**** Elections thread *****

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

03-13-2017 03:25 PM #1
OngBonga View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message View Blog Entries Join Date Jul 2010 Posts 25,001 Location England	Originally Posted by banana 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.
	Originally Posted by wufwugy ongies gonna ong
Reply With Quote

03-13-2017 04:20 PM #2
BananaStand View Profile View Forum Posts View Blog Entries Join Date Nov 2016 Posts 4,095	Originally Posted by OngBonga 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.

Reply With Quote

Elections thread *

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Hybrid View

Posting Permissions