geekhack
geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: vivalarevolución on Thu, 10 October 2013, 20:25:41
-
Bueller? Bueller?
-
What has he (http://geekhack.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25935) done?
-
i thought i wasn't..
until I just tried to get tickets for the endeavour 1 year anni show and it's not happening.
****ing congress *******s
-
I've been unable to view the panda cam, thus putting quite the damper on my erotic activities.
-
Well the federal courts will shutdown on the 17th if it continues so .... more days of sweet freedom ... ;D
-
You rang?
-
Well the federal courts will shutdown on the 17th if it continues so .... more days of sweet freedom ... ;D
ANARCHY
-
I don't care about the government shutdown. They'll never shut down Microsoft!
-
Lot of families in my Northern Virginia neighborhood work for the government. Already some after-school activities at my son's elementary school have been canceled, not enough parents willing to spend the $40/$60/$75 fees right now. If this keeps up, there will be mortgage payments missed, car payments, credit cards, etc. I can only guess which local businesses are hurting; cleaners, coffee shops, gas stations, and the like.
Having assurances that you will get back pay is not the same as getting a regular paycheck.
-
I'm not too sure about financial aid for school yet, which is a real bummer
-
Furloughs doe
-
i thought i wasn't..
until I just tried to get tickets for the endeavour 1 year anni show and it's not happening.
****ing congress *******s
I'm so sad :(
-
The SEC, DOJ, and the courts are still open during the shutdown so as long as the litigation keeps flowing, i still have work to do :)
-
Why you American's no riot?
Look what I grabbed during the London 2011 riots.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/09/article-0-0D5C421400000578-88_634x663.jpg)
Although I thoughts for sure there would be some American Public "something"... But I suppose you're all more civil than I realised.
Jokes aside, I can see this is hurting some public sector workers hard, and I hope that you get something in place as soon as possible.
-
Many things won't be immediately noticed...
Many essential programs are running on emergency money, such as WIC. However that money will run out come Monday, at which point, states will begin having to pay for all of it, or cutoff funding (anyone seen the cost of baby formula lately, sheesh!). The same applies to food inspectors, it takes a bit for contaminated food to make it into the supply and start rearing it's head. And again with nuclear inspectors, you can stop inspections for a short time before something happens, that's why you do inspections, to find trouble before it starts. As for furloughed employees, they also are in a bind, it just hasn't really hit them yet, it will next payday though.
Give it time, it will rear it's ugly head, it's always slow to start, this is why politicians can act so calm for the time being. However, they know things are coming to a head quickly. Even the Koch brothers issued a statement, they did it because they want to make sure they are ahead of the wave that's coming.
-
Many things won't be immediately noticed...
Many essential programs are running on emergency money, such as WIC. However that money will run out come Monday, at which point, states will begin having to pay for all of it, or cutoff funding (anyone seen the cost of baby formula lately, sheesh!). The same applies to food inspectors, it takes a bit for contaminated food to make it into the supply and start rearing it's head. And again with nuclear inspectors, you can stop inspections for a short time before something happens, that's why you do inspections, to find trouble before it starts. As for furloughed employees, they also are in a bind, it just hasn't really hit them yet, it will next payday though.
Give it time, it will rear it's ugly head, it's always slow to start, this is why politicians can act so calm for the time being. However, they know things are coming to a head quickly. Even the Koch brothers issued a statement, they did it because they want to make sure they are ahead of the wave that's coming.
There was a massive snow storm that hit South Dakota earlier this week. It killed four people and somewhere between 5% and 50% of the cattle in the state. Quite a range, eh? Yep, government services normally track livestock losses, not to mention managing livestock loss insurance. Of course, NOAA is shuttered, so forecasting major storms like this are considerably more difficult.
Didja read about the tainted chicken meat coming from three Foster Farms operations in California? Food safety inspectors are furloughed, so there's no one conducting inspections.
Shutting down the government is hostage-taking on a grand scale.
-
All of a sudden all the conspiracy/survival nuts are starting to make sense.
-
All of a sudden all the conspiracy/survival nuts are starting to make sense.
Except that most of them start with the flawed assumption that government is the problem. Government is us.
-
You rang?
That was not my intention. Forgot we had somebody with that screen name.
-
Meanwhile, \keyboardlover is having a celebration.
-
Didja read about the tainted chicken meat coming from three Foster Farms operations in California? Food safety inspectors are furloughed, so there's no one conducting inspections.
Shutting down the government is hostage-taking on a grand scale.
I agree, though my point was that it's a slow buildup, not an immediate "OMG THE RAPTURE IS HERE" sort of thing. Some people point out little change as proof nothing happened, when in reality, it's is, it just has yet to reach them yet.
Except that most of them start with the flawed assumption that government is the problem. Government is us.
All of these people who think that any/all government is bad, don't realize how much it's actually does for us as well.
All anyone of them needs to do is take a trip to a country where the government doesn't do anything and see how living conditions are. Our government doesn't need to be euthanized, it just needs a leash.
-
Meanwhile, \keyboardlover is having a celebration.
That paranoid arm chair activist is pathetic.
With that said, that little trick tea party/Republicans pulled a day before the shut down should not go unnoticed. Sadly I'm on mobile or else I'd link to what I'm talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0Jd-iaYLO1A
There we go
-
Um yes. As some of you know, I 'm active duty stationed overseas. Now I still get paid, which is nice. But a lot of things are closed on base. The renewal of my passport stopped dead in it's tracks. Our APO/FPO post office is closed, no mail :( Not to mention everyone's whining....
-
So now it is 'over' but it is still only a band-aid and temporary....won't we just do this all again in February?
Hopefully everyone gets to go back work!
-
All of these people who think that any/all government is bad, don't realize how much it's actually does for us as well.
All anyone of them needs to do is take a trip to a country where the government doesn't do anything and see how living conditions are. Our government doesn't need to be euthanized, it just needs a leash.
Well said indeed.
Although I feel like a libertarian at heart, in today's world only a pathetic Luddite would actually think of damaging his own country to prove (?) a point.
-
So now it is 'over' but it is still only a band-aid and temporary....won't we just do this all again in February?
Hopefully everyone gets to go back work!
it will happen again, and again, and again
-
So now it is 'over' but it is still only a band-aid and temporary....won't we just do this all again in February?
Hopefully everyone gets to go back work!
it will happen again, and again, and again
I sure hope not, but I'm afraid you're right. There are essentially no real down-sides for the Republicans, nothing to stop them from trying this stunt again.
-
Ummm, why don't you use your right to carry guns to satisfy its original purpose?
-
Ummm, why don't you use your right to carry guns to satisfy its original purpose?
The "original purpose" for having guns in the home was a sop to the slave-owning signatories to the US Constitution. This specifically allowed them to muster up private militias to chase down escaped slaves.
Not quite sure this applies today...
-
Why you American's no riot?
...
Although I thoughts for sure there would be some American Public "something"... But I suppose you're all more civil than I realised.
You'll see Americans riot when you take away their Internet and Cell Phones.
-
From my perspective, the federal government is deeply in debt, and the Democrats/Progressives just want to keep piling up the debt, expanding the dependency state, and just generally digging the economic hole we are in that much deeper. Given a choice of the U.S. defaulting now, or defaulting later, I would prefer to default now; a decade or two from now it will have gone from catastrophic to disastrous. Or, maybe the federal government would get it's spending under control if conservatives choked off the endless line of credit? Yeah, right. That will never happen, so long as Democrats are in control of the government and the media. It makes me start to believe that an economic collapse is their plan.
-
From my perspective, the federal government is deeply in debt, and the Democrats/Progressives just want to keep piling up the debt, expanding the dependency state, and just generally digging the economic hole we are in that much deeper. Given a choice of the U.S. defaulting now, or defaulting later, I would prefer to default now; a decade or two from now it will have gone from catastrophic to disastrous. Or, the federal government would get it's spending under control before we defaulted on our debts. That will never happen, so long as Democrats are in control of the government and the media. It makes me start to believe that an economic collapse is their plan.
The Republicans have done a fantastic job of cutting taxes, that's true. Get taxes back to where they should be, and we'll be back to Clinton-era surplus levels before you know it.
(http://b-i.forbesimg.com/rickungar/files/2013/10/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg)
-
They're making a big show how they're "doing" something and won't take any more debt however they'll just increase the debt ceiling like they always do, haven't they done it like 10 times now in a span of a few years.
-
They're making a big show how they're "doing" something and won't take any more debt however they'll just increase the debt ceiling like they always do, haven't they done it like 10 times now in a span of a few years.
Bit of trivia; do you know of any other nations in the world that have a "debt ceiling?"
-
No other countries have an American Style government :))
-
They're making a big show how they're "doing" something and won't take any more debt however they'll just increase the debt ceiling like they always do, haven't they done it like 10 times now in a span of a few years.
Bit of trivia; do you know of any other nations in the world that have a "debt ceiling?"
Yeah, most countries do it beforehand, it's called budgeting
:P
-
They're making a big show how they're "doing" something and won't take any more debt however they'll just increase the debt ceiling like they always do, haven't they done it like 10 times now in a span of a few years.
We're in debt to the tune of 16 trillion dollars (and that doesn't even account for unfunded liabilities like Social Security, which balloons our debt to ridiculous levels) -- we should be finding ways to reduce our spending, get entitlements under some semblance of control, and make America more friendly to business again. Conservatives and libertarians don't want no government, we want less government -- since it seems to do nothing well.
-
It makes me start to believe that an economic collapse is their plan.
I'm not so sure. If a collapse were to occur it would provide many opportunities to break away from the government and let everyone go their own separate ways. Imagine how difficult it would be to have any entity corral and convince many splintered factions that "things will be better this time." The government loves their control over people too much to let this happen.
-
They're making a big show how they're "doing" something and won't take any more debt however they'll just increase the debt ceiling like they always do, haven't they done it like 10 times now in a span of a few years.
Bit of trivia; do you know of any other nations in the world that have a "debt ceiling?"
Yeah, most countries do it beforehand, it's called budgeting
:P
The debt ceiling is an arbitrary construction. Refusing to raise it, after setting a budget that calls for certain expenditures plus borrowing, is insane. Seriously.
-
They're making a big show how they're "doing" something and won't take any more debt however they'll just increase the debt ceiling like they always do, haven't they done it like 10 times now in a span of a few years.
Bit of trivia; do you know of any other nations in the world that have a "debt ceiling?"
Insane not to raise it? Is it really a ceiling at all when we just keep raising it higher and higher anyway? We should have a Constitutional Amendment explicitly stating that the federal government may not (except in the event of outright war) to spend more than... I dunno, 18% of GDP. Period. Don't let Congress vote on 19% of GDP, just no. There should be a hard ceiling on how much the government can cost. Or, at least have the balls to say, "We're going to spend like a pimp with one week left to live." and abolish the limit entirely. Stop pretending to be fiscally responsible.
-
They're making a big show how they're "doing" something and won't take any more debt however they'll just increase the debt ceiling like they always do, haven't they done it like 10 times now in a span of a few years.
Bit of trivia; do you know of any other nations in the world that have a "debt ceiling?"
Is it really a ceiling when we just keep raising it higher and higher anyway? We should have a Constitutional Amendment explicitly stating that the federal government may not (except in the event of outright war) to spend more than... I dunno, 18% of GDP. Period. Don't let Congress vote on 19% of GDP, just no. There should be a hard ceiling on how much the government can cost.
They will cause a war anyways just to have another distraction.
Something will happen between now and February very bad to distract us again.....
/me get his Bible, Guns and tinfoil hat ready
-
They're making a big show how they're "doing" something and won't take any more debt however they'll just increase the debt ceiling like they always do, haven't they done it like 10 times now in a span of a few years.
We're in debt to the tune of 16 trillion dollars (and that doesn't even account for unfunded liabilities like Social Security, which balloons our debt to ridiculous levels) -- we should be finding ways to reduce our spending, get entitlements under some semblance of control, and make America more friendly to business again. Conservatives and libertarians don't want no government, we want less government -- since it seems to do nothing well.
If we're in debt, then the sensible thing to do is to raise taxes to pay for those debts. How do you think we went from budget surplus in 2000 to major debt in 2009?
Reducing spending is a canard. Refer to the chart above for how much "spending" we've been doing lately.
Entitlements out of control? Oh, right. Social Security might run short and start cutting some benefits in 20 years, so obviously we must start now to cut benefits for everyone. Sounds sensible.
And "make America more friendly to business?" For heaven's sake, why? The US stock market always does better when a Democrat is President, it's been returning insane rates of returns for the robber baron class, and yet wages for the working class are stuck at 1985 levels. Exactly how "friendly" should we be for business to pay people real living wages?
Oh, and by the way; libertarians and conservatives are just code words for Republicans. Just like the Tea Party, crazy people who claim to be bi-partisan but vote a straight Republican ticket.
-
The debt ceiling is an arbitrary construction. Refusing to raise it, after setting a budget that calls for certain expenditures plus borrowing, is insane.
The Republicans have done a fantastic job of cutting taxes, that's true. Get taxes back to where they should be, and we'll be back to Clinton-era surplus levels before you know it.
The "debt ceiling" concept needs to be abolished. It has been a bizarre anachronism since the Eisenhower administration.
Until wealthy people (and "people" includes corporations thanks to a corrupt Reconstruction-era Supreme Court decision) no longer control our government, they will expend vast resources to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
At the minimum ending offshore tax havens and corporate welfare is something that 90% of "meat" people would likely endorse if the question was put to them openly and fairly.
-
They're making a big show how they're "doing" something and won't take any more debt however they'll just increase the debt ceiling like they always do, haven't they done it like 10 times now in a span of a few years.
Bit of trivia; do you know of any other nations in the world that have a "debt ceiling?"
Is it really a ceiling when we just keep raising it higher and higher anyway? We should have a Constitutional Amendment explicitly stating that the federal government may not (except in the event of outright war) to spend more than... I dunno, 18% of GDP. Period. Don't let Congress vote on 19% of GDP, just no. There should be a hard ceiling on how much the government can cost.
They will cause a war anyways just to have another distraction.
Something will happen between now and February very bad to distract us again.....
/me get his Bible, Guns and tinfoil hat ready
The reptilians are coming!!11
-
Woops, accidentally deleted the point here. And i can't remember it.
But im glad your government sorted things out as I don't think the global economy could have supported it.
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/17/oliver-stone-on-the-tyranny-of-obama-s-exceptional-america.print.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/17/oliver-stone-on-the-tyranny-of-obama-s-exceptional-america.print.html)
Not sure what to make of this but perhaps some of you would be interested
It mentioned the government shutdown so hopefully it's not considered too off topic
I knew it Tym
[attach=1]
-
One thing that needs to be (mostly) tossed in a fire are food stamps. There are many families that definitely need them but there are also too many people that are milking it and turning them into some sort of cool kids hipster culture.
-
One thing that needs to be (mostly) tossed in a fire are food stamps. There are many families that definitely need them but there are also too many people that are milking it and turning them into some sort of cool kids hipster culture.
Spending billions upon billions in invading foreign countries but god forbid if something has to go it'd better be the food stamps
-
One thing that needs to be (mostly) tossed in a fire are food stamps. There are many families that definitely need them but there are also too many people that are milking it and turning them into some sort of cool kids hipster culture.
Yes, of course. No time like mid-recession to start thinking of more ways to take food stamps away from people who need them.
You do know that half of food stamp recipients are children, right? Along with seniors, military families, and people out of work with no prospects for jobs in the near term?
It's easy to prescribe austerity for others when you're personally affluent. Funny how no one suggests cutting salaries for people like Jamie Dimon, to pay for a few more months of food stamps for millions.
-
Both of you clearly didn't read my post thoroughly enough. Try again.
-
Both of you clearly didn't read my post thoroughly enough. Try again.
You mean, this part?
...too many people that are milking it and turning them into some sort of cool kids hipster culture.
Offered with no proof, of course. Gosh, how could I have been so rude as to completely misunderstand your point? Shame on me.
-
Both of you clearly didn't read my post thoroughly enough. Try again.
Well you know even suggesting that food stamps are not a good way to spend tax dollars is outright evil and sarcasm doesn't really transpire thru written word unless made utterly apparent
-
One thing that needs to be (mostly) tossed in a fire are food stamps. There are many families that definitely need them but there are also too many people that are milking it and turning them into some sort of cool kids hipster culture.
I think if you ended the fraud endemic to the food stamp program, then food stamps are a great program. Giving people a way to get through a bad time (a "safety net") is a great idea, but the current system is not a safety net, it's a hammock, a way of life. My mother was on welfare for a short time, and she couldn't wait to get off the program; there was a stigma attached to it: "I'm someone who needs a handout." Today, there's no stigma to receiving a handout at all. YouTube is full of EBT card rap songs. Jesus said, "the poor will always be with you" and I think there will always be people who need help, and Americans should help one another. I just don't believe the federal government is the best way to do it, or that our current system is working very well.
EDIT: Oh, and food stamps used to actual stamps, and you couldn't use them to buy pornography, lap dances or Jack Daniels. They were for buying milk, bread, eggs and baby formula -- necessities. But since it's a way of life today, it's been transformed into a credit card and you can buy whatever you want, as far as I can see.
-
One thing that needs to be (mostly) tossed in a fire are food stamps. There are many families that definitely need them but there are also too many people that are milking it and turning them into some sort of cool kids hipster culture.
I think if you ended the fraud endemic to the food stamp program, then food stamps are a great program. Giving people a way to get through a bad time (a "safety net") is a great idea, but the current system is not a safety net, it's a hammock, a way of life. My mother was on welfare for a short time, and she couldn't wait to get off the program; there was a stigma attached to it: "I'm someone who needs a handout." Today, there's no stigma to receiving a handout at all. YouTube is full of EBT card rap songs. Jesus said, "the poor will always be with you" and I think there will always be people who need help, and Americans should help one another. I just don't believe the federal government is the best way to do it, or that our current system is working very well.
Yeah, it's all too apparent. Read any thread on RedState, or WSJ; there is a streak of hatred a mile wide running right down the middle of the Republican Party. How dare they take OUR money and give it to THOSE KIND OF PEOPLE?!
Meaning poor people, of course. Billions in taxpayer dollars given to corporations to bail them out of poor business decisions is just peachy keen.
Btw; nice dog whistle there. "Rap songs." Hmmm, who listens to rap music in America? Can you help me out there? I know I can't stand Eminem, but you didn't mean middle class white people, did you?
-
Most of the white people I know who are disabled and can't physically work get turned down for disability. My dad included. ::)
Also I'm not being racist just stating a fact.
-
Most of the white people I know who are disabled and can't physically work get turned down for disability. My dad included. ::)
Over here, if you own a pair of crutches they'll throw money at you. :confused:
-
Until wealthy people (and "people" includes corporations thanks to a corrupt Reconstruction-era Supreme Court decision) no longer control our government, they will expend vast resources to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
With respect fohat, this is a crock -- who do you define as "wealthy", anyway? Roughly half of all Americans don't pay any Federal income taxes. That top half pays everything. And of that top half, what percentage of the overall tax burden do you think the top 10% of all income earners pay?
From Forbes: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
So ten people walk into a restaurant, have dinner, and one of them handles 70% of the final bill, and it's still not enough? The idea that wealthy people are constantly avoiding paying taxes is just nonsense. That 10% who pay 70% are mostly small business owners. They qualify as "wealthy" but they're not Gwyneth Paltrow rich. They're not so rich that they can hire a batallion of lawyers to find every available tax shelter and loophole. The .25% of the wealthiest, yeah, they can do that.
Why not just make everyone pay a little, and make it less burdensome so the desire to find every loophole is less enticing? If government cost me 10% of my income, ok. 20%? *sigh* ok, I guess. But when I start giving close to 50% to the government, yeah, I naturally start to look for ways to lower that number.
So when my bills far, far exceed my income, my first reaction is to ... increase my income? That's a lot harder. Most normal people would try to control their spending, that's a lot easier. But not the Federal government -- they act as though their income is limitless.
-
Most of the white people I know who are disabled and can't physically work get turned down for disability. My dad included. ::)
Also I'm not being racist just stating a fact.
My dad had the same problem getting disability, despite two different back injuries. It's a good thing there are other programs to provide some coverage, though. Over 50% of all food stamp recipients are white, that's the largest demographic receiving benefits from the government.
-
Most of the white people I know who are disabled and can't physically work get turned down for disability. My dad included. ::)
Also I'm not being racist just stating a fact.
(throws arm over Ray's shoulder): "It was nice knowin' you, Ray."
-
Until wealthy people (and "people" includes corporations thanks to a corrupt Reconstruction-era Supreme Court decision) no longer control our government, they will expend vast resources to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
With respect fohat, this is a crock -- who do you define as "wealthy", anyway? Roughly half of all Americans don't pay any Federal income taxes. That top half pays everything. And of that top half, what percentage of the overall tax burden do you think the top 10% of all income earners pay?
From Forbes: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
So ten people walk into a restaurant, have dinner, and one of them handles 70% of the final bill, and it's still not enough? The idea that wealthy people are constantly avoiding paying taxes is just nonsense. That 10% who pay 70% are mostly small business owners. They qualify as "wealthy" but they're not Gwyneth Paltrow rich. They're not so rich that they can hire a batallion of lawyers to find every available tax shelter and loophole. The .25% of the wealthiest, yeah, they can do that.
Why not just make everyone pay a little, and make it less burdensome so the desire to find every loophole is less enticing? So when my bills far, far exceed my income, my first reaction is to ... increase my income? That's a lot harder. Most normal people would try to control their spending, that's a lot easier. But not the Federal government -- they act as though their income is limitless.
One of the things that's hardest to teach my team is how to look at the whole problem, not just the first symptom they encounter when trying to troubleshoot an issue. Your post is a perfect example. A list of pat talking points masquerading as system flaws, and a flawed conclusion.
Meh. It doesn't do any good to present facts, and I don't care enough about your opinions to try.
Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/ (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/)
-
One thing that needs to be (mostly) tossed in a fire are food stamps. There are many families that definitely need them but there are also too many people that are milking it and turning them into some sort of cool kids hipster culture.
I think if you ended the fraud endemic to the food stamp program, then food stamps are a great program. Giving people a way to get through a bad time (a "safety net") is a great idea, but the current system is not a safety net, it's a hammock, a way of life. My mother was on welfare for a short time, and she couldn't wait to get off the program; there was a stigma attached to it: "I'm someone who needs a handout." Today, there's no stigma to receiving a handout at all. YouTube is full of EBT card rap songs. Jesus said, "the poor will always be with you" and I think there will always be people who need help, and Americans should help one another. I just don't believe the federal government is the best way to do it, or that our current system is working very well.
Yeah, it's all too apparent. Read any thread on RedState, or WSJ; there is a streak of hatred a mile wide running right down the middle of the Republican Party. How dare they take OUR money and give it to THOSE KIND OF PEOPLE?!
Meaning poor people, of course. Billions in taxpayer dollars given to corporations to bail them out of poor business decisions is just peachy keen.
I would end crony capitalism as well. Everything the government touches turns to crap -- the less they touch the better.
Btw; nice dog whistle there. "Rap songs." Hmmm, who listens to rap music in America? Can you help me out there? I know I can't stand Eminem, but you didn't mean middle class white people, did you?
The video was made by someone who is apparently black, not that it matters, I'm sure there are people of every color who are "proud" to be on public assistance. Also, the "dog whistle" crap is getting old. Are your arguments so weak that your only comeback is "you're a racist"? My point is that these programs not only perpetuate economic poverty, but also spiritual and cultural poverty. If you're going to accuse me of being heartless, then I'm going to accuse you of being brainless. No serious person could look at these programs and believe that they're helping people. The programs put food in their bellies, but are clearly not helping them become empowered -- far from it.
-
Honestly the biggest problem in this country (USA) is apathy. People just don't care, they want to be entertained and feel good.
And regardless of who controls the news media they suck to, one local station we have all they do is try to find the weirdest wackiest stories to boost their viewership, no quality at all. Sad.
Oh and when I was a kid my mom was a single parent going to school and I remember the books of actual stamps we got and the big block of cheese we got with it, oh the memories ::)
-
Meh. It doesn't do any good to present facts, and I don't care enough about your opinions to try.
Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/ (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/)
Ok, so wait --- facts aren't worth presenting ("Meh.") and then you quote a "deeply discouraging" study that indicates that facts (i.e. -- reality) generally don't affect people's views. So reality is immaterial to you. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Well, then stick to what you know -- vitriol. Facts do matter, especially where they intersect with people.
-
Honestly the biggest problem in this country (USA) is apathy. People just don't care, they want to be entertained and feel good.
QFT.
And regardless of who controls the news media they suck to, one local station we have all they do is try to find the weirdest wackiest stories to boost their viewership, no quality at all. Sad.
I'll never understand why people love sports, but detest political news and events. No matter who wins or loses, your life stays the same (well, okay, maybe you made some bets); politics will change your life, eventually.
-
The video was made by someone who is apparently black, not that it matters, I'm sure there are people of every color who are "proud" to be on public assistance. Also, the "dog whistle" crap is getting old. Are your arguments so weak that your only comeback is "you're a racist"? My point is that these programs not only perpetuate economic poverty, but also spiritual and cultural poverty. If you're going to accuse me of being heartless, then I'm going to accuse you of being brainless. No serious person could look at these programs and believe that they're helping people. The programs put food in their bellies, but not helping them become empowered -- far from it.
My dad became a single parent at the age of 62, had three kids under the age of 10 to raise on a teacher's pension. After 30 years of teaching in California, his pension was right around $100 per month. He got Aid For Dependent Children (food stamps) to help put food on the table.
My brother, sister and I all have college degrees. My brother is a biologist, my sister an attendant for a private jet service, and I work in for a software firm. We all pay taxes, and pay back into the system that provided the safety net for our family.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're full of it. The maximum most states allow families to get food stamps is 24 months, most programs have shorter deadlines. Empowered? What do you even think that means? If my father was unable to get food stamps to feed his family, how empowered would that have made him? Were we destined for spiritual and cultural poverty? Or is that just what you tell yourself to justify your desire to take food assistance away from poor people?
After all, if they're poor, they deserve to suffer, right? And you wonder why the Republican Party approval ratings are circling the toilet bowl.
-
Honestly the biggest problem in this country (USA) is apathy. People just don't care, they want to be entertained and feel good.
And regardless of who controls the news media they suck to, one local station we have all they do is try to find the weirdest wackiest stories to boost their viewership, no quality at all. Sad.
Oh and when I was a kid my mom was a single parent going to school and I remember the books of actual stamps we got and the big block of cheese we got with it, oh the memories ::)
We got "commodities" a few times. That cheese was pretty awful, but those powdered eggs? Oh... my... gosh. I still have nightmares. :p
-
Meh. It doesn't do any good to present facts, and I don't care enough about your opinions to try.
Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/ (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/)
Ok, so wait --- facts aren't worth presenting ("Meh.") and then you quote a "deeply discouraging" study that indicates that facts (i.e. -- reality) generally don't affect people's views. So reality is immaterial to you. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Well, then stick to what you know -- vitriol. Facts do matter, especially where they intersect with people.
Nice twist. I cited that study to show how useless is was to present you with facts, in the vain hope that reality would cause you to change your mind.
Thanks for proving my point so succinctly. :))
-
So did everyone get to go back to work today if you were furloughed?
-
So did everyone get to go back to work today if you were furloughed?
I think a lot of people did, judging by the traffic this morning. Given that agencies and organizations were only notified late last night, and lots of folks take Friday as a telecommute day, I expect Monday will be the first full day back.
-
Note the debt isn't specifically a US problem.
See the debt as a percent of GDP [think national income] here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24541140
-
My dad became a single parent at the age of 62,
How?
had three kids under the age of 10 to raise on a teacher's pension.
Again, with feeling: How? I mean, did he adopt you all, or did he choose to have three children at the age of 62? Did one of his siblings die and he stepped into the breach to support three children? Or did it happen the old-fashioned way. I mean, I probably will not be siring children when I'm 62. I'll still be rocking, I just won't bring children into the world.
After 30 years of teaching in California, his pension was right around $100 per month. He got Aid For Dependent Children (food stamps) to help put food on the table.
My brother, sister and I all have college degrees. My brother is a biologist, my sister an attendant for a private jet service, and I work in for a software firm. We all pay taxes, and pay back into the system that provided the safety net for our family.
Congratulations on your success! I mean that sincerely. But what about the people whose families have been on some kind of public assistance for several generations? Has the system worked for them? It hasn't, so let's review the facts (scary!) and make it better.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're full of it.
I have no bubble to burst -- the people who believe in your position (more government, more entitlement spending) are winning and have been winning for a long time now.
The maximum most states allow families to get food stamps is 24 months, most programs have shorter deadlines.
The welfare reforms shoved down Bill Clinton's throat (and which he later claimed as a success) required that you look for a job. If after looking for a job and proving that it was in earnest, you'll get your food stamps renewed. President Obama wants to end this practice.
Empowered? What do you even think that means?
It means that poverty is not always about what's in your wallet. Take all my money away, or all your money away and we still have wealth: we have our work ethic, our attitudes, our abilities and our families. Being on public assistance for a very long time, I believe, slowly erodes these alternate forms of wealth.
If my father was unable to get food stamps to feed his family, how empowered would that have made him? Were we destined for spiritual and cultural poverty? Or is that just what you tell yourself to justify your desire to take food assistance away from poor people? After all, if they're poor, they deserve to suffer, right? And you wonder why the Republican Party approval ratings are circling the toilet bowl.
I can see that you really have no intention of engaging in a rational debate. Just go on believing everyone who disagrees with you wants to kill puppies for fun. Had you even bothered to read my initial post, you would realize I support food stamps -- just end the fraud, and try to end the negative attitudes about it. I don't think you're evil -- I just think your political position is stupid and evil. I'm glad your father was able to do so well. Who is chiefly responsible for his success in raising you and your siblings? The government, or him? I put my money on him.
-
A rational debate.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
;D
-
There is a fundamental mindset as to how a person sees his role in the universe.
You can look at everything as a single organism or a team that needs to work together for the health and benefit of the whole, or you can look at individuals as predators with the right to take whatever they can get.
When this concept is expressed, hotheads on both sides start screaming about libertarianism and communism, but, unfortunately, each side has diametrically opposed opinions on what constitutes collateral damage and whether that is even something to avoid at all.
I believe that the most fair tax is a steeply progressive tax on wealth. You adjust fairness by adjusting how steeply progressive it is, and how high the floor is. Taxing consumption is the least fair, taxing work is problematic.
The 20% of the people who control 85% of the wealth in this country should pay 85% of the taxes, and the top echelon of them should pay the highest rate.
-
There is a fundamental mindset as to how a person sees his role in the universe.
You can look at everything as a single organism or a team that needs to work together for the health and benefit of the whole, or you can look at individuals as predators with the right to take whatever they can get.
When this concept is expressed, hotheads on both sides start screaming about libertarianism and communism, but, unfortunately, each side has diametrically opposed opinions on what constitutes collateral damage and whether that is even something to avoid at all.
I believe that the most fair tax is a steeply progressive tax on wealth. You adjust fairness by adjusting how steeply progressive it is, and how high the floor is. Taxing consumption is the least fair, taxing work is problematic.
The 20% of the people who control 85% of the wealth in this country should pay 85% of the taxes, and the top echelon of them should pay the highest rate.
I agree completely. [Even though I'm in one of those upper tax brackets...] I also think that we are stronger as a nation, as a society, when we take care of those who need it most. All of the nations that top the lists of highest quality of life (best places to live, best places to raise a family, best health care, etc.) are also those that have strong progressive tax rates.
It's completely disheartening to me to see our country move away from strong foundation set in place by FDR and others, in favor of programs that have shifted massive wealth away from the lower and middle classes into the pockets of the upper 1%. But as long as I have life, I have faith that things can be made better. For all of us.
-
Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?
-
Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?
Or leave, and work hard somewhere that won't tax you as much.
-
Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?
Or leave, and work hard somewhere that won't tax you as much.
Not here then.
-
Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?
I know I said this somewhere else but it's not like I don't repeat things anyways. I could make minimum wage and barely make above poverty level and get WIC and free healthcare for the wife and kids (a few years ago, don't know about all this new stuff now) and not have to pay any income taxes or I could get a better job making more money and still only bring home roughly the same amount because the taxes went up and we lost any and all help and had to pay for it.
I chose option C however and got an even better job and now we just spend all our money.
-
What is WIC? Not sure is 'Murican' thing or just something gone over my head.
-
What is WIC? Not sure is 'Murican' thing or just something gone over my head.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic (http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic)
It's a program to help baby's and small children get formula etc, you also get stuff like cheese
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.
Of course it is different now than it was 5 years ago when we had it. Now I think they get vegetables etc
I was glad to get off of it as they were being very intrusive and wanting to know personal information they had no business knowing.
-
Over here they just give you more money to go buy TV's and more neglect your children. Then they blame social workers, because they didn't catch someone neglecting their own child in their own home. Its not the child's fault, its the social workers job yes, but they can't get to every damn case. Do the media congratulate them on a job well done? No. Do they blow every mistake sky-high ? Yes. Its the parents bloody fault.
Why should we support the parents who have 15 children yet can barely afford to eat? Should we? No. They should have their children removed and then be sterilized.
Sorry, you can guess what job one of my parents held while i was growing up. (Think she still does :3)
-
Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?
Not sure those two things are polar opposites. I know many hard-working people, people who work two jobs, but hard work in America doesn't equate to being well rewarded. At least, not any longer.
And the opposite is true as well. I'm not sure how you have it in the UK, but most of the wealthiest 1% here, come from wealthy families. Well-connected families, who make sure their progeny get that job in the City, working for the uncle or family friend who just happens to run a hedge fund.
-
Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?
Or leave, and work hard somewhere that won't tax you as much.
Where would that be, Moose? I've heard that talking point before, but we still have the largest proportion of millionaires of any country.
The US has one of the lowest tax rates for any developed nations, and we continue to pass laws cutting taxes on the wealthiest. Why would anyone move?
-
Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?
Not sure those two things are polar opposites. I know many hard-working people, people who work two jobs, but hard work in America doesn't equate to being well rewarded. At least, not any longer.
And the opposite is true as well. I'm not sure how you have it in the UK, but most of the wealthiest 1% here, come from wealthy families. Well-connected families, who make sure their progeny get that job in the City, working for the uncle or family friend who just happens to run a hedge fund.
Pretty much the same here. Although our 1% are all migrants. They're family's all from Saudi.
-
Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?
Not sure those two things are polar opposites. I know many hard-working people, people who work two jobs, but hard work in America doesn't equate to being well rewarded. At least, not any longer.
And the opposite is true as well. I'm not sure how you have it in the UK, but most of the wealthiest 1% here, come from wealthy families. Well-connected families, who make sure their progeny get that job in the City, working for the uncle or family friend who just happens to run a hedge fund.
Pretty much the same here. Although our 1% are all migrants. They're family's all from Saudi.
I've seen pictures of the exotic car traffic jams, all those Lambos and Ferraris creeping through London streets at a walking pace. :p
-
Seems like politicians and corporation that buy politicians do more damage to America than a single mother of 2 and a family of illegal immigrants. . yet this country likes to ignore that and focus on the people that can't buy themselves out of their problems.
-
Too damned true, Demik.
-
An Army with 450,000 soldiers is "too small" and at "high risk to meet one major war," the documents say. The Pentagon has been structured for decades to win two separate wars.
War is likely to break out again, according to the briefing.
^^ so i'm just being a conspiracy nut but I already predicted this one
-
An Army with 450,000 soldiers is "too small" and at "high risk to meet one major war," the documents say. The Pentagon has been structured for decades to win two separate wars.
War is likely to break out again, according to the briefing.
^^ so i'm just conspiracy nut but I already predicted this one
Thank god there are smaller (and richer) countries to pick on
-
we are so ****ed
-
An Army with 450,000 soldiers is "too small" and at "high risk to meet one major war," the documents say. The Pentagon has been structured for decades to win two separate wars.
War is likely to break out again, according to the briefing.
^^ so i'm just being a conspiracy nut but I already predicted this one
One problem with this scenario...
People forget that we are still technically at war with North Korea, so there is one war already. We have yet to even acknowledge them as a country, much less sign a peace treaty, we have zero diplomatic relations with them. We still have a ton of troops over there (nearly 30k when things are quiet), and have since the war began. Work on F-16's and you can pretty much bet you will get there at some point during a 4 year enlistment.
Pile on Afghanistan and Iraq (and other small skirmishes you don't know about) and our military is just taking a beating, it's worse in careers where they are understaffed (like mine was/is). Also beer in mind, we pretty much are the de facto military for all of Europe, we have over 50 large installations and 5 times that in minor ones. Without us, their military expenditure would need to rise 400-900%. So while they laugh at our military expenditures, it's partly due to them and a promise we made to them after WW2. And then there is the U.N..
Is our military too large and are we spending too much, yes, but it's insufficient for what we are doing.
Oh, don't forget almost every congressman who votes for more, is almost always being paid to vote that way, and has stock in the companies supplying the military. Our military is like writing themselves a check. Why do you think Cheney was only too happy to invade Iraq.
-
beer in mind
the best three words in your post.
-
An Army with 450,000 soldiers is "too small" and at "high risk to meet one major war," the documents say. The Pentagon has been structured for decades to win two separate wars.
War is likely to break out again, according to the briefing.
^^ so i'm just being a conspiracy nut but I already predicted this one
One problem with this scenario...
People forget that we are still technically at war with North Korea, so there is one war already. We have yet to even acknowledge them as a country, much less sign a peace treaty, we have zero diplomatic relations with them. We still have a ton of troops over there (nearly 30k when things are quiet), and have since the war began. Work on F-16's and you can pretty much bet you will get there at some point during a 4 year enlistment.
Pile on Afghanistan and Iraq (and other small skirmishes you don't know about) and our military is just taking a beating, it's worse in careers where they are understaffed (like mine was/is). Also beer in mind, we pretty much are the de facto military for all of Europe, we have over 50 large installations and 5 times that in minor ones. Without us, their military expenditure would need to rise 400-900%. So while they laugh at our military expenditures, it's partly due to them and a promise we made to them after WW2. And then there is the U.N..
Is our military too large and are we spending too much, yes, but it's insufficient for what we are doing.
Oh, don't forget almost every congressman who votes for more, is almost always being paid to vote that way, and has stock in the companies supplying the military. Our military is like writing themselves a check. Why do you think Cheney was only too happy to invade Iraq.
Exactly.
This is why I am against cuts to military spending.. You just can't do this.... no one would listen to you, if you do not have the largest sticks....
This is a simple fact... The ONLY THING keeping the USA economy afloat is the fact that we are the bully...
Without the fear of our military... All the developed nations could dump USD reserves and we instantly become the poorest nation on earth...
Military spending is NOT at all only Pro-violence, like the hippies would have you believe.... It is pivotal to Social Order...
-
Well this thread exploded. And does not seem like too many people here were affected by the shutdown. I did try to visit a national park installation last weekend, Lincoln's Boyhood Home, and it was closed. As a history buff, I was pissed.
The leaders that are elected reflect the quality of the voters. Most people around here are smarter than the average bear, but most people bopping around in the world want somebody as dumb and humorless as themselves to be in office.
One thing that makes me grateful for our country is the attitude of immigrants. Most of the taxi drivers in my city are from Ethiopia and Eritrea, and they are absolutely thrilled to have a flexible job that provides for their family or gives them time to study at the community college. I just read about a Palestinian girl that had a huge struggle to get out of the Gaza Strip just to attend college here and be able to move freely. Other examples are abound. Places that appear as rust belt dumps to us might appear as a land of stability and opportunity for others.
In general, what lacks among people I meet these days is a sense of gratitude for what we have. The sour attitude of our politics and media only steer us towards the negatives, and make it appear that everything is going down the dump. Yea, some statistics for our country compared to other rich countries are terrible. But what gets lost is a sense of gratitude and a desire to provide others with the same opportunities that have been provided to some of us.
-
The leaders that are elected reflect the quality of the voters.
Or Gerrymandering.
-
The leaders that are elected reflect the quality of the voters.
Or Gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is an abomination. Districts should be set by computer and no county ever divided unless necessary.
Unfortunately, it is one (of many) of the pre-Industrial-Revolution encumbrances that the Founding Fathers saddled us with.
-
The leaders that are elected reflect the quality of the voters.
Or Gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is an abomination. Districts should be set by computer and no county ever divided unless necessary.
Unfortunately, it is one (of many) of the pre-Industrial-Revolution encumbrances that the Founding Fathers saddled us with.
Gerrymandering was (and is) used for the enfranchisement of racial minorities. Is gerrymandering wrong under those circumstances?
http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/racial-gerrymandering-resegregates-the-u-s-south
Imagine a racial minority in a traditionally white area -- would it be wrong to gerrymander a district so that these minority communities can get leaders elected that represent them? Otherwise their choices are: "Republican White Guy" and "Democratic White Guy". I think the prevailing attitude among racial gerrymandering is that minorities can only be properly represented by members of their own racial group. Which, to me, sounds a lot like racism.
I don't support gerrymandering in any form. Let the districts be drawn either by computer, or let them be drawn in a way that represents geographic areas and longstanding regional definitions.
-
We couldnt go to some Government Parks on our Honeymoon :( But we went to MT HOOD so that was great!