03-23-2017 03:57 PM
#6301
| |
| |
03-23-2017 04:00 PM
#6302
| |
03-23-2017 04:03 PM
#6303
| |
|
I've just got what you meant, I don't feel like holding the position of Ong should be able to doss about on benefits and not thinking that those benefits should exist in the first place are contradictory positions. |
Last edited by Savy; 03-23-2017 at 04:08 PM. | |
03-23-2017 04:08 PM
#6304
| |
03-23-2017 04:08 PM
#6305
| |
| |
03-23-2017 04:09 PM
#6306
| |
03-23-2017 04:11 PM
#6307
| |
| |
03-23-2017 04:12 PM
#6308
| |
|
Both Person A's and B's money was worked for, just not by them. Person A's money was worked for and earned by his parents (at least that's what I recall the original hypothesis was), and they passed it onto him. Person B's money was worked for and earned by Persons A-Z (excluding B) and then taken from them and given to Person B. |
03-23-2017 04:14 PM
#6309
| |
| |
03-23-2017 04:19 PM
#6310
| |
|
I dunno. I tend to see some dislike for both. It's not like Paris Hilton is popular. And some people like the idea of getting by on little. |
03-23-2017 04:22 PM
#6311
| |
| |
03-23-2017 04:30 PM
#6312
| |
Paris Hilton's ditzy behavior has more to do with her not being respected than the fact that's she's fallen bass-ackwards into money imo, though certainly the latter doesn't help her image. I also think that in general, Person A is far more respected than Person B. | |
03-23-2017 09:49 PM
#6313
| |
|
If Trump is playing 3d chess on healthcare, it's a testament to how well he's playing since I think he is but I'm too uncertain to call it. |
03-23-2017 10:10 PM
#6314
| |
|
Could be that Trump put Ryan in this place to get Ryan to bend over to save face. So a deal could still be made here but with much better terms than Ryan wants for his beloved Obamacare. |
03-24-2017 01:29 AM
#6315
| |
In this specific example, few see a difference. There are some who would say that Person A has a moral obligation to use his wealth. It's a mentality like, "people who can help, should help". | |
03-24-2017 06:58 AM
#6316
| |
Ok well this is a slightly different argument to the one I'm engaged in. There's probably a cross-over in the demographics though. | |
| |
03-24-2017 07:09 AM
#6317
| |
As for insurance, well we kind of have it... National Insurance. I say "kind of" because it's not really insurance, it's an income tax. But it's much easier for people who have paid enough National Insurance to get benefits. There are less conditions for them to fulfill, at least for a given time relative to their contributions. | |
| |
03-24-2017 02:02 PM
#6318
| |
|
Everybody used to save. 100 years ago in the US you would be hard-pressed to find a family that didn't save. Look at China today. These poor, uneducated, and often people with a history of childhood malnourishment have savings rates of up to 90%. |
03-24-2017 02:17 PM
#6319
| |
| |
03-24-2017 03:08 PM
#6320
| |
I think there's no getting away from being a pawn. If you stay at home, you're a pawn. Go to work and pay tax, you're a pawn. The only way to not be a pawn is to be a bigger piece. Or don't play chess. I try not to play, but that's near impossible. | |
| |
03-24-2017 04:01 PM
#6321
| |
|
This is my last post on this topic. I'll give you the last word if you'd like. |
03-24-2017 05:21 PM
#6322
| |
03-24-2017 05:35 PM
#6323
| |
|
Yeah those are in the models, at least in ways. The main ones I've seen are showing effects on utility and labor/leisure trade-off depending on wages and subsidies. If somebody gets more utility from 24 hours of leisure and an income of 0 than he does of his next best option (which would be something like washing dishes part time for a low wage), then he'll take the 24 hours of leisure/0 income option. Most people, however, won't get more utility from the 0 income choice. And the guy who does get more utility from it, gets even more utility from 24 hours of leisure and a welfare check, which is why he takes the welfare check. For these guys, it is very likely that if they did not get that welfare check, they would get more utility by exchanging some of their 24 hour leisure for labor. |
03-24-2017 05:49 PM
#6324
| |
The model you described seems to assume everyone on benefits is employable for one, and will be able to find a job if they want to for another, and thus will only become homeless if they value their leisure so much that they prefer a life of leisure living rough on the street to a life that involves any work at all. I don't find this credible. | |
03-24-2017 05:58 PM
#6325
| |
|
Teh model accounts for both of those. "Unemployable" people get more utility from not being employed. The labor/leisure trade-off doesn't inherently distinguish between documented and undocumented labor. The model shows how individuals' choices regarding making money/not making money change based on an input change given a set of preferences. |
03-24-2017 07:28 PM
#6326
| |
|
Reading the news/punditry bloviate about Trump and healthcare is fascinating. A whole lot of them have been wrong every step of the way regarding Trump, and they're saying one thing. The few who have been right every step of the way are saying something else. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. |
03-24-2017 11:00 PM
#6327
| |
| |
| |
03-26-2017 06:28 AM
#6328
| |
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39397938 |
03-27-2017 05:30 AM
#6329
| |
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7650636.html | |
| |
03-27-2017 08:39 AM
#6330
| |
|
Fake fucking news! |
03-27-2017 09:17 AM
#6331
| |
| |
Last edited by OngBonga; 03-27-2017 at 09:28 AM. | |
03-27-2017 09:37 AM
#6332
| |
|
That's cause you're thinking with the same lib-tard brain that thinks you're not hurting anyone because you use consume less government benefits than some other people. Just because something isn't the worst possible form of a problem, doesn't mean it's not a problem. |
03-27-2017 10:49 AM
#6333
| |
| |
| |
03-27-2017 11:10 AM
#6334
| |
|
By all accounts, the US pays a portion of the costs that is disproportionate to the benefits it receives by being a member of this treaty. |
03-27-2017 11:45 AM
#6335
| |
03-27-2017 11:56 AM
#6336
| |
I don't think banana understands averages. | |
| |
03-27-2017 12:01 PM
#6337
| |
| |
03-27-2017 12:05 PM
#6338
| |
And what terms are these? I was under the impression that the terminology was pretty loose, something like "with the aim to spend 2% of GDP", which doesn't actually commit to doing so. If there is a contractual obligation they are failing to live up to, then yes, I agree with you. But that's not how I understand it. | |
| |
03-27-2017 12:12 PM
#6339
| |
| |
03-27-2017 12:26 PM
#6340
| |
Well I'm finding it difficult to find the exact T&C, so I guess it depends on who you're listening to. I'm sure I read an article recently that basically argued that anyone spending more than they did the previous year was at least succeeding in getting closer to 2%, which was the implied expectation of "with the aim" or whatever the exact language is. The article certainly left me thinking that the language was loose enough that there was no actual obligation to spend 2% of GDP. I'd go further... if there is such an obligation, then why is it only a problem now Trump is in office? Why didn't NATO send debt collectors to Latvia when they first failed to pay their 2%? | |
| |
03-27-2017 12:33 PM
#6341
| |
| |
03-27-2017 12:33 PM
#6342
| |
| |
03-27-2017 12:34 PM
#6343
| |
|
Insightful analysis of Russia you might like |
03-27-2017 12:38 PM
#6344
| |
I think it's more likely that Trump is just saying the kind of stupid shit that resonates with people like Banana, while knowing he has no way of actually enforcing it. | |
| |
03-27-2017 02:39 PM
#6345
| |
I prefer this kiddo | |
| |
03-27-2017 07:11 PM
#6346
| |
|
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartanntp |
03-27-2017 07:21 PM
#6347
| |
03-27-2017 07:26 PM
#6348
| |
| |
03-30-2017 08:21 AM
#6349
| |
|
So it's coming out now that the FBI knew about Russia's meddling for almost a year. Comey wanted to write an OP-ed about it, in hopes of heading it off before the election. The Obama administration wouldn't allow that. Instead, according to Farkas, they collected everything potentially damaging about Trump and made sure it was disseminated as widely as possible. |
03-30-2017 12:06 PM
#6350
| |
| |
03-30-2017 12:31 PM
#6351
| |
| |
03-30-2017 01:07 PM
#6352
| |
lol BBC being linked as a reliable unbiased source. | |
| |
03-30-2017 01:27 PM
#6353
| |
Well shit if Fox is viewed as one I think they handily qualify. | |
| |
03-30-2017 02:08 PM
#6354
| |
Yeah I mean BBC > Fox but that really isn't saying much. | |
| |
03-30-2017 02:10 PM
#6355
| |
Fox being trash kinda goes without saying, the problem with the BBC is that a lot of people think it is an unbiased and reliable source of news. | |
| |
03-30-2017 02:19 PM
#6356
| |
| |
| |
03-30-2017 02:49 PM
#6357
| |
|
The BBC is pretty great tbf, it tends to be terrible government that worsens it. How many news sites do you know that run articles about itself being bias? |
03-30-2017 02:54 PM
#6358
| |
|
I'd also say that the BBC is a very reliable news source. Unbias, no, but I think that the idea of having no bias in any form of news is simply a myth and an impossibility. |
03-30-2017 03:15 PM
#6359
| |
+1 | |
03-30-2017 03:50 PM
#6360
| |
|
I don't like this line of logic. It just means he's done something they don't like. It's like when people say "My friend doesn't really like x in general but even he liked specific thing belonging to x so it must be good", well no. That isn't true at all. |
Last edited by Savy; 03-30-2017 at 03:53 PM. | |
03-30-2017 03:54 PM
#6361
| |
| |
03-30-2017 04:09 PM
#6362
| |
03-30-2017 04:25 PM
#6363
| |
| |
03-30-2017 07:31 PM
#6364
| |
| |
| |
03-30-2017 07:34 PM
#6365
| |
|
I think this post is funny for two reasons. |
Last edited by Savy; 03-30-2017 at 07:37 PM. | |
03-30-2017 07:39 PM
#6366
| |
|
Also actually look at what the BBC does in terms of it's scope, it's pretty mental. Yes front page BBC news may not be the most objective thing in the world but that is literally a snowflake on the iceberg that is what they do (I read a book recently hence the poetic literary skills). |
03-30-2017 08:35 PM
#6367
| |
| |
| |
03-30-2017 08:40 PM
#6368
| |
And you're abusing the word "literally". That's a word you're supposed to use when the thing you are saying is factual, it's not an alternative to "virtually", or perhaps "practically". | |
| |
03-30-2017 09:08 PM
#6369
| |
| |
03-30-2017 09:14 PM
#6370
| |
|
Yeah, it shows. Goalposts move (you have the same problem with literally). |
Last edited by Savy; 03-30-2017 at 09:18 PM. | |
03-30-2017 11:09 PM
#6371
| |
I'm sure I've told you loads of times... you literally take me too seriously. I mean this must be the fifth time I've said that exact shit when you've said literally before, which is literally your favourite word. | |
| |
03-31-2017 07:51 AM
#6372
| |
| |
| |
03-31-2017 12:15 PM
#6373
| |
At least in Minnesota, something is being done about it | |
| |
03-31-2017 04:31 PM
#6374
| |
Nice job, Minnesota. | |
04-03-2017 09:04 PM
#6375
| |
| |
| |