. For the Intel Community to be out of control, government itself probably has to be out of control in the first place. Can you think of some other way a corrupt IC would get its funding and legitimacy?

You asked for out of control.


The intel community is definitely out of control. They are unelected, and really do as they please apparently.


The US has its priorities out of whack though, I give you that. Like how defense spending is more important than education for instance. Like putting the most taxes on those who can’t afford it the most. But it’s not yet out of control. If it was, then you’d have to abandon all hope and move on.

[Jack Sawyer]

That is until Putinleaks puts out some stuff about the CIA watching you on your own TV.

Yup.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/7/148...ndroid-samsung

[Poopadoop]

I make my sheep porn viewing habbits very well hidden compared to the average internet user.

At least you used to. Right now someone at MI-whatever is jotting down your address.

[wufwugy]

Like how defense spending is more important than education for instance. Like putting the most taxes on those who can’t afford it the most.

There is legitimate explanation for both of those.

Smart defense spending (which includes drowning out the competition) leads to less war. The world discovered this the hard way when Britain and France went full blown pacifist, giving a nasty regime (Nazis) an opening. Regarding education, parents should be in charge of what their kids are taught. You wouldn't let the government dictate what you feed your kids, so why give the government so much control over what your kids learn?

The tax thing is a fantastic example of the counterintuitive nature of economics. When tax policy favors poverty and punishes wealth, it actually creates more poverty and less wealth. A society that optimizes social mobility makes it pay to move up, not pay to stay put. Contemporary western tax policies tend to make it pay to stay put. There can be some room for some progressiveness in tax policy, but when a media personality says a particular tax policy hurts the poor and helps the rich, make note that he probably has it wrong.

[Savy]

At least you used to. Right now someone at MI-whatever is jotting down your address.

Tbf my internet browsing history is incredibly vanilla. The most incriminating thing I do is post on FTR. I'm boringly logical and have little to no psychotic traits, wish I did. A mental illness would be the most interesting thing about me.

[Savy]

Smart defense spending (which includes drowning out the competition) leads to less war. The world discovered this the hard way when Britain went full blown pacifist, giving a nasty regime (Nazis) an opening.

I don't know what you learnt about ww2 but we (or preferably I) crushed their dreams.

[wufwugy]

One of the natures of economics is higher-order effects. First-order logic is something like "cutting the top marginal tax rate and paying for it by eliminating a subsidy for the poor benefits the rich at the expense of the poor." The first-order analysis is pretty much always wrong because there are higher order effects that dominate.

Voters tend to apply first-order logic to economics, which is where we get loads of subsidies and regulations meant to help the poor actually causing the poor to stay poor. One of the best ways to help the poor is to stop "helping the poor." When society gives benefits to the poor dependent on their status of poverty, it increases the costs of them exiting poverty, thereby reducing their incentive to exit poverty and reducing the probability that they will exit poverty.

[Savy]

You deleted your post saying you don't get it so here is a good reference.

[wufwugy]

I've seen that like eight times.

[Savy]

I would start claiming personal ownership of great historic events as a parody of nationalism if not for fear of being elected to office.

[Savy]

I've seen that like eight times.

Most of those times due to me posting it but it really does nail it.

[wufwugy]

I would start claiming personal ownership of great historic events as a parody of nationalism if not for fear of being elected to office.

ilold

[Savy]

ilold

I feel like I used to like you because you were earnest & now I feel like that is mostly fictional.

I also feel like I'm really funny.

Hence the confliction.

[wufwugy]

your mom's a cunt. better?

[Savy]

your mom's a cunt. better?

earnest not honest

[wufwugy]

oh yeah those are different aren't they.

yeah im much less intense on here these days.

[Savy]

oh yeah those are different aren't they.

yeah im much less intense on here these days.

Is it intensity of just different?

That is a somewhat serious question, I (at least to me) clearly don't dislike you but I do also have a thing for people who are earnest. I think one of my flaws when younger was that I was overly earnest whilst being very sarcastic, it's a strange mix. Made me some very good friends but can be very alienating. I also think being earnest is a fairly non-optimal route for most things and as a result have changed somewhat myself.

[wufwugy]

It depends. Friends would probably describe me as half earnest half not. The debate stuff on this board definitely is one extreme of my personality that is lessened irl. That's probably true for most. One way it's different is that irl earnestness will tend to show up more when in agreement with the other party, but online when in disagreement.

[wufwugy]

also ive been told several times here that my earnestness is off-putting. so i lessen it. the unintended consequences!

[Savy]

also ive been told several times here that my earnestness is off-putting. so i lessen it. the unintended consequences!

I agree it's non-optimal it's just a exploitative measure to me. I wanted to link to Johnny Vegas doing a great bit about a horrible person on a tv show was his favourite person due to how earnest he was and how that in todays society is such a thing to value but I couldn't find it. I also massacre the experience putting it in such poor writing but I feel somewhat similar, or at least used to.

[wufwugy]

For this example I can think of a plausible scenario arising whereby the 'top secret' nature of their work makes it difficult to hold them accountable.

If the taxpayers knew (e.g.,) that the CIA was planning to dust off some foreign leader ahead of time they'd be all up in their shit. But since that never happens and we only hear about it years later, it becomes a fait accompli by then.

That's a good point and is consistent with factors regarding the deep state.

[Jack Sawyer]

Intermezzo: Relevant but irrelevant

This is from a smart man whose every word I listen to




Ok, carry on

[OngBonga]

Sounds like someone's a bit upset about not being able to look at sheep porn any more.

Savy is Welsh?

[OngBonga]

At least you used to. Right now someone at MI-whatever is jotting down your address.

Let's hope the "l" button isn't broken.

(joke only people who know Welsh town names will get)

[OngBonga]

So what do you think they use those powers for? Crime prevention, stopping terrorists, etc., or something more sinister? If the former, then isn't this a good thing? And if the latter, then what sinister purpose exactly do you think they're using the info for?

If smart TVs are able to spy on people, then they can be used for sinister motives. Here's a few I can think of... exposing affairs of prominent people for political purposes, voyeurism (if you think that civil servants don't abuse their tools, you're naive in the extreme), blackmail, fucking TV license enforcement, targetted advertising based on your private conversations, intellectual property law enforcement, perhaps petty law enforcement like weed trades between friends, and the ability of government to listen in on private conversations... classic spying in every household which could be used for political purposes. This list isn't exclusive, there's going to be many more ways such tools can be abused.

If you're happy to have the government listen to your private conversations in your living room while you eat a curry with the missus, then that's a very sad reflection of how much your value your freedom.

[OngBonga]

Like, if you're happy for the government to listen to you and your wife talk about your earlier visit to the carpet museum, surely you're ok with me watching her having a shower? I'm not doing any harm, just enjoying her phsyical shape.

[Poopadoop]

Like, if you're happy for the government to listen to you and your wife talk about your earlier visit to the carpet museum, surely you're ok with me watching her having a shower? I'm not doing any harm, just enjoying her phsyical shape.

It's not that I'm happy about it I just don't think it's actually happening to the average person. Just because they have the capability to spy on anyone doesn't mean they're actively spying on everyone. I'm sure it's much more targeted than that.

There are cameras on satellites that can read a license plate. Does that mean one of these cameras is following you around all day to see what brand of toothpaste you buy? That's a pretty expensive use of resources for no clear purpose.

So no, I'm not ok with the idea that the gov't COULD spy on me if they so wanted. But at the same time I think it's arrogant of anyone who's just minding their own business to think the gov't doesn't have better things to do than watch them go around minding their own business.

[CoccoBill]

So because you assume that you or the "average person", whoever that is, probably would not be subjected to continuous breaches of privacy, it's nothing to worry about? They already have all your phone calls, emails, instant messages, fb posts and all that stored so they can e.g. do some searches for keywords to it, see if anything suspicious comes up. That's already happening. For all the encrypted data too, mind you, just waiting there until they can decrypt it. The TV thingy would extend that to include all your private conversations at home. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean you'll personally ever be affected, but think how this data can be used in the wrong hands, say by a leader who wants to identify dissidents or political opponents. Just because you can't immediately come up with a way for this to affect you, someone else might.

Anyone who feels they have nothing to hide, how bout I set up a web page where I'll copy your bank and credit card statements every month. Would that be ok? I'm not supposing there's anything illegal there, but think for a moment how you'd feel if your parents, employer, spouse, neighbor etc all knew exactly which purchases you're making. Nothing to hide?

[wufwugy]

Redistribution ain't work: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...scal_tran.html

[Savy]

It's not that I'm happy about it I just don't think it's actually happening to the average person. Just because they have the capability to spy on anyone doesn't mean they're actively spying on everyone. I'm sure it's much more targeted than that.

The mental thing is that it isn't. They literally just collect data. What you're probably correct on is that the vast majority of it they don't do anything with but that's a very different thing.

[BananaStand]

Who does these right wing nutjobs think they're fooling??

This doesn't even mention Russia. PFFFFFFFFFT

https://heatst.com/politics/study-hi...igns-in-years/

[JimmyS1985]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm losing my healthcare if ACA goes under, and Medicaid gets turned into Ryan's dream "Block grant" system. I don't ask for shit from this country BUT for healthcare. I do not believe it is in my family's best interest to have to choose between financial ruin, and letting me die because it's "cheaper" on the family's finances. If you believe I am wrong about this and financial ruin at the hands of the Healthcare Industry is a superior alternative, do let me know.

It's nice to know that I was right to believe that the Republicans would fuck me over if they got into power, prior to the election.

Oh and my brother, works as a mail distribution clerk at a community college. Makes about $30,000 a year, with some benefits because after 10 years of working as a Part-Time Temp, he got promoted to Full-time worker. (Ironically, I worked in that same mail room, I was thusly laid off, as a result of his promotion due to nepotism policies.)

The new Republican governor who replaced the Democrat, just announced major cuts in funding for all colleges in Missouri. To finance this cut in funding, my brother, along with every other employee at the college, is facing a mandatory 3% pay cut, so he's losing about $1,000 a year and he's not even wealthy to begin with.

This is in Missouri: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/m...fc6fc0501.html

Yep, I can't say for you guys, but I can admit my family is going to get FUCKED under this new wave of Republican politicians.

[BananaStand]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm losing my healthcare if ACA goes under

I'm not. You know why? I'm a grown up with a job.

I don't ask for shit from this country BUT for healthcare.

A dubious claim given the content and tone of virtually all of your posts.

I do not believe it is in my family's best interest to have to choose between financial ruin, and letting me die because it's "cheaper" on the family's finances.

When you say "my family" are you talking about your mom? Aren't you an adult? If by family you mean your own wife and kids, I'll stand corrected, but I'm pretty sure you're talking about people who have already taken care of you long enough.

Second, how is anyone 'letting you die'? Do you have some kind of terminal illness?

financial ruin at the hands of the Healthcare Industry

I know just how you feel man. I felt the same way when ACA went into effect. See, I'm one of those people who did just fine under the old system, and felt the financial pain when I started having to pay for grown up babies like you.

It's nice to know that I was right to believe that the Republicans would fuck me over

Right, that was the plan all along. Fuck Jimmy. Go ahead, let's hear you rant about how the extra money your paying is only going to some doctor's beach house. Tell us all about how the mean old corporations and the 1% are just sadistic ass holes who pick on poor people for fun.

Oh and my brother, works as a mail distribution clerk at a community college. Makes about $30,000 a year, with some benefits because after 10 years of working as a Part-Time Temp, he got promoted to Full-time worker.

I'm sorry, does this community college OWN your brother? Is slavery still legal in your state? Sounds to me like he CHOSE to work as a part time temp for 10 years. Guess what, he's not allowed to complain about not climbing the ladder fast enough.

(Ironically, I worked in that same mail room, I was thusly laid off, as a result of his promotion due to nepotism policies.)

There is definitely more to that story. Not really interested though. If I look through all your posts, it seems you've lost ALOT of jobs. The only consistent factor in all of your disappointing relationships, is YOU.

The new Republican governor who replaced the Democrat, just announced major cuts in funding for all colleges in Missouri.

Well, what did you do to piss him off?

To finance this cut in funding, my brother, along with every other employee at the college, is facing a mandatory 3% pay cut,

Ouch. Maybe he should look for another job. Unemployment in missouri is under 6%. Shouldn't be hard, unless he's a moron.

so he's losing about $1,000 a year and he's not even wealthy to begin with.

So the school should have only cut salaries of the rich people?

Yep, I can't say for you guys, but I can admit my family is going to get FUCKED under this new wave of Republican politicians.

Unless......

Nah... it's too crazy.....


Although... it just might work

Spoiler: Show

Work harder

[wufwugy]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm losing my healthcare if ACA goes under, and Medicaid gets turned into Ryan's dream "Block grant" system. I don't ask for shit from this country BUT for healthcare. I do not believe it is in my family's best interest to have to choose between financial ruin, and letting me die because it's "cheaper" on the family's finances. If you believe I am wrong about this and financial ruin at the hands of the Healthcare Industry is a superior alternative, do let me know.

It's nice to know that I was right to believe that the Republicans would fuck me over if they got into power, prior to the election.

Oh and my brother, works as a mail distribution clerk at a community college. Makes about $30,000 a year, with some benefits because after 10 years of working as a Part-Time Temp, he got promoted to Full-time worker. (Ironically, I worked in that same mail room, I was thusly laid off, as a result of his promotion due to nepotism policies.)

The new Republican governor who replaced the Democrat, just announced major cuts in funding for all colleges in Missouri. To finance this cut in funding, my brother, along with every other employee at the college, is facing a mandatory 3% pay cut, so he's losing about $1,000 a year and he's not even wealthy to begin with.

This is in Missouri: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/m...fc6fc0501.html

Yep, I can't say for you guys, but I can admit my family is going to get FUCKED under this new wave of Republican politicians.

I'm very sorry to hear that.

[Poopadoop]

I'm very sorry to hear that.

Same here.

[JimmyS1985]

I think we can both agree Paul Ryan's ideal healthcare plan is "If MY kids get cancer, they're covered. If YOURS does, FUCK YOU!"

Alright, I think I get what you're saying.

America's largest employer is Walmart.

And the Walton family has roughly $144 billion. And I believe Part-Time workers make roughly $10 an hour. So if I WANTED to work 14.4 billion hours, assuming I was eager enough and put in the time, I too could have $144 billion for my family just like the Waltons right?

Like I said, every job I've ever held paid shit wages, furthermore I got a criminal record so my options are limited.

Argue all you want man, YOUR POLITICS FUCKED MY FAMILY OVER. We can both agree on that. I'm losing my healthcare, and my brother is getting a pay cut.

[BananaStand]

I'm very sorry to hear that.

Not me. Except the part about letting him die. If he actually has a terminal illness, that's legit bad news, and I'm very sorry.

But if he's an adult of sound mind and body.....he's just fucking whining.

[JimmyS1985]

To be fair, besides the pay cut, nothing has happened yet, but the ball is in motion, and I am a bit concerned. I just don't believe I'll have healthcare if Ryan does the block grant system.

My brother is definitely facing a pay cut at a job he's held for 15 years thanks to the new Republican Governor. It should kick in at the start of the new fiscal year.

[BananaStand]

I think we can both agree Paul Ryan's ideal healthcare plan is "If MY kids get cancer, they're covered. If YOURS does, FUCK YOU!"

Yeah, I think I heard him say that too. Check the Huffington Post, or CNN. They probably have a quote.

Alright, I think I get what you're saying.

No, you clearly don't.

Walton family has roughly $144 billion.

So Sam Walton is now your 'standard' by which all citizens should be judged? Everyone should be billionaires?

And I believe Part-Time workers make roughly $10 an hour.

Why are you only working part time? What's do you do all day that keeps you too busy to earn a living?

So if I WANTED to work 14.4 billion hours, assuming I was eager enough and put in the time, I too could have $144 billion for my family just like the Waltons right?

If you worked that many hours and were still making $10/hour by the end of it, then I can safely say that republicans are NOT your problem.

Sam Walton wasn't born a billionaire. He started right where you are, at the bottom. He began his career as a farmhand. Oprah Winfrey also came from a dirt poor family. They got to the top without working 14.4 billion hours. Obviously, upward mobility is possible. If you're still at the bottom, maybe you fucked up.

Like I said, every job I've ever held paid shit wages,

Why? Find a job that pays better then. Dont' tell me you can't, because you can. If it's difficult, it's probably a reflection on YOU.

furthermore I got a criminal record so my options are limited.

OOOOH now we're getting somewhere. So you'd be further ahead in life both professionally and economically if you didn't chose to commit a crime. But it's the republicans who are 'fucking you over'. I totally get it. LOL.

Coincidentally, can you pass a drug screen right now? Any chance that's holding you back too? Are you starting to see how your own choices have created your situation, and not the big bad GOP?

Argue all you want man, YOUR POLITICS FUCKED MY FAMILY OVER.

Sucks bro

We can both agree on that..

Yes, we both agree that government policies that curb social welfare spending, and increase job growth, will definitely have the most adverse affect on the most lazy citizens. I'm not sure "fucked over" is the term I would use.

I'm losing my healthcare, and my brother is getting a pay cut.

Where's my tiny violin?

[Jack Sawyer]

It's not that I'm happy about it I just don't think it's actually happening to the average person. Just because they have the capability to spy on anyone doesn't mean they're actively spying on everyone. I'm sure it's much more targeted than that.

There are cameras on satellites that can read a license plate. Does that mean one of these cameras is following you around all day to see what brand of toothpaste you buy? That's a pretty expensive use of resources for no clear purpose.

So no, I'm not ok with the idea that the gov't COULD spy on me if they so wanted. But at the same time I think it's arrogant of anyone who's just minding their own business to think the gov't doesn't have better things to do than watch them go around minding their own business.

Poop, gov spying is like lolbad. You have rights guarding you against precisely this. Many people died so that you could get these rights

[Poopadoop]

Poop, gov spying is like lolbad. You have rights guarding you against precisely this. Many people died so that you could get these rights

I know, and if I ever catch them doing it I will have a civil case up in court so fast it will make their heads spin.

Until then I've got bigger things to worry about than if the gov't has the technology if not the manpower to spy on every single person in the country.

[Jack Sawyer]

Who does these right wing nutjobs think they're fooling??

This doesn't even mention Russia. PFFFFFFFFFT


https://heatst.com/politics/study-hi...igns-in-years/

This is not new info. Like comissioning a study to confirm what everyone already knows (or at least should know. It's massively evident to all but the most ardent Hillary supporters, the militant feminists)

[Jack Sawyer]

I know, and if I ever catch them doing it I will have a civil case up in court so fast it will make their heads spin.

Until then I've got bigger things to worry about than if the gov't has the technology if not the manpower to spy on every single person in the country.

Frog in a boiling pot does not know until it's too late (i.e. dead)

When you go looking for your right like "where they at" to only realize you have been systematically stripped of these, "legally", for years



In the words of Alastor Moody, "CONSTANT VIGILANCE!" You have to ensure constant vigilance t ensure you don't get digitally raped by their constant vigilance, all in the name of "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" somehow

[JimmyS1985]

Sorry if I was a bit harsh in my reply, I lost my grandpa 2 days ago, he was 97 so maybe my emotions have been getting the better of me and it showed on this forum.

[Poopadoop]

Frog in a boiling pot does not know until it's too late (i.e. dead)

When you go looking for your right like "where they at" to only realize you have been systematically stripped of these, "legally", for years



In the words of Alastor Moody, "CONSTANT VIGILANCE!" You have to ensure constant vigilance t ensure you don't get digitally raped by their constant vigilance, all in the name of "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" somehow

I've got a life to live, I don't have time to check my toaster for a hidden microphone. Come on man.

[Jack Sawyer]

Sorry if I was a bit harsh in my reply, I lost my grandpa 2 days ago, he was 97 so maybe my emotions have been getting the better of me and it showed on this forum.

My condolences bra. On the upside, he did live a full life to get that high up in the odo. He must have had wonderful stories to tell

[Jack Sawyer]

I'm not. You know why? I'm a grown up with a job.



A dubious claim given the content and tone of virtually all of your posts.




When you say "my family" are you talking about your mom? Aren't you an adult? If by family you mean your own wife and kids, I'll stand corrected, but I'm pretty sure you're talking about people who have already taken care of you long enough.


Second, how is anyone 'letting you die'? Do you have some kind of terminal illness?




I know just how you feel man. I felt the same way when ACA went into effect. See, I'm one of those people who did just fine under the old system, and felt the financial pain when I started having to pay for grown up babies like you.




Right, that was the plan all along. Fuck Jimmy. Go ahead, let's hear you rant about how the extra money your paying is only going to some doctor's beach house. Tell us all about how the mean old corporations and the 1% are just sadistic ass holes who pick on poor people for fun.




I'm sorry, does this community college OWN your brother? Is slavery still legal in your state? Sounds to me like he CHOSE to work as a part time temp for 10 years. Guess what, he's not allowed to complain about not climbing the ladder fast enough.




There is definitely more to that story. Not really interested though. If I look through all your posts, it seems you've lost ALOT of jobs. The only consistent factor in all of your disappointing relationships, is YOU.




Well, what did you do to piss him off?




Ouch. Maybe he should look for another job. Unemployment in missouri is under 6%. Shouldn't be hard, unless he's a moron.




So the school should have only cut salaries of the rich people?




Unless......


Nah... it's too crazy.....




Although... it just might work

Spoiler: Show

Work harder

You can't be this heartless.




I'm starting to actually feel bad for you. It must be hard being around people while absolutely giving zero fucks about your fellow man like this. You are like the guy analyzing the protomolecule in The Expanse, except not as smart as him.


Unless you are an actual bonafide troll account. In that case, well played Spoon, well played.

[JimmyS1985]

I apologize bananastand. Been a rough day is all I can say.

I wasn't really mad at you bananastand, I just been a bit emotional lately.

I didn't share it with anyone on here, and I bet you even wonder if I'm a habitual liar. My grandpa died, and maybe I've lashed out at people, where I shouldn't. Not to mention I'm autistic and we can be rough around the edges.

You can read about me sharing his death here (does anyone on here play coh2? I'm a lot better at coh2 than I am at poker).


https://www.coh2.org/topic/59679/my-...#post_id596717

[Jack Sawyer]

I've got a life to live, I don't have time to check my toaster for a hidden microphone. Come on man.

Hahaha I'm not saying you should. Def don't go the paranoid route, I've seen people go that route and it isn't pretty.


But you should protect your rights at all costs. They are your rights, just as they are everyone elses. Be more avtice on the rights front.


I typically see it happening when they come for your rights, in this case it's your right to privacy. It's either going to be for teerroristsss or for the children. In any case, the end result is that you now must allow them to collect your info (data, text, voice, pics,anything) to keep you safe.


Like this


http://www.independent.ie/world-news...-35374040.html


Watch this bit, which is a humorous bit on the state of surveillance we find ourselves in nowadays


https://cantheyseemydick.com/

[Jack Sawyer]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm losing my healthcare if ACA goes under, and Medicaid gets turned into Ryan's dream "Block grant" system. I don't ask for shit from this country BUT for healthcare. I do not believe it is in my family's best interest to have to choose between financial ruin, and letting me die because it's "cheaper" on the family's finances. If you believe I am wrong about this and financial ruin at the hands of the Healthcare Industry is a superior alternative, do let me know.


It's nice to know that I was right to believe that the Republicans would fuck me over if they got into power, prior to the election.


Oh and my brother, works as a mail distribution clerk at a community college. Makes about $30,000 a year, with some benefits because after 10 years of working as a Part-Time Temp, he got promoted to Full-time worker. (Ironically, I worked in that same mail room, I was thusly laid off, as a result of his promotion due to nepotism policies.)


The new Republican governor who replaced the Democrat, just announced major cuts in funding for all colleges in Missouri. To finance this cut in funding, my brother, along with every other employee at the college, is facing a mandatory 3% pay cut, so he's losing about $1,000 a year and he's not even wealthy to begin with.


This is in Missouri: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/m...fc6fc0501.html


Yep, I can't say for you guys, but I can admit my family is going to get FUCKED under this new wave of Republican politicians.

I'm sorry to hear that man. Fuckin' rough, damn

[wufwugy]

I know, and if I ever catch them doing it I will have a civil case up in court so fast it will make their heads spin.

Until then I've got bigger things to worry about than if the gov't has the technology if not the manpower to spy on every single person in the country.

It's funny, several years ago (back when my politics were totally different), I argued your point almost exactly. I still think it's legitimate. It's not like the CIA is actually going to use its ill-begotten information against you. In fact, you would hope they do so you can sue dat ass (and win).

However, I have come to learn that the issue goes deeper. Today they target only dissident leaders. What effect does that have on my life (or of progeny)? Nothing direct, but a whole lot indirect. Even if wrongful spying is a small bad today, that small bad is a necessary bad to move a society from free to oppressed.

[wufwugy]

Hate that Trump speaks positively of that bullshit womens day bullshit. You wanna have more divisions in society? This is how you have more divisions in society.

[BananaStand]

You can't be this heartless.

I prefer to call it: ruthless pragmatism.

All I see here is a perfectly able adult man who thinks that the world owes him a living. Sorry, but that pisses me off like nothing else. It's literally everything that's wrong with america.

If he wants a world where the government provides everything and people are shepherded through life, then he should move to Europe.

[wufwugy]

where the government provides everything and people are shepherded through life, Europe.

[Poopadoop]

I apologize bananastand. Been a rough day is all I can say.

I wasn't really mad at you bananastand, I just been a bit emotional lately.

I didn't share it with anyone on here, and I bet you even wonder if I'm a habitual liar. My grandpa died, and maybe I've lashed out at people, where I shouldn't. Not to mention I'm autistic and we can be rough around the edges.

You can read about me sharing his death here (does anyone on here play coh2? I'm a lot better at coh2 than I am at poker).


https://www.coh2.org/topic/59679/my-...#post_id596717

There's no need for you to apologize to anyone. Sorry to hear about your gramps dude.

[JimmyS1985]

I prefer to call it: ruthless pragmatism.

All I see here is a perfectly able adult man who thinks that the world owes him a living. Sorry, but that pisses me off like nothing else. It's literally everything that's wrong with america.

If he wants a world where the government provides everything and people are shepherded through life, then he should move to Europe.

I left the work force because my hard work wasn't resulting in me breaking from low income. Your solution is "get a different job". I held, I don't know 8 jobs? I've held lots of jobs.

I think the best paying one was at a car wash I held briefly for 2 weeks before getting fired back in 2003, $15 an hour with tips included.

Believe me, I went around, and got lots of different jobs. Most jobs I got fired from or came close to it, and even the jobs I held long term, persistently left me poverty stricken at the end of the day.

I was low income not due to a lack of hard work, but in spite of it. And a lot of Americans are in the same boat as me, 51% of US workers make $30,000 or less per year, and 38% of US workers make $20,000 or less per year. I was always in that $20,000 or less marker, and more often than not, $10,000 or less.

I go to my autism support group, and believe I'm odd man out, in that I'm one of the only people there who ISN'T on disability.

I may get a job again, seems that if I really buckled down and studied poker hard, at least there's still some potential here to make gains.

If I want Social Security Disability, I'm going to have to apply and prove that I can't hold a job anyways, so that's probably what will happen.

If Jason Chaffetz can get the cost of a year of health insurance down to the cost of a new iPhone, I'll gladly buy my own health insurance. At least that's what I hope he was implying when he said "Poor people are going to have to make choices, healthcare, or that new iPhone they want". Right now insurance on the market costs about 23 iPhones a year, so if he can get it's costs down to 1 iPhone per year, I'll gladly sign up for that.

My mom's basically a Capitalist, not in a major way, but that's where a lot of the family's income and wealth comes from besides their pensions. I see her make more money in the click of a mouse, than I could 6 months of working at my average job, and I won't like, it's like, why the f should I work, if making butt loads of money is that simple for her?

[BananaStand]

I left the work force because my hard work wasn't resulting in me breaking from low income.

Wait a minute. So you're attitude is to quit just because you weren't being given raises fast enough?

Your solution is "get a different job". I held, I don't know 8 jobs? I've held lots of jobs.

Pick one and stick with it.

I think the best paying one was at a car wash I held briefly for 2 weeks before getting fired back in 2003, $15 an hour with tips included.

Sounds like more than a fair wage, way more. Why did you get fired? Is it possible it was YOUR fault? If so, what do you think the world owes you? You had a job, making good money, and you blew it. If your quality of life suffers because of it, how is that Republicans fault?

Believe me,

I don't. I really truly don't.

I went around, and got lots of different jobs.

Pick one. It's tough to climb the ladder if you hop from job to job.

Most jobs I got fired from or came close to it,

So everyone who has seen you work, fired you. Are you really working hard enough?

and even the jobs I held long term, persistently left me poverty stricken at the end of the day.

This is what pisses me off. You held unskilled, entry-level jobs. What did you expect? Why do you think that just showing up for work entitles you to be non-poverty stricken? A job bagging groceries was never meant to provide a prosperous living for an adult individual. Those kind of jobs are meant for part-time workers seeking to augment their income. They're meant for college kids to work after classes. They're for spouses who want to generate a second income for the household.

I was low income not due to a lack of hard work, but in spite of it.

Not possible. there's no way this is true and you still got fired from 8 jobs. Were you ever late? Did you ever volunteer to work overtime? Did you every fuck up a job? While in the workplace, did you demonstrate anything close to the attitude you've demonstrated here? If you worked for me, I'd fire you.

And a lot of Americans are in the same boat as me, 51% of US workers make $30,000 or less per year, and 38% of US workers make $20,000 or less per year. I was always in that $20,000 or less marker, and more often than not, $10,000 or less.

Misleading stats. the high school kid working 10 hours a week bagging groceries is really bringing the average down. I'm assuming your screen name is indicative of your age. So you're 31 year old I'm assuming. You should be able to get a job making $12/hour, or more, no problem. That's about $400/week after taxes. How is that not plenty for you to live on, especially considering you live with your mom?

400 is only if you work a minimum full time schedule. If you put in 8 to 10 hours overtime per week, you'll make an extra 500-700 per month. Tons of places hire for a few months around xmas time. So with a little effort, you should be able to pull in another 3000-5000 per year.

What do you deserve beyond that? Why do you think the government owes you any more than that? They government's job is provide a competitive and fair market place. They ensure that you can't be denied a job because of your race, etc. They ensure that fair labor practices are followed. that's it. Beyond that, you have to compete.

Why do you deserve more? Do you have a college degree? Do you have a skill that sets you apart from other entry level workers that employers might be interested in? Do you have any argument here other than "I just want more money, cause I want it"

I go to my autism support group, and believe I'm odd man out, in that I'm one of the only people there who ISN'T on disability.

Maybe you have the kind of autism that doesn't really hurt you, but just exists to make doctors money.

I may get a job again, .

What the fuck is this??? how are you not out there applying for jobs TODAY. You are absolutely not allowed to complain one fucking bit about your situation as long as this is your attitude. Seriously man, either put in an effort or shut the fuck up.

seems that if I really buckled down and studied poker hard, at least there's still some potential here to make gains. .

^Guaranteed recipe for poverty my friend. Guaranteed. What if you "buckled down and worked hard" at a job?

If I want Social Security Disability, I'm going to have to apply and prove that I can't hold a job anyways, so that's probably what will happen.

I hope you're denied. I sincerely hope they laugh in your face man. You're not even trying here. I'll be pissed if my tax dollars go to support your laziness.

If Jason Chaffetz can get the cost of a year of health insurance down to the cost of a new iPhone, I'll gladly buy my own health insurance. At least that's what I hope he was implying when he said "Poor people are going to have to make choices, healthcare, or that new iPhone they want".

That's not what he meant. It was an "analogy". Ask MMM what it means. He's basically saying that people are going to have to prioritize their purchases, rather than expect everything. Poor households in america still have xbox, HDTV, and eat take-out three times a week. Those seem like frivolous luxuries when it means you can't then afford simple necessities like health care. You wanna piss your money away at online poker rather than prioritize that money for a necessity. Brilliant!!

And don't tell me your bankroll isn't enough to buy health insurance. that's not the point. it's something, and you're spending it on nothing. If that's the case, you're probably doing that all over your life, and if you made smarter decisions, your situation would improve.

Right now insurance on the market costs about 23 iPhones a year, so if he can get it's costs down to 1 iPhone per year, I'll gladly sign up for that.

Yeah, you totally missed the point of what Chaffetz said. Just because 1 iphone won't pay for health insurance, doesn't mean that it's not a viable solution. get a cheap phone, save the difference. Now you have less of a gap between you and health insurance.

My mom's basically a Capitalist, not in a major way, but that's where a lot of the family's income and wealth comes from besides their pensions. I see her make more money in the click of a mouse, than I could 6 months of working at my average job, and I won't like, it's like, why the f should I work, if making butt loads of money is that simple for her?

So learn how to swing trade. http://www.swing-trade-stocks.com/

WTF man....educate yourself. Do something that makes you more competitive in the economy. This is fucking bullshit now. Listen to yourself.

"well she makes more than I do with less effort, so why should I try?? WAAAAAHHH"
"No matter how much I work, I'll never be as rich as Sam Walton, WAAAAAAHHHHH"
"Even though every choice I've made has diminished my quality of life....it's republicans fucking me over, WAAAAAH"
"What the fuck? I can't sit on my mom's couch all day, not work, and get free healthcare for it??? WAAAAHH"

God damn it man, you're everything that's wrong with this country.

We're making America great again.......you're probably not invited.

[Jack Sawyer]

Sorry, but that pisses me off like nothing else. It's literally everything that's wrong with america.

If he wants a world where the government provides everything and people are shepherded through life, then he should move to Europe.

At least we don't adhere to alternative facts. For example, Europe is not a country. Where in Europe do you want him to move to?

[wufwugy]

I should do a post on cognitive dissonance.

[BananaStand]

At least we don't adhere to alternative facts. For example, Europe is not a country. Where in Europe do you want him to move to?

Who is invoking alternative facts here? Did I say Europe was a country? I really don't care which country he moves to. So many of them are socialized nanny states that he could move just about anywhere and be happier than he is in America.

In America, people who don't want to work, who deal drugs, and whine about not getting free money for their pseudo-disability deserve to be at the bottom.

Sure, some people fall on hard times, and government safety nets should help them. But I can't think of a more egregious mismanagement of government than for the state to take my tax dollars and use them to support someone who is nothing more than a 31 year old baby.

If you want to be the kind of guy who thinks that working "isn't worth the effort", and that Sam Walton owes you a living, well then Europe is definitely the place for you.

[OngBonga]

If you want to be the kind of guy who thinks that working "isn't worth the effort", and that Sam Walton owes you a living, well then Europe is definitely the place for you.

Or, to put that another way... fuck off and be someone else's problem.

I agree with you when you point out he's moaning, I mean yeah if you choose to remove yourself from the workforce, then you choose a life of relative poverty. I made that choice, and you won't hear me complaining about having fuck all.

However, your solution for him to go to Europe, this is absurd. Why does Europe owe him anything? He wasn't even born there, he's American (whether you like it or not). We can argue about whether the state owes a living to those who reject the system all day long. It is my belief that if you value security and low crime, and an efficient economy, then you should value social security, which stops morons from robbing people to survive, and also keeps those same morons out of the work force where they might be less productive than their salary is worth.

The idea that people should just "get a fucking job" is ignorant to the fact that not everyone is cut out for the ruthless capitalist world in which we're shat out, and it's ignorant to the negative impact that forcing people into work can have on a business. I'd rather employ people who want to be employed by my company, people who want to work. I wouldn't want to employ someone who can't be arsed, I'd sooner my tax dollars chip in towards keeping the fucker idle. Or, someone else can employ him... the old "not my problem" attitude which you seem so fond of.

[a500lbgorilla]

People are angry and short-sighted.

More at 11.

[Poopadoop]

Personally I like the idea that my tax dollars are going to supporting someone who wants to spend his time smoking spliffs and inventing his own branch of theoretical physics. Good thing I live in Europe I guess.

Bad thing is we don't get Fox News here so we never get a fair and balanced view of the world.

[BananaStand]

Or, to put that another way... fuck off and be someone else's problem.

Yeah, what's wrong with that? Seems every week I hear another story about how some European country is giving more free shit to their citizens. Minimum incomes, free college, you name it. Seems to me that the countries WANT more adult babies to take care of. That's how they get votes.

However, your solution for him to go to Europe, this is absurd. Why does Europe owe him anything?

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Are you saying it's wrong for a foreign person to immigrate to a country because it provides better social benefits? What a novel idea??

It is my belief that if you value security and low crime, and an efficient economy, then you should value social security, which stops morons from robbing people to survive,

This is somewhat silly. The idea that we have to pay people to not commit crimes is not a world I want to live in. I'd rather they rob, get caught, and sent to jail.

and also keeps those same morons out of the work force where they might be less productive than their salary is worth.

I reject this argument as long as there exists something called unskilled labor. No one is so bad at a job like that where it becomes cheaper to pay them to stay home.

The idea that people should just "get a fucking job" is ignorant to the fact that not everyone is cut out for the ruthless capitalist world in which we're shat out,

"ruthless" is a pretty strong word don't you think? I don't think it's ruthless to expect an able bodied adult to be able to put in a days work. Why should we respect an able bodied man who doesn't? Why does he deserve a handout? Wouldn't society be better served feeding that guy a big old slice of reality? I say he gets the shaft, and his share societies benefits can be redistributed among people who are truly disadvantaged or disabled.

and it's ignorant to the negative impact that forcing people into work can have on a business.

Non-existent. Again, there are plenty of jobs that are nearly un-fuck-up-able. There's no way an able bodied, able-minded adult could diminish productivity so badly that it becomes cheaper to pay him to stay home.

I'd rather employ people who want to be employed by my company, people who want to work.

It won't be hard finding people who want to work if the guiding principle is 'work or starve'. Right now it's 'work, if you feel like it. If not, don't. Nothing bad will happen do you'.

If that's the dynamic you want, then tell me how are you going to prevent a 'race to the bottom'? How are you going to motivate people to work, when you reward the people who do the least?

[Jack Sawyer]

[Jack Sawyer]

Wonder when he will report on the word "allochtoon" first? Also, bonus points when you see how robots will take over some jobs in that vid

[Jack Sawyer]

I am not a rich person, nor do I hold rich people in particularly high regard. That said, I do occasionally enjoy examining and critiquing the things that rich people choose to buy. It helps put things in perspective, like giving the top 1 percent a $275 billion tax cut and calling it healthcare reform.
Take the Bugatti Chiron, a $2.6 million masterpiece in design and luxury. Only in the world of the super rich would a supercar this fast and this beautiful be an inadequate means of transportation. And yet now we also have the $2.2 million Bugatti super-yacht to compliment the Chiron.

https://www.salon.com/2017/03/09/gop...everyone-else/

http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/12/14...johnson-chiron

[wufwugy]

Virtue signalling aside, Mr. Standitnow is correct.

[OngBonga]

Yeah, what's wrong with that?

It's passing the buck. It's not a very American thing to do. America takes responsibility for its own citizens.

Seems every week I hear another story about how some European country is giving more free shit to their citizens.

I don't understand why things like free education is a problem.

That's how they get votes.

This might hold some sway if political systems in Europe tended to revolve around a single party, or maybe even if the Labour Party (the socialist ones) were dominant here in the UK. Fact is, they can't dislodge the Tories as a centrist party, and even though they've lurched super-left, they probably still won't be able to... so it's not how they get votes at all, because if it is, it's not working here.

Are you saying it's wrong for a foreign person to immigrate to a country because it provides better social benefits?

No, but I would say it's immoral for a person to immigrate for the sole purpose of living on their benefits, certainly where the home nation has their own benefit systam at least. I would only immigrate to another country if I inteded to support myself. I might sit here and say the British taxpayer owes me a pittance of an income to ensure a basic survival, but I wouldn't extend that to a foreign taxpayer.

This is somewhat silly. The idea that we have to pay people to not commit crimes is not a world I want to live in. I'd rather they rob, get caught, and sent to jail.

It's the real world, and it's basic economics. Where a person is in jail, they are costing the taxpayer a great deal more than someone who is claiming benefits. And where someone who is basically unemployable is refused benefits, they are forced to beg or steal. Your means of dealing with the unemployable is simply to wait until they are forced to break the law, then jail them. Problem solved. Only, you'll find it difficult to pay for all those prisons you'll need to build, staff and maintain. Hint - it'll cost more than you'll save by not having to pay benefits.

I reject this argument as long as there exists something called unskilled labor. No one is so bad at a job like that where it becomes cheaper to pay them to stay home.

If you employed me to do some "unskilled labour", you would soon regret doing so. People are bad at their job where they don't enjoy doing it. Anyone can serve burgers at Maccies. Can anyone do it for more than a month without becoming depressed? I couldn't. I'd want to kill myself if that was my job for the rest of my life.

I'm not really a great example though. I'm not the average unemployed person. I'm somewhat more intelligent and somewhat less drug addled than most people who have been out of work for more than a year. If I tried hard enough, I could be an asset to an employer. However, the million or so long term unemployed here in the UK are, for the most part, not the kind of people who you would give a job too, and if you did, you would fire them or they would jack it in within months. That has a negative impact on your business, and as such, the greater economy. Can you put a figure on how much it has cost your business to employ someone useless, and then have to fire them and employ someone else? I couldn't, but I can put a figure on how much it costs to keep me unemployed... £500 a month.

Maybe you haven't hired enough morons to see the economic benefit of keeping some people out of the workforce. I've certainly worked with enough.

"ruthless" is a pretty strong word don't you think? I don't think it's ruthless to expect an able bodied adult to be able to put in a days work. Why should we respect an able bodied man who doesn't? Why does he deserve a handout? Wouldn't society be better served feeding that guy a big old slice of reality? I say he gets the shaft, and his share societies benefits can be redistributed among people who are truly disadvantaged or disabled.

Capitalism is utterly ruthless, I'm surprised you wouldn't agree. How many people's lives are in the hands of their employer? The real world of business is cut throat, and it's foolish to think everyone is cut out for it. It's not just about being able to do a job, it's about being able to take relentless shit off your boss without telling him to fuck off. That's your problem, that's why we have a million unemployable people here.

Why should we respect an able bodied man who doesn't? Why does he deserve a handout? Wouldn't society be better served feeding that guy a big old slice of reality? I say he gets the shaft, and his share societies benefits can be redistributed among people who are truly disadvantaged or disabled.

Noone's saying anyone has to be respected. I'm saying you're the one that needs a dose of the real world, and that is that if you refuse to support the morons, then they will be forced to fend for themselves. And the majority of them won't do that by magically getting a job.

Society would be better served if there weren't a million unemployable morons (probably at least triple that in the States). But the reality of it is there are. So how best to deal with them? One way or another, it's gonna cost the taxpayer. I'd say social security is the cheapest, safest, most humane method. If you disagree, fair enough. But sending them to Europe isn't an option, at least I don't think it is. Certainly, American people can't just walk into the UK and get benefits. Europeans can (currently), but Yanks can't. I can't see that being any different across Europe.

It won't be hard finding people who want to work if the guiding principle is 'work or starve'. Right now it's 'work, if you feel like it. If not, don't. Nothing bad will happen do you'.

No, you're right, because a lot of the people who were previously unemployed would now want a job, and want to keep it, however not everyone would get one, so I'd be living in a society with shanty towns and an increase in crime, which would mean higher costs for policing and jails. At what point do we think "wish we'd just give the morons £500 a fucking month"?

[BananaStand]

It's passing the buck. It's not a very American thing to do. America takes responsibility for its own citizens.

You wholly misunderstand American values. Citizens take responsibility for themselves.

I don't understand why things like free education is a problem.

Cause the government is really bad at running shit.

so it's not how they get votes at all, because if it is, it's not working here.

Well that's definitely how it works in America. Democrats push an agenda heavy with wealth distribution, people become dependent on the government, and then it's very very easy to vilify Mr. Republican when he proposes his tax cut.

No, but I would say it's immoral for a person to immigrate for the sole purpose of living on their benefits

We agree on this. I only brought up as a nod to the situation with America's southern border. Mexico is not a 3rd world country. Mexico is not a war-torn area. But people are pouring out of there mainly because they get a better deal in America. And all I ever hear about is how they're "decent, honest, hardworking people", except they just decided to immigrate illegally for extra cash.

Where a person is in jail, they are costing the taxpayer a great deal more than someone who is claiming benefits.

You're acting like that should matter. Government is not a business. It's not about the bottom line.

And where someone who is basically unemployable is refused benefits, they are forced to beg or steal

You have a very very loose definition of 'unemployable'. If you're disabled somehow, then safety nets should be there to help you. If you're just lazy that's something entirely different. Laziness is not an affliction. Behaviors can be changed. Disabilities can not.

Your means of dealing with the unemployable is simply to wait until they are forced to break the law, then jail them.

No one is "forcing" them to do anything. Like I said, behaviors can be changed. If you struggle with showing up on time, the answer is not to rob liquor stores. Do you not see the dangerous precedent you're setting when you allow poor people to threaten crime to extort benefits they don't deserve?

People are bad at their job where they don't enjoy doing it.

You know what's less enjoyable than working? Being broke and starving.

Can you put a figure on how much it has cost your business to employ someone useless,
and then have to fire them and employ someone else? I couldn't,

As a matter of fact, I can. People change jobs all the flippin time. Employee turnover is already a known reality for businesses and has been for as long as there have been businesses. Businesses have accountants, and accounts know how to figure that shit out.

When a shit employee leaves, you have to recruit, vet, and train a new one. Recruiting costs are sunk, because the company already employs HR professionals and this would be part of their normal duties. As for vetting, a drug test and background check probably costs, at most, $100 per employee. We require uniforms and a fresh set goes for about $175. And we have to pay them an hourly wage (around $11/hr) during the time they are being trained, which is maybe 12-20 hours. $100 + $175 + (11*20) = $495 per person.

but I can put a figure on how much it costs to keep me unemployed... £500 a month.

That's $611 USD. Already significantly more than it costs to hire a new recruit. And then that gets paid out every single month.

There's no way it's cheaper to pay someone to stay home. Not even close.

Maybe you haven't hired enough morons to see the economic benefit of keeping some people out of the workforce. I've certainly worked with enough.

You really sound like you're making excuses for yourself here.

Capitalism is utterly ruthless, I'm surprised you wouldn't agree..

Sure, the game can be played aggressively, but typically when stakes are higher. At the level of unskilled labor, the day to day isn't much different than socialism, or anything else really. You're being a little silly when you talk about burger flippers and gas pumpers being 'cutthroat'.

It's not just about being able to do a job, it's about being able to take relentless shit off your boss without telling him to fuck off.

Not all bosses give relentless shit. This really just sounds like you have a problem with authority. That's a YOU problem. And I think it's shitty that working people are paying for your bad attitude.

if you refuse to support the morons, then they will be forced to fend for themselves. And the majority of them won't do that by magically getting a job.

Fuck yeah they will. People generally turn to crime as a last resort. And even if that weren't the case. It's unbelievably wrong for a government to be extorted by its citizens like that. 'Pay me or I'll rob people'. Fuck that!

Certainly, American people can't just walk into the UK and get benefits. Europeans can (currently),

you need a wall.

At what point do we think "wish we'd just give the morons £500 a fucking month"?

When a person reaches a point where they are legitimately unemployable, that's when we write them a check. Hating work doesn't qualify.

[OngBonga]

You're acting like that should matter. Government is not a business. It's not about the bottom line. Law and order are priceless.

You're very much wrong here. Of course government is a business. You still have to balance your books, you still have to pay for things like jail and policing.

That you value law and order so highly tells me you're not thinking this through. You don't seem to realise that law and order happen because people don't have to fend for themselves in the way you are suggesting.

You have a very very loose definition of 'unemployable'. If you're disabled somehow, then safety nets should be there to help you. If you're just lazy that's something entirely different. Laziness is not an affliction. Behaviors can be changed. Disabilities can not.

We have a different view on what "unemployable" means. I don't think my view is loose. I basically deem someone "unemployable" if I feel that their attitude means they won't be able to hold down a job.

Do you not see the dangerous precedent you're setting when you allow poor people to threaten crime to extort benefits they don't deserve?

What? I'm not "allowing poor people to threaten crime to extort benefits they don't deserve". That's your language, not mine. I'm just trying to avoid the morons from turning to begging and stealing to feed themselves. And it's also your opinion that they "don't deserve" benefits. I differ there, for reasons already stated. I'm talking about the morons here, those who I would not want to employ even if I were desperate for staff. That's what I mean by "unemployable". Someone who is basically more hassle than he's worth. These people exist, and if you think these people can just make the "choice" to be change their attitude and be more productive, well this is naivity.

You know what's less enjoyable than working? Being broke and starving.

Do you think that these two factors = getting a job? Or 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?

As a matter of fact, I can. People change jobs all the flippin time.

Of course they do, and everytime it happens, it is an inconvenience for a business, and ultimately a cost. This happens a lot more where people are foced into a life of working.

That's $611 USD. Already significantly more than it costs to hire a new recruit. And then that gets paid out every single month.

There's no way it's cheaper to pay someone to stay home. Not even close.

Right, so you're saying that just over a hundred bucks is "significant", while you pull numbers out of your arse. You're forgetting to factor in the economic value of the employee (or lack of). 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.

You also point out that the benefits is a monthly payment. Well, if someone is getting through a job every two months because they are, in my opinion, unemployable, then this impact they have on employers is bimonthly. So based on the numbers I shat out, there's an economic argument in favour of benefits. Considering neither of us are in a position to know the economic cost of employing a moron, I'd call this point stalemate.

You really sound like you're making excuses for yourself here.

I'm not making excuses for myself. I'm not even counting myself as one of the "unemployable" people. I will provide a net value for anyone who employs me, assuming I'm not asked to do hard labour. And I'm not going to rob people to survive, because if they stopped giving me money today, I'll just borrow off friends and family until I get a job. So these points I make about, they don't even apply to me. They apply to people who I deem "unemployable", which is a term we can't agree a definition of. You think "employability" is purely a physical matter. That's why you're wrong.

You're being a little silly when you talk about burger flippers and gas pumpers being 'cutthroat'.

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.

Not all bosses give relentless shit. This really just sounds like you have a problem with authority. That's a YOU problem. And I think it's shitty that working people are paying for that.

Well yes you certainly identify my problem here. And you seem to think it's a choice. I can assure you it's not, I can tell you that I've had a problem with auhority since I was a child at school. You might think that's a flaw in my personality, but I'll argue it's a consequence of a broken childhood, of being forced away from my parents into foster homes and children's homes. I rejected all authority that wasn't Mom and Dad. This is a glimpse into why I am the way I am. Every single person has their own life story, and every single one is different. Expecting people to just "change their attitude" is ignorant to why people have a particular nature in the first place. You can't change the way people's brains are wired, just so they can be more productive.

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. It's shitty that I left school with 1 GCSE, despite being the smartest kid in my year at most schools I went to.

Fuck yeah they will. People generally turn to crime as a last resort. And even if that weren't the case. It's unbelievably wrong for a government to be extorted by its citizens like that. 'Pay me or I'll rob people'. Fuck that!

The job needs to be there for a start. I can tell you something about jobs here in the UK... when I apply for jobs (I have to otherwise they don't give me money), 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.

And that's the second time you've used the word "extort". By identifying a potential threat to civilisation, that doesn't mean anyone who claims benefits is extorting. You're just being silly using this word. If someone literally says to the government "give me money or I'll steal", then yeah, you can use that word. 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, then the word "extort" is obviously inappropriate.

you need a wall.

It's got nothing to do with a wall, or lack of. This is the EU, and the free movement of people. 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.

When a person reaches a point where they are legitimately unemployable, that's when we write them a check. Hating work doesn't qualify.

I think we'll just have to continue to disagree on what this word means. No, "hating work" might not qualify. Not being the kind of guy who is capable of being told what to do? I don't think it's possible for people to change their attitude on demand. If that were possible, then teachers would have had much more success with me at school.