See how much the Tea Party loves America??
They're gonna save America by refusing to hire ANYBODY, not a SINGLE person, until the rest of us straighten up and do what THEY want us to do.
QuoteResolved that: Our President, the Democrats-Socialists, most of the media, and most of those from Hollywood, have now encouraged and supported "Occupy" demonstrations in our streets, which are now being perpetrated across the globe, and which are being populated by various marxists, socialists and even communists, and are protesting against business, private property ownership and capitalism, something I thought I'd never see in my country, in my lifetime.
I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-urges-businesses-stop-hiring-order-hurt-obama
This is Tough Love for AmericaTM :horrormirth:
And I, as part of the Occupy movement, will not spend any money at your business.
Oh hey. :lulz:
Quote from: Laughin Jude on October 19, 2011, 06:16:46 AM
And I, as part of the Occupy movement, will not spend any money at your business.
Oh hey. :lulz:
It would be VERY interesting to find out exactly which businesses are part of this, and have agreed to this bullshit.
Oh, they've finally decided to "go Galt (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1116&bih=470&q=going+galt&oq=going+gal&aq=0&aqi=g8g-v2&aql=1&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=490l2502l0l4574l9l8l0l1l1l0l222l1037l0.6.1l7l0)", have they?
I hope they give everyone who participates a logo or sign or something so I'll know all that they're doing for MURKA.
Quotepart of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country,
not anymore you're not!
Quote from: Cain on October 19, 2011, 02:33:03 PM
Oh, they've finally decided to "go Galt (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1116&bih=470&q=going+galt&oq=going+gal&aq=0&aqi=g8g-v2&aql=1&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=490l2502l0l4574l9l8l0l1l1l0l222l1037l0.6.1l7l0)", have they?
Beat me to it, I was going to post something similar.
I am looking forward to all of the Randtards going Galt. This action isn't going far enough, though. They are still producing for the looters. They need to shutter their businesses and take menial jobs. That will stop the motor of the world, because their more pragmatic-minded competitors totally won't expand to fill in any gaps they leave behind.
I don't think Melissa Brookstone has a very firm grasp on the idea of the "free market". :lulz:
She owns/operates "Colorado Process Servers", http://coloradoprocessservers.net/?gclid=COTOt66o9asCFccaQgodniTkIQ which is most likely, with no mention of any associates or employees on the website or elsewhere on the internet, a one-person business anyway. Not only that, but it's a parasitic type of business that absolutely does not generate any "real wealth" for the country, unlike, say, a manufacturing job, in which she would need to hire employees in order to grow her business. Basically, she's full of empty bluster, because she is neither a producer of wealth nor an employer, and therefore her threat of not hiring employees who she wasn't going to hire anyway is completely meaningless, as well as nonsensical.
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:00:39 PM
I don't think Melissa Brookstone has a very firm grasp on the idea of the "free market". :lulz:
She owns/operates "Colorado Process Servers", http://coloradoprocessservers.net/?gclid=COTOt66o9asCFccaQgodniTkIQ which is most likely, with no mention of any associates or employees on the website or elsewhere on the internet, a one-person business anyway. Not only that, but it's a parasitic type of business that absolutely does not generate any "real wealth" for the country, unlike, say, a manufacturing job, in which she would need to hire employees in order to grow her business. Basically, she's full of empty bluster, because she is neither a producer of wealth nor an employer, and therefore her threat of not hiring employees who she wasn't going to hire anyway is completely meaningless, as well as nonsensical.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Jesus H Christ, this fucking country is NUTS.
Also, LOLing at her LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/melissa-brookstone/29/230/9b6
http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/ is her personal website, by the way.
It's like Tea Party meets Time Cube.
Her book only has one review, by the way. Some kind person should add more.
Quote from: Cain on October 19, 2011, 07:07:27 PM
Her book only has one review, by the way. Some kind person should add more.
I have nothing going on tonight. :lulz:
I wish I didn't have anything going on tonight.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 19, 2011, 07:09:05 PM
I wish I didn't have anything going on tonight.
I'm just going to cut and paste reviews from other (fictional) books.
Quote from: Cain on October 19, 2011, 07:05:19 PM
http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/ is her personal website, by the way.
It's like Tea Party meets Time Cube.
I saw that, and was wondering how her brain doesn't implode from the cognitive dissonance of being a member of a party that wants to shoot or imprison immigrants, while proposing a planetary bill of human rights based on the idea of the sovereignty of personhood.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 07:09:48 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 19, 2011, 07:09:05 PM
I wish I didn't have anything going on tonight.
I'm just going to cut and paste reviews from other (fictional) books.
It is quite possible that my review will be nonsensical stream-of-consciousness.
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:11:27 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 19, 2011, 07:05:19 PM
http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/ is her personal website, by the way.
It's like Tea Party meets Time Cube.
I saw that, and was wondering how her brain doesn't implode from the cognitive dissonance of being a member of a party that wants to shoot or imprison immigrants, while proposing a planetary bill of human rights based on the idea of the sovereignty of personhood.
There's a certain level of introspection that we've gotten used to here, that's sort of spoiled us for the rest of the world.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 07:12:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:11:27 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 19, 2011, 07:05:19 PM
http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/ is her personal website, by the way.
It's like Tea Party meets Time Cube.
I saw that, and was wondering how her brain doesn't implode from the cognitive dissonance of being a member of a party that wants to shoot or imprison immigrants, while proposing a planetary bill of human rights based on the idea of the sovereignty of personhood.
There's a certain level of introspection that we've gotten used to here, that's sort of spoiled us for the rest of the world.
It's true. And then I look around me and I'm filled with horror.
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 07:12:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:11:27 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 19, 2011, 07:05:19 PM
http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/ is her personal website, by the way.
It's like Tea Party meets Time Cube.
I saw that, and was wondering how her brain doesn't implode from the cognitive dissonance of being a member of a party that wants to shoot or imprison immigrants, while proposing a planetary bill of human rights based on the idea of the sovereignty of personhood.
There's a certain level of introspection that we've gotten used to here, that's sort of spoiled us for the rest of the world.
It's true. And then I look around me and I'm filled with horror.
Horrormirth, here. I can't stop laughing. It's like going to the zoo and watching them feed monkeys LSD.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 07:12:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:11:27 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 19, 2011, 07:05:19 PM
http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/ is her personal website, by the way.
It's like Tea Party meets Time Cube.
I saw that, and was wondering how her brain doesn't implode from the cognitive dissonance of being a member of a party that wants to shoot or imprison immigrants, while proposing a planetary bill of human rights based on the idea of the sovereignty of personhood.
There's a certain level of introspection that we've gotten used to here, that's sort of spoiled us for the rest of the world.
It's true. And then I look around me and I'm filled with horror.
Horrormirth, here. I can't stop laughing. It's like going to the zoo and watching them feed monkeys LSD.
What I don't understand is why everyone is upset, everyone knows it's fucked, but no one can seem to DO ANYTHING.
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:34:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 07:12:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:11:27 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 19, 2011, 07:05:19 PM
http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/ is her personal website, by the way.
It's like Tea Party meets Time Cube.
I saw that, and was wondering how her brain doesn't implode from the cognitive dissonance of being a member of a party that wants to shoot or imprison immigrants, while proposing a planetary bill of human rights based on the idea of the sovereignty of personhood.
There's a certain level of introspection that we've gotten used to here, that's sort of spoiled us for the rest of the world.
It's true. And then I look around me and I'm filled with horror.
Horrormirth, here. I can't stop laughing. It's like going to the zoo and watching them feed monkeys LSD.
What I don't understand is why everyone is upset, everyone knows it's fucked, but no one can seem to DO ANYTHING.
I'm beginning to think that humanity has a complexity threshhold. Beyond that, they can't get anything done. I'm sort of thinking of the Romans and the Soviets and us. And when we hit that threshold, Crazy Eddie gets things all his own way.
:lulz:
I no longer feel the horror part of horrormirth. It's all fricking hilarious now.
Heh.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 07:38:48 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:34:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 07:12:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:11:27 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 19, 2011, 07:05:19 PM
http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/ is her personal website, by the way.
It's like Tea Party meets Time Cube.
I saw that, and was wondering how her brain doesn't implode from the cognitive dissonance of being a member of a party that wants to shoot or imprison immigrants, while proposing a planetary bill of human rights based on the idea of the sovereignty of personhood.
There's a certain level of introspection that we've gotten used to here, that's sort of spoiled us for the rest of the world.
It's true. And then I look around me and I'm filled with horror.
Horrormirth, here. I can't stop laughing. It's like going to the zoo and watching them feed monkeys LSD.
What I don't understand is why everyone is upset, everyone knows it's fucked, but no one can seem to DO ANYTHING.
I'm beginning to think that humanity has a complexity threshhold. Beyond that, they can't get anything done. I'm sort of thinking of the Romans and the Soviets and us. And when we hit that threshold, Crazy Eddie gets things all his own way.
I think you've nailed it. Get enough bureaucracy going on, and everybody just sort of goes shell-shocked.
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 19, 2011, 07:46:51 PM
:lulz:
I no longer feel the horror part of horrormirth. It's all fricking hilarious now.
Heh.
You will. It's a cyclical thing.
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:47:17 PM
I think you've nailed it. Get enough bureaucracy going on, and everybody just sort of goes shell-shocked.
I think it goes beyond bureaucracy. It's not the system, it's the information. We have too much of it.
Dok's right... we've passed some kind of veil of complexity. Bureaucracy is a defense mechanism we concocted to deal with it. There are
no simple issues. The system is questionable, the media reporting on the system is questionable, and that means that even the opinions of people you trust are questionable. Anybody that tries to boil things down to a soundbyte like "these guys hate freedom" is either misinformed or misleading you.
We've all got to get comfortable with complexity, nuance, and gray areas because it's the only honest way to deal with Chaos (that's Chaos with a capital C).
Quote from: CainTea Party meets Time Cube.
That's MY American Dream
Question: Is this new (ish), or have we as a relatively enlightened crew merely seen past the veils of Order and Disorder and into the throbbing guts of Chaos?
That is to say, was the "simple" past only our blinders of (an)eris?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 19, 2011, 08:14:06 PM
Question: Is this new (ish), or have we as a relatively enlightened crew merely seen past the veils of Order and Disorder and into the throbbing guts of Chaos?
That is to say, was the "simple" past only our blinders of (an)eris?
No, things really are more complex. Seriously more so than in even the 1980s.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 07:48:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:47:17 PM
I think you've nailed it. Get enough bureaucracy going on, and everybody just sort of goes shell-shocked.
I think it goes beyond bureaucracy. It's not the system, it's the information. We have too much of it.
And it's so convoluted.
It is the system too, though, I think. It just wears people down.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 08:17:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 19, 2011, 08:14:06 PM
Question: Is this new (ish), or have we as a relatively enlightened crew merely seen past the veils of Order and Disorder and into the throbbing guts of Chaos?
That is to say, was the "simple" past only our blinders of (an)eris?
No, things really are more complex. Seriously more so than in even the 1980s.
We know all kinds of things, but there's no such thing as a simple phone call anymore.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 19, 2011, 08:14:06 PM
Question: Is this new (ish), or have we as a relatively enlightened crew merely seen past the veils of Order and Disorder and into the throbbing guts of Chaos?
That is to say, was the "simple" past only our blinders of (an)eris?
I don't think there was a singular moment where stuff became absurdly complex, I think it builds gradually and you only realize the water's boiling after the fact.
I think lots of people see past the veil -- anybody who can think critically can do it -- it's just that those truths are hard to communicate. Like, Herman Cain describes a 9% flat tax as being the most fair possible tax system. But is it? In order to dissect that idea, you have to pull apart that idea of fairness, the role of government, and all the tangled side issues.
Politics has always been a language game, and that means that the symbols of communication we use are tangled up and misleading. Over time, I don't think that's changed in essence, only in intensity. The information age moves quickly -- you can find data and rhetoric to support
any idea. This makes it a lot harder to get to the root of an issue. Objectivity is harder to spot than ever.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 19, 2011, 08:26:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 19, 2011, 08:14:06 PM
Question: Is this new (ish), or have we as a relatively enlightened crew merely seen past the veils of Order and Disorder and into the throbbing guts of Chaos?
That is to say, was the "simple" past only our blinders of (an)eris?
I don't think there was a singular moment where stuff became absurdly complex, I think it builds gradually and you only realize the water's boiling after the fact.
I think lots of people see past the veil -- anybody who can think critically can do it -- it's just that those truths are hard to communicate. Like, Herman Cain describes a 9% flat tax as being the most fair possible tax system. But is it? In order to dissect that idea, you have to pull apart that idea of fairness, the role of government, and all the tangled side issues.
Politics has always been a language game, and that means that the symbols of communication we use are tangled up and misleading. Over time, I don't think that's changed in essence, only in intensity. The information age moves quickly -- you can find data and rhetoric to support any idea. This makes it a lot harder to get to the root of an issue. Objectivity is harder to spot than ever.
The 9% thing is Crazy Eddie trying to simply the system.
And it works, too, as long as you don't mind watching the middle class become the working class, the working class become the lower class, and the lower class become
those people walking.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 19, 2011, 08:26:56 PM
I think lots of people see past the veil -- anybody who can think critically can do it -- it's just that those truths are hard to communicate.
I think the number of people who can see past the veil is constantly shrinking. Critical thinking isn't as common as it used to be and the system is ever-increasingly designed to stifle what critical thinking does occur.
It's veils all the way down
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 08:28:46 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 19, 2011, 08:26:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 19, 2011, 08:14:06 PM
Question: Is this new (ish), or have we as a relatively enlightened crew merely seen past the veils of Order and Disorder and into the throbbing guts of Chaos?
That is to say, was the "simple" past only our blinders of (an)eris?
I don't think there was a singular moment where stuff became absurdly complex, I think it builds gradually and you only realize the water's boiling after the fact.
I think lots of people see past the veil -- anybody who can think critically can do it -- it's just that those truths are hard to communicate. Like, Herman Cain describes a 9% flat tax as being the most fair possible tax system. But is it? In order to dissect that idea, you have to pull apart that idea of fairness, the role of government, and all the tangled side issues.
Politics has always been a language game, and that means that the symbols of communication we use are tangled up and misleading. Over time, I don't think that's changed in essence, only in intensity. The information age moves quickly -- you can find data and rhetoric to support any idea. This makes it a lot harder to get to the root of an issue. Objectivity is harder to spot than ever.
The 9% thing is Crazy Eddie trying to simply the system.
And it works, too, as long as you don't mind watching the middle class become the working class, the working class become the lower class, and the lower class become those people walking.
Has it been explained somewhere here why a flat tax does that? I mean, it sounds like it ought to, people who make more money get to pay more money with the same percentage. I want to know so I can go look for it, or make a thread or whatever.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 19, 2011, 09:48:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 08:28:46 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 19, 2011, 08:26:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 19, 2011, 08:14:06 PM
Question: Is this new (ish), or have we as a relatively enlightened crew merely seen past the veils of Order and Disorder and into the throbbing guts of Chaos?
That is to say, was the "simple" past only our blinders of (an)eris?
I don't think there was a singular moment where stuff became absurdly complex, I think it builds gradually and you only realize the water's boiling after the fact.
I think lots of people see past the veil -- anybody who can think critically can do it -- it's just that those truths are hard to communicate. Like, Herman Cain describes a 9% flat tax as being the most fair possible tax system. But is it? In order to dissect that idea, you have to pull apart that idea of fairness, the role of government, and all the tangled side issues.
Politics has always been a language game, and that means that the symbols of communication we use are tangled up and misleading. Over time, I don't think that's changed in essence, only in intensity. The information age moves quickly -- you can find data and rhetoric to support any idea. This makes it a lot harder to get to the root of an issue. Objectivity is harder to spot than ever.
The 9% thing is Crazy Eddie trying to simply the system.
And it works, too, as long as you don't mind watching the middle class become the working class, the working class become the lower class, and the lower class become those people walking.
Has it been explained somewhere here why a flat tax does that? I mean, it sounds like it ought to, people who make more money get to pay more money with the same percentage. I want to know so I can go look for it, or make a thread or whatever.
Because a flat tax high enough to generate the revenue garnered by the current system would be so high that poor people would be driven broke by it.
Also, poor people spend more money than rich people do, so the economy tends to dry up.
Also, under Cain's plan, capital gains income is not taxed at all, so important job creators like hedge fund managers and investment bankers will see significant tax reductions.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 09:51:57 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 19, 2011, 09:48:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 08:28:46 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 19, 2011, 08:26:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 19, 2011, 08:14:06 PM
Question: Is this new (ish), or have we as a relatively enlightened crew merely seen past the veils of Order and Disorder and into the throbbing guts of Chaos?
That is to say, was the "simple" past only our blinders of (an)eris?
I don't think there was a singular moment where stuff became absurdly complex, I think it builds gradually and you only realize the water's boiling after the fact.
I think lots of people see past the veil -- anybody who can think critically can do it -- it's just that those truths are hard to communicate. Like, Herman Cain describes a 9% flat tax as being the most fair possible tax system. But is it? In order to dissect that idea, you have to pull apart that idea of fairness, the role of government, and all the tangled side issues.
Politics has always been a language game, and that means that the symbols of communication we use are tangled up and misleading. Over time, I don't think that's changed in essence, only in intensity. The information age moves quickly -- you can find data and rhetoric to support any idea. This makes it a lot harder to get to the root of an issue. Objectivity is harder to spot than ever.
The 9% thing is Crazy Eddie trying to simply the system.
And it works, too, as long as you don't mind watching the middle class become the working class, the working class become the lower class, and the lower class become those people walking.
Has it been explained somewhere here why a flat tax does that? I mean, it sounds like it ought to, people who make more money get to pay more money with the same percentage. I want to know so I can go look for it, or make a thread or whatever.
Because a flat tax high enough to generate the revenue garnered by the current system would be so high that poor people would be driven broke by it.
Also, poor people spend more money than rich people do, so the economy tends to dry up.
That almost makes sense. But I have gathered now that like a graduated tax thing is better, yes?
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 19, 2011, 09:55:18 PM
Also, under Cain's plan, capital gains income is not taxed at all, so important job creators like hedge fund managers and investment bankers will see significant tax reductions.
:crankey:
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 19, 2011, 09:55:18 PM
Also, under Cain's plan, capital gains income is not taxed at all, so important job creators like hedge fund managers and investment bankers will see significant tax reductions.
I just snorted so hard I made my ears pop. :lulz:
After a lot of soul searching, heavy research, and introspection, I think I can say with some certainty that ECONOMICS IS STUPID.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 09:56:15 PM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 19, 2011, 09:55:18 PM
Also, under Cain's plan, capital gains income is not taxed at all, so important job creators like hedge fund managers and investment bankers will see significant tax reductions.
I just snorted so hard I made my ears pop. :lulz:
Job creators! :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 10:05:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 09:56:15 PM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 19, 2011, 09:55:18 PM
Also, under Cain's plan, capital gains income is not taxed at all, so important job creators like hedge fund managers and investment bankers will see significant tax reductions.
I just snorted so hard I made my ears pop. :lulz:
Job creators! :lulz:
I love that shit. It's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 10:06:17 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 10:05:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 09:56:15 PM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 19, 2011, 09:55:18 PM
Also, under Cain's plan, capital gains income is not taxed at all, so important job creators like hedge fund managers and investment bankers will see significant tax reductions.
I just snorted so hard I made my ears pop. :lulz:
Job creators! :lulz:
I love that shit. It's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Seriously, just wow.
9% of a million: 90,000. Remaining: 910,000
9% of 100,000: 9,000. Remaining: 91,000.
9% of 10,000: 900. Remaining: 9,100.
Roughly how much rent is per year for a tolerable apartment here: $7,200.
This is why a flat tax is bad.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on October 19, 2011, 10:13:20 PM
9% of a million: 90,000. Remaining: 910,000
9% of 100,000: 9,000. Remaining: 91,000.
9% of 10,000: 900. Remaining: 9,100.
Roughly how much rent is per year for a tolerable apartment here: $7,200.
This is why a flat tax is bad.
OH! Okay.
Mode income in the USA: $19,800/year.
A flat tax of 9% would add $1782 in expenses to that person's household.
Which is the same as having some poor person pay the rent on that bigass house of ours AND the electric, for my benefit, with nothing in return.
Bill Gates could afford to do that. Joe Sixpack cannot.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 19, 2011, 10:18:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on October 19, 2011, 10:13:20 PM
9% of a million: 90,000. Remaining: 910,000
9% of 100,000: 9,000. Remaining: 91,000.
9% of 10,000: 900. Remaining: 9,100.
Roughly how much rent is per year for a tolerable apartment here: $7,200.
This is why a flat tax is bad.
OH! Okay.
In principle, it's "fair". However, in practice, because of the cost of living, a flat tax causes low income people to be that much poorer. It's go hungry or have the power shut off in many cases without that insignificant 9% of a low income.
ETA: What Dok said.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on October 19, 2011, 10:24:59 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 19, 2011, 10:18:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on October 19, 2011, 10:13:20 PM
9% of a million: 90,000. Remaining: 910,000
9% of 100,000: 9,000. Remaining: 91,000.
9% of 10,000: 900. Remaining: 9,100.
Roughly how much rent is per year for a tolerable apartment here: $7,200.
This is why a flat tax is bad.
OH! Okay.
In principle, it's "fair". However, in practice, because of the cost of living, a flat tax causes low income people to be that much poorer. It's go hungry or have the power shut off in many cases without that insignificant 9% of a low income.
It's "fair" in the sense that it's "fair" that a grown man and a 8 year old kid both get a baseball bat before brawling.
Yeah, I get that now. That is very stupid, which supports my theory.
Yes; we need a progressive tax so that we are taxing excess income most heavily, and not taxing survival income at all. The tax system we have almost accomplishes this, except that it taxes the working/middle class too heavily, and barely taxes the ultimate in excess income - investment income - at all. Wages, especially for those earning under $100k/year, should not be taxed at a higher rate than investments.
Don't let any libertarian hear you say that, you'd be cleaning them off the walls for weeks.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 19, 2011, 10:30:51 PM
Don't let any libertarian hear you say that, you'd be cleaning them off the walls for weeks.
Fuck them. They're just teabaggers that want to smoke dope.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 10:31:32 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 19, 2011, 10:30:51 PM
Don't let any libertarian hear you say that, you'd be cleaning them off the walls for weeks.
Fuck them. They're just teabaggers that want to smoke dope.
I was just having a giggle at their expense.
Also I was thinking of DP when I posted that. :lulz:
Steve Forbes' flat tax plan was more reasonable, as it had personal exemptions. The gist of it was something like $30,000 for a family of four, with a flat 17% on everything above the exempted amount. So if that family makes less than $30,000, they pay nothing in taxes, and if they make $30,100, then they pay $17 in taxes. Not perfect, but way less batshit that Cain's 9-9-9 plan.
A friend and I were joking this morning, and he said we should just take the government's expenses and divide them evenly among everyone. Everybody owes $11,500 in taxes. If you can't pay it, because you don't make enough or perhaps because you are a small child, your tax bill just rolls over to next year, with interest.
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 10:10:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 10:06:17 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 10:05:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 09:56:15 PM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 19, 2011, 09:55:18 PM
Also, under Cain's plan, capital gains income is not taxed at all, so important job creators like hedge fund managers and investment bankers will see significant tax reductions.
I just snorted so hard I made my ears pop. :lulz:
Job creators! :lulz:
I love that shit. It's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Seriously, just wow.
:thanks:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2011, 10:25:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on October 19, 2011, 10:24:59 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 19, 2011, 10:18:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on October 19, 2011, 10:13:20 PM
9% of a million: 90,000. Remaining: 910,000
9% of 100,000: 9,000. Remaining: 91,000.
9% of 10,000: 900. Remaining: 9,100.
Roughly how much rent is per year for a tolerable apartment here: $7,200.
This is why a flat tax is bad.
OH! Okay.
In principle, it's "fair". However, in practice, because of the cost of living, a flat tax causes low income people to be that much poorer. It's go hungry or have the power shut off in many cases without that insignificant 9% of a low income.
It's "fair" in the sense that it's "fair" that a grown man and a 8 year old kid both get a baseball bat before brawling.
Yeah, exactly.
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 19, 2011, 10:36:05 PM
Everybody owes $11,500 in taxes. If you can't pay it, because you don't make enough or perhaps because you are a small child, your tax bill just rolls over to next year, with interest.
That's even funnier than student loan debt! :x
Quote from: PopeTom on October 19, 2011, 10:58:14 PM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 19, 2011, 10:36:05 PM
Everybody owes $11,500 in taxes. If you can't pay it, because you don't make enough or perhaps because you are a small child, your tax bill just rolls over to next year, with interest.
That's even funnier than student loan debt! :x
Unfortunately, no. To follow the student loan debt model, the tax bill would have to have to roll over to the next year, with interest AND a penalty up to half the amount owed.
I seem to recall hearing (so correct me with a nailbat if necessary) that lower-income households spend a greater portion of their income on food and basic consumer goods, which are also taxed under H. Cain's plan. So the poor get screwed on their income, and then screwed again when they try to live off that income.
It is also sad that the fed budget is so bloated that it requires 9% of all income, sales, and what was that other 9 for?
Quote from: rong on October 20, 2011, 11:06:54 AM
It is also sad that the fed budget is so bloated that it requires 9% of all income, sales, and what was that other 9 for?
Corporate income.
Quote from: Cain on October 19, 2011, 07:07:27 PM
Her book only has one review, by the way. Some kind person should add more.
Her book has received a lot of negative reviews lately. I gave her a positive one.
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:02:51 PM
Also, LOLing at her LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/melissa-brookstone/29/230/9b6
It's been deleted. Victory?
Quote from: Cainad on October 20, 2011, 06:10:13 AM
I seem to recall hearing (so correct me with a nailbat if necessary) that lower-income households spend a greater portion of their income on food and basic consumer goods, which are also taxed under H. Cain's plan. So the poor get screwed on their income, and then screwed again when they try to live off that income.
Completely correct. Any kind of sales tax disproportionately taxes the poor-through-middle-classes, who must spend almost all their income on survival.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 20, 2011, 06:42:48 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:02:51 PM
Also, LOLing at her LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/melissa-brookstone/29/230/9b6
It's been deleted. Victory?
I'm still seeing it!
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 10:29:19 PMYes; we need a progressive tax so that we are taxing excess income most heavily, and not taxing survival income at all.
That makes a lot of sense. So no taxes up to, say, $20k or something?
That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml) So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 20, 2011, 06:56:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 10:29:19 PMYes; we need a progressive tax so that we are taxing excess income most heavily, and not taxing survival income at all.
That makes a lot of sense. So no taxes up to, say, $20k or something?
For a single person, yes. Currently the line below which a single person pays no Federal income tax is absurdly low; around $11k or something, and it's around $20k for a family of four.
I gave our friend Ms. Brookstone a glowing review for her brilliant work of satire. Please feel free to vote it up: http://www.amazon.com/Planetary-Bill-Rights-Project-Prosperity/product-reviews/1456503588/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 20, 2011, 06:42:48 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 07:02:51 PM
Also, LOLing at her LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/melissa-brookstone/29/230/9b6
It's been deleted. Victory?
I saw her Facebook page yesterday, and I think she had like 13 friends IIRC. Today she has 6.
I am extremely amused that she misspells "illustrated" on the page where she states that a primary goal is 100% worldwide literacy. :lulz: I know it's just a typo, but it's a funny one.
lawl
The irony of it all (http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A1572185&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post)
QuoteAbout 5 people so far, have gone to the Amazon.com page for my book and added bad reviews of it, yet only one copy has been sold in October, in fact I think only half a dozen copies have been sold all year, because as I said, it's buried under 2.5 million other books there. So it's pretty well established that anyone can write a review, especially if they're diametrically opposed to your philosophy and hate what you're saying. It would help if the people looking at those bad reviews at Amazon knew this, however. ( Maybe several thousand of you who are philosophically in tune and haven't read the book, could go there and write great 5 star reviews. LOL Just kidding! ;-)
They weren't all bad. Nigel and I both gave her 5 stars. :?
Also, this:
QuoteAnd that photo they grabbed off a Libertarian Meetup site, and have been plastering around, trying to promote terrorism against me? Guess where that photo came from. My concealed carry license.
DUN dun dun
:scared:
She also brags about her Mensa membership a little bit. :lulz:
What terrorism? :?
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 21, 2011, 01:34:49 AM
lawl
The irony of it all (http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A1572185&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post)
QuoteAbout 5 people so far, have gone to the Amazon.com page for my book and added bad reviews of it, yet only one copy has been sold in October, in fact I think only half a dozen copies have been sold all year, because as I said, it's buried under 2.5 million other books there. So it's pretty well established that anyone can write a review, especially if they're diametrically opposed to your philosophy and hate what you're saying. It would help if the people looking at those bad reviews at Amazon knew this, however. ( Maybe several thousand of you who are philosophically in tune and haven't read the book, could go there and write great 5 star reviews. LOL Just kidding! ;-)
They weren't all bad. Nigel and I both gave her 5 stars. :?
Also, this:
QuoteAnd that photo they grabbed off a Libertarian Meetup site, and have been plastering around, trying to promote terrorism against me? Guess where that photo came from. My concealed carry license.
DUN dun dun
:scared:
She also brags about her Mensa membership a little bit. :lulz:
I guessed she was a Mensa member as soon as I saw her LinkedIn page. For some reason, members of Mensa seem to have the worst cases of Dunning/Kruger effect.
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 21, 2011, 01:34:49 AM
lawl
The irony of it all (http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A1572185&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post)
QuoteAbout 5 people so far, have gone to the Amazon.com page for my book and added bad reviews of it, yet only one copy has been sold in October, in fact I think only half a dozen copies have been sold all year, because as I said, it's buried under 2.5 million other books there. So it's pretty well established that anyone can write a review, especially if they're diametrically opposed to your philosophy and hate what you're saying. It would help if the people looking at those bad reviews at Amazon knew this, however. ( Maybe several thousand of you who are philosophically in tune and haven't read the book, could go there and write great 5 star reviews. LOL Just kidding! ;-)
They weren't all bad. Nigel and I both gave her 5 stars. :?
Also, this:
QuoteAnd that photo they grabbed off a Libertarian Meetup site, and have been plastering around, trying to promote terrorism against me? Guess where that photo came from. My concealed carry license.
DUN dun dun
:scared:
She also brags about her Mensa membership a little bit. :lulz:
Now she'll have people trying to guess which of the reviews is a real review. I mean, she would if anyone was looking at her poorly-written glorified pamphlet. :lulz:
I also love how she admits that her "little home-based business" has been dwindling, which is tantamount to admitting that she couldn't hire anyone if she wanted to.
All she needs is a tax cut, and then she'll able to start hiring again.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 20, 2011, 07:10:43 PM
That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml) So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.
Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?
Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?
Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?
- Pickle,
Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.
Well, gee, Pickle, you're right. When you lose your job, you can just walk in, and tell your boss, "But I have two kids, you CAN'T fire me!" and he has to let you stay, right?
Jesus fucking Christ, if you're going to be an asshole, at least attempt to not be a STUPID asshole, would ya?
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 20, 2011, 07:10:43 PM
That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml) So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.
Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?
Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?
Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?
- Pickle,
Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.
Maybe the idea is that if you subsidize low income families, they can afford a better education, which will result in fewer grandchildren.
Quote from: Cainad on October 20, 2011, 06:10:13 AM
I seem to recall hearing (so correct me with a nailbat if necessary) that lower-income households spend a greater portion of their income on food and basic consumer goods, which are also taxed under H. Cain's plan. So the poor get screwed on their income, and then screwed again when they try to live off that income.
Yeah. The lower your income is, the more likely you are to be living paycheck-to-paycheck (i.e., expending all of your income on things that get hit by sales tax.)
A little math:
For every $10,000 you make, under the 9-9-9 plan, you pay $900 in income tax, which leaves you with $9,100. BUT, if all of that is spend on things subject to sales tax (I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that in the 9-9-9 plan sales tax would apply even to stuff like rent and healthcare), you can only buy $8,350 of actual goods (on which you pay $750 of sale tax, totaling to $9,100.) So the effective tax on people who spend all of their money would actually be 16.5%.
Compare that to a person who makes 50% of their income from financial investments and 50% from salary. Since the income tax Cain wants would only apply to wages and not money from financial stuff, for every $10,000 that person makes, he only pays his 9% on $5,000 of it, or $450. That leaves him with $9,550. If he invests half of that ($4775) and spends the other half on taxed goods and services, he gets $4380 of goods on which he pays $395 sales tax. Overall, for every $10,000 he earns, he pays 8.45%.
Cain's proposal isn't even a "flat tax" - it's a
regressive tax. People who live paycheck-to-paycheck get screwed with 16.5% tax rate, while the people wealthy enough to make sizeable investments pay much, much less, about half in our example. If you calculate the % as "What percent of income over the poverty line is paid in taxes?" the numbers get even more skewed.
Quote from: Luna on October 21, 2011, 03:50:22 AM
Well, gee, Pickle, you're right. When you lose your job, you can just walk in, and tell your boss, "But I have two kids, you CAN'T fire me!" and he has to let you stay, right?
Jesus fucking Christ, if you're going to be an asshole, at least attempt to not be a STUPID asshole, would ya?
I was talking about the origins of people who would do that, outside of having any skill set that would help them support a family of four.
I was a child of a family of four that couldn't support themselves, BTW. There were "Other Circumstances" that prevented them from doing that successfully, but we can pass them over for the sake of conversation even though they are completely relevant.
The root of my question is why a person not entirely secure (or at the least, reasonably secure) in their profession would CHOOSE to have children? Especially two?
Yes, layoffs happen. Yes economic conditions in a particular region can mean you can't readily find a job in your field.
What exactly is the issue you have with my post? That DITK family providers can get fired and not be able to find new work in their field?
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 21, 2011, 03:58:58 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 20, 2011, 07:10:43 PM
That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml) So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.
Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?
Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?
Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?
- Pickle,
Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.
Maybe the idea is that if you subsidize low income families, they can afford a better education, which will result in fewer grandchildren.
People like to fuck, and dumb ass guys with no family pressure and no plans for their future that would bring them out of a low income family don't give a shit if they knock up the girl next door and saddle them both with poverty.
The key word I focused on in your post was "maybe."
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 20, 2011, 07:10:43 PM
That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml) So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.
Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?
Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?
Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?
- Pickle,
Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.
As the head of household of a family of four, I am kind of hoping you can answer that question yourself through a process called "deductive reasoning", which might show you, stupidity and poor decision-making aside, how a family of four might find themselves below the poverty level though no particular fault of their own.
I would also be interested in any rationale you might have for taxing such a family, and I want to hear your take on the positive impact such taxation might have on the children. Also, if there are reasons you believe that it is beneficial to society for children to be hungry or homeless because their parents make poor decisions, please share.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 20, 2011, 07:10:43 PM
That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml) So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.
Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?
Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?
Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?
- Pickle,
Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.
Aside from the correlation between education and family size? Lower income families tend to have lower levels of education, and there seems to be some kind of relationship between low education and larger family size. I don't know but maybe, just maybe, if families below poverty line don't need to have everyone working children might get more help with homework, instead of having mom and dad too tired to help from working overtime, have more time to do it, instead of working a part time job, and might maybe be encouraged to go to college?
No you are totally right, welfare is subsidizing lazy, poor people and encourages them to have more children than a first-worlder should have.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:14:14 AM
Quote from: Luna on October 21, 2011, 03:50:22 AM
Well, gee, Pickle, you're right. When you lose your job, you can just walk in, and tell your boss, "But I have two kids, you CAN'T fire me!" and he has to let you stay, right?
Jesus fucking Christ, if you're going to be an asshole, at least attempt to not be a STUPID asshole, would ya?
I was talking about the origins of people who would do that, outside of having any skill set that would help them support a family of four.
I was a child of a family of four that couldn't support themselves, BTW. There were "Other Circumstances" that prevented them from doing that successfully, but we can pass them over for the sake of conversation even though they are completely relevant.
The root of my question is why a person not entirely secure (or at the least, reasonably secure) in their profession would CHOOSE to have children? Especially two?
Yes, layoffs happen. Yes economic conditions in a particular region can mean you can't readily find a job in your field.
What exactly is the issue you have with my post? That DITK family providers can get fired and not be able to find new work in their field?
There are a LOT of people in my area who cannot find work, period. My friend sent out 300 resumes last year and didn't get a call back. Fast food joints wouldn't hire her. She is intelligent, experienced, educated, motivated, and highly qualified, but she's freaking out right now because her seasonal job is about to end and she hasn't got a nibble on a new one.
What I don't understand is what world you live in, where there are enough jobs for everyone if they just look hard enough. Do I really need to explain to you that is an imaginary world? That when unemployment is up, a certain percentage of people are unable to find work, in their fields or otherwise, in their area or otherwise?
There are also factors such as, for instance, if you have children, and you get divorced, and you wish to leave the region to find work, in most situations that is an automatic forfeit of custody to the other parent.
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 04:18:42 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 20, 2011, 07:10:43 PM
That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml) So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.
Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?
Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?
Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?
- Pickle,
Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.
As the head of household of a family of four, I am kind of hoping you can answer that question yourself through a process called "deductive reasoning", which might show you, stupidity and poor decision-making aside, how a family of four might find themselves below the poverty level though no particular fault of their own.
I would also be interested in any rationale you might have for taxing such a family, and I want to hear your take on the positive impact such taxation might have on the children. Also, if there are reasons you believe that it is beneficial to society for children to be hungry or homeless because their parents make poor decisions, please share.
I have not, that I know of, recommended ANY taxation of anyone making money "below the poverty line"
I'm actually against sales tax on basic food.
I'm against any tax on labor income.
I'm very strongly against the some 400% increase in higher education costs, driven by banking interests that know that the people who take out those loans cannot default on them through bankruptcy.
I cannot write with you, Nigel, about your situation, without possibly offending you and your chosen field of work which is the sort of work I really wish I could do myself and not have to worry about paying the bills. More than anything, I love working with my hands and creating tangible things that anyone would consider art.
I'm going to drop this line of talk with you, because I envy what you've accomplished and are doing, and admire the strength it has to take every single day to keep doing it.
If, for some reason, that sounds like a dick thing to say, it was not my intention. Really.
I sincerely hope you lose your job and fall into a profoundly compromised financial situation through no fault of your own. :)
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 20, 2011, 07:10:43 PM
That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml) So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.
Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?
Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?
Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?
- Pickle,
Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.
Pickle, I like that you're so willing to stick your neck out to give Discordians something to disagree over. I don't know if that's a survival advantage for you personally, but if you're okay with it then so am I.
Anyway -
-- People usually figure the poverty line in terms of family situation. A family making 100k a year would be below "the" poverty line if they had, say, a hundred kids to take care of. So a family wouldn't necessarily be saying "Hey, we're below the poverty line. Ehh, a fourth kid wouldn't hurt" - it could easily be "It's looking like our three kids will grow up to be assets to society, and we're making a little extra, let's try for a fourth" and then the wage earners in the family have to take a pay cut when the youngest is a few years old, pushing them beneath the poverty line.
-- Family planning isn't an exact science, when people have access to it at all. Say you figure you can support two kids, and the second pregnancy turns out to be triplets - what are you supposed to do, go ask the doctor to abort the two with the lowest body mass? The other thing about kids is that you can't really stuff them back into the uterus if your income goes down, either, despite the best efforts of
child murderers rationally self-interested parents.
-- I am not a socioeconomist, but I suspect that the size of the low income population has less to do with birthrates than it does with wage distribution changes and cost of living increases.
-- Putting all that aside, even accepting the idea that breeders are morally undeserving of aid from us bachelors and gays, it's not like the kids themselves chose to be born to a large, poor family. Personally, I'd prefer that as many of those kids as possible grow up into engineers to build cool widgets to make my business more efficient, and relatively few of them to rob my business at gunpoint and then make me pay to incarcerate their criminal ass. It seems that the easiest way to adjust those numbers is to make it easier for families to provide for the children.
DP, I would also like to remind you that before I quit my job and became an artist, I owned a house and worked a stable job that paid me middle-class wages and benefits. I quit my job in order to make three times as much money working a skillset that I had taken 12 years to develop, and I also opened a glass supply company called Bridgetown glass. Later, running both businesses were taking too much of a toll on me, so I sold Bridgetown Glass and remained a full-time artist. It wasn't until the extreme economic tank that happened during my divorce that my income dipped below $40k for the first time in many years. I didn't marry money; when I met my husband HE was struggling and I was the one with the house and stable income. I then proceeded to help him build his business while I built mine. At my peak I had three employees and he had one.
Could I have predicted that my husband would cheat on me with random guys from Craigslist and lie about it for years?
Man, I wish I had, I would have avoided all that mess in the first place.
Anyway, shame on you for thinking that you know better than me and would have been able to predict the course of events that would see me diminished from upper middle class to struggling to survive over a course of three years. You may imagine that you can predict what will happen in your life and plan for all contingencies, but odds are that at some point you'll be sideswiped with something less than pleasant that will kick you in the teeth a time or two before rubbing your nose in your own shit.
And I bet that when that happens, you'll be the first person wailing that it's not fair and it's someone else's fault.
Quote from: Donald Coyote on October 21, 2011, 04:20:08 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 20, 2011, 07:10:43 PM
That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml) So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.
Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?
Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?
Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?
- Pickle,
Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.
Aside from the correlation between education and family size? Lower income families tend to have lower levels of education, and there seems to be some kind of relationship between low education and larger family size. I don't know but maybe, just maybe, if families below poverty line don't need to have everyone working children might get more help with homework, instead of having mom and dad too tired to help from working overtime, have more time to do it, instead of working a part time job, and might maybe be encouraged to go to college?
No you are totally right, welfare is subsidizing lazy, poor people and encourages them to have more children than a first-worlder should have.
College, these days, without a college fund that wasn't planned and/or plundered at a minimum 10% penalty, takes enormous amounts of debt or scholarships, based mostly on GPA.
College costs are a bubble, detrimental to any family even NEAR the poverty line. My biggest problem with the OWS people is that this is not on their list.
That being said, government subsidies of student loans (through Fannie May) for anything other than a technical degree (Engineering, Programming, Chemistry, etc. ) are a complete waste of money and time.
Argue with me on that. PLEASE.
Parents have to work to take care of their children. They had them.
Quoteinstead of having mom and dad too tired to help from working overtime, have more time to do it, instead of working a part time job, and might maybe be encouraged to go to college?
You know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOUYour family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
Your grandparents and THEIR grandparents did without your fucking TV and your car and your spoiled little shit's video games.
UGH.
I do not fit in here.
I did post that after reading all of the "warning, posts" warning.
Nigel, no one can prepare for all contingencies. Your wish that I be laid off will have little effect on me because I have prepared for that and am willing to relocate to any part of the world that has a company that does what I do.
I've even made plans about where to keep my books, something I didn't do the first time I changed countries, to my eternal regret.
GA, I'm going to have to get back to you on those points. Work comes early and it's 12 EST.
I did read them though, and appreciate your time. I will come to them.
Nigel, on your second post. I will dedicate a reply specifically to it, as it deserves.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:14:14 AM
What exactly is the issue you have with my post? That DITK family providers can get fired and not be able to find new work in their field?
Can't speak for Luna, but I get the impression that you think people should do something along the lines of:
1. Establish career. Make estimate of future earnings.
2. Figure out how high of expenses you can afford, and don't exceed that.
3. Then, and only then, should you figure out how many kids you can have.
That's not a terribly bad system assuming that you can get enough information to do #1 before the condom breaks or your uterus gives out (and the markets are stable enough that such an estimate useful across 15+ years), but I think the overwhelming majority of humans don't think that way - and we're the the animal
best equipped to make reproductive decisions based on projected resource abundance. Changing human nature at a level that deeply biological and emotional is a pretty huge task. It's probably better to design a system based around how people actually behave, rather than engineering an ideal system and trying to shoehorn people into acting the way that system requires. People in developed countries
are delaying pregnancy by a lot compared to historical times, though, so maybe that's relevant.
Addendum - only just now realized that "family of four" meant four people, not four kids + parents. I thought 2 parents + 2 kids was a perfectly reasonable size for a family; that's below the level necessary for population growth. You even get to recycle a lot of stuff used by the older one, and the second kid is like having a free social skills tutor for the first one, right?
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:49:17 AM
Parents have to work to take care of their children. They had them.
Not too long ago, children were considered something of a community responsibility. When your tribe is relatively close knit, the liability of having a kid grow up to be antisocial (in the sense that their behaviour is harmful to the larger societal unit) is too great to leave parents to their own devices. Not saying that that model is a good idea, but it isn't a necessary economic or moral truth that parents be required to be the heavy lifters in terms of caring for their children.
DP, I assume you don't have children? If you don't, and aren't dealing with the school system, then you really have no idea what it takes to properly support a child (mentally and emotionally) through their school career. The whole system is still (and increasingly so) set up in a way that children with a parent who does not work WILL get significantly more needed support via involvement with the school than a child with two parents who work. Additionally, workplaces are still set up so that parents are penalized for taking the time required to support their children, even if they put in the same or more hours than a childless worker.
It is an incredible amount of work to support a child through their school career. It is many hours of work per week that a person who is working full-time, or more, will have a very difficult time finding, because you cannot add hours into the day or week. There is homework, emotional support, and teacher meetings. I work about 75 hours per week, but one of the reasons I have worked so hard to be self-employed is because it means that I am here in the hours after school, and here during weekends, so that even though I work so much I have the flexibility to take three hours out for teacher meetings. I am my children's scholastic support system, and I can see them struggling despite how hard I try, because there are times when I have to choose between sitting with them for two hours talking through their homework, or working for those same two hours to make sure they will have food next week and a house to live in. I can't pull those two hours out of my ass, no matter how much I may wish I could make more time.
I really think you are blindered, because you are unable to see that the fact that you haven't had a particular struggle doesn't mean that other people don't have that struggle. You are unable to see that there are some struggles that you simply don't understand due to naivete and inexperience.
I have thought many times that if I could move to another part of the country, I could work far less for the same or better standard of living. Unfortunately, it would also mean that I would lose my children by default, which would do them, and society, a profound disservice. The reason I wish unforeseen hardship on you is not for retribution, but so that you could gain perspective that you don't currently have.
My ex, BTW, has a very similar view to yours, which I find frustrating partly because when I met him he had nothing, and I put a great deal of my intelligence and acumen into building his business, while remaining the integral support system for the family. For many years I earned more than he did, and supported him. When the market shifted, my income dropped but his didn't... and when we parted ways, I suffered economically and he didn't. Unfortunately, that's a very common story for women who get divorced. However, he is a very arrogant person who is unable to perceive that his current prosperity and security is not due only to good planning and hard work (trust me, he's not that good of a planner) but due to the work and support of others in combination with a market that happens to value the kind of work he does very highly... despite the fact that the value of the kind of work he does was largely speculative when he was entering it. And that market could shift for unforeseen reasons at any time, like it or not.
I assume that you are a techie of some sort, because I see your attitude quite a bit in people who work with computers. It's been a good era for people who work with computers. I hope you are able to understand that no matter how secure you feel your job skills or investments are at this point in life, it is completely possible for that security to drop out from under you.
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 05:40:09 AMI really think you are blindered, because you are unable to see that the fact that you haven't had a particular struggle doesn't mean that other people don't have that struggle. You are unable to see that there are some struggles that you simply don't understand due to naivete and inexperience.
I think this really hits the nail on the head. Certain people lack the ability to empathize with others who have different lives, situations, etc. They're unable to see that their life is relatively harder or easier than others have it.
A good example is an overnight sports show I listen to. The host got his job in a relatively way. He would always call in to a radio show with great points in an entertaining way so they eventually gave him his own show after he won a contest. While he certainly deserves his job (I love his show), the truth is he got "lucky" to get such a high paying, relatively easy job for so little effort. Because he's unable to see past his own experiences, he thinks getting wealthy is as easy for everyone as it was for him. Therefore, if someone is poorer than him it's because they didn't put in the minimal work he did which means the person is lazy. And if a man is poor because he's lazy (and all poor people are poor because they're lazy, right? :roll:), he has no sympathy for him. I never understood how he could think that way until I read your post, Nigel. And now I get it. Some people just can't see/imagine/think beyond their own personal experiences.
Sorry about the short OT rant, lol.
God, DP, you fucking idiot.
The poor tend to have more kids for a lot of reasons (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/08/24/index.html) - lack of access to decent birthcontrol, no or shitty healthcare, etc. And you propose we punish the poor for being poor by making them starve so people who don't "do that sort of thing" (you mean have kids unexpectedly?) don't have to "subsidize" them?
Oh, and do you realize the human cost of what you're arguing for? Grinding poverty, more of the children you seem to hate (how dare their parents be poor!), starvation/malnutrition, bad health, and all sorts of other nasty shit.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:49:17 AM
Quote from: Donald Coyote on October 21, 2011, 04:20:08 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 20, 2011, 07:10:43 PM
That's below what's considered the poverty line in the US for a family of four. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml) So definitely, no taxes up to that point, but I'd put that mark up higher.
Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?
Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?
Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?
- Pickle,
Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.
Aside from the correlation between education and family size? Lower income families tend to have lower levels of education, and there seems to be some kind of relationship between low education and larger family size. I don't know but maybe, just maybe, if families below poverty line don't need to have everyone working children might get more help with homework, instead of having mom and dad too tired to help from working overtime, have more time to do it, instead of working a part time job, and might maybe be encouraged to go to college?
No you are totally right, welfare is subsidizing lazy, poor people and encourages them to have more children than a first-worlder should have.
College, these days, without a college fund that wasn't planned and/or plundered at a minimum 10% penalty, takes enormous amounts of debt or scholarships, based mostly on GPA.
College costs are a bubble, detrimental to any family even NEAR the poverty line. My biggest problem with the OWS people is that this is not on their list.
That being said, government subsidies of student loans (through Fannie May) for anything other than a technical degree (Engineering, Programming, Chemistry, etc. ) are a complete waste of money and time.
Argue with me on that. PLEASE.
SURE. Just off the top of my head with a minimum of thought - teachers, doctors, nurses, scientists. No teachers, no technical degrees because there's no one to teach 'em the basics. No doctors and nurses, no medical care. No scientists, no understanding of so many other things.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:49:17 AM
Parents have to work to take care of their children. They had them.
Quoteinstead of having mom and dad too tired to help from working overtime, have more time to do it, instead of working a part time job, and might maybe be encouraged to go to college?
You know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
Your grandparents and THEIR grandparents did without your fucking TV and your car and your spoiled little shit's video games.
UGH.
I do not fit in here.
You don't understand a fucking thing, do you? What the fuck do you think the poor spend their money on? Not much of it is on video games. Most of it's on things like, you know, FOOD AND RENT AND BILLS. The kind of things you apparently don't have to worry about.
You're perfectly welcome to go find a board teeming with idiot libertarians. I'm sure you'd feel right at home.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:49:17 AM
College, these days, without a college fund that wasn't planned and/or plundered at a minimum 10% penalty, takes enormous amounts of debt or scholarships, based mostly on GPA.
College costs are a bubble, detrimental to any family even NEAR the poverty line. My biggest problem with the OWS people is that this is not on their list.
That being said, government subsidies of student loans (through Fannie May) for anything other than a technical degree (Engineering, Programming, Chemistry, etc. ) are a complete waste of money and time.
Argue with me on that. PLEASE.
Parents have to work to take care of their children. They had them.
What in the flying fuck does that have to do with anything I posted?
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:49:17 AM
Quoteinstead of having mom and dad too tired to help from working overtime, have more time to do it, instead of working a part time job, and might maybe be encouraged to go to college?
You know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
Your grandparents and THEIR grandparents did without your fucking TV and your car and your spoiled little shit's video games.
UGH.
I do not fit in here.
:crybaby:
My biological father walked out on me when I was 2. My step-father was only good for the shitty pay he got driving long-haul. My mother chose to wait until her three children were at least in middle school before getting a job so she could stay home. We qualified for all those wonderful "subsidies" like free school lunches. We grew up wearing second hand clothes, walking to school, and eating a lot of beans and rice.
I'm just glad I can look back and see how easy my childhood really was unlike your white, middle-class, libertarian punkass.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:49:17 AM
You know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
Your grandparents and THEIR grandparents did without your fucking TV and your car and your spoiled little shit's video games.
UGH.
I do not fit in here.
This is, seriously, one of the most repulsively sociopathic things I think I've ever seen anyone post here. I think you might be right about not fitting in here: for one thing, you appear to be incapable of learning, and for another thing, you appear to have a literally monstrously low level of concern for the well-being of children who should, for the benefit of society, be given as decent a baseline head-start as possible, even if their parents are LITERALLY retarded selfish assholes.
It sounds a lot as if you would like to return to the days of poor farms and child labor, though, possibly on the off-chance that you might be able to "earn" a profit from it.
Either that or you drink too much and all your brain cells and common decency fly out the window when you're drunk.
Pickle...
For fuck sake. I want to believe you aren't a stupid person. I liked you, but between the Slogans thread and this thread...
You come in asking questions where you should already know what the answers you are going to get are by now. Do you expect it to be different when you jam your dick into the meatgrinder again THIS time? Given you've been going 'I sure am going to get reamed!' just before you jump in now, I don't think so.
All it does is show that either you are too fucking stupid to learn basic pattern recognition, or you have a profound lack of respect for everyone else on the board, for all the times they have tried to explain in the past and you have said 'oh you are right I am sorry I will learn'. Either you are an idiot or a liar.
The above really was repulsive by the way. But I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusion when you reread it. You might even apologize. But anyone who has followed your posting history would have to be pretty naive to believe it this time. :sad:
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 07:02:47 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:49:17 AM
You know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
Your grandparents and THEIR grandparents did without your fucking TV and your car and your spoiled little shit's video games.
UGH.
I do not fit in here.
This is, seriously, one of the most repulsively sociopathic things I think I've ever seen anyone post here. I think you might be right about not fitting in here: for one thing, you appear to be incapable of learning, and for another thing, you appear to have a literally monstrously low level of concern for the well-being of children who should, for the benefit of society, be given as decent a baseline head-start as possible, even if their parents are LITERALLY retarded selfish assholes.
It sounds a lot as if you would like to return to the days of poor farms and child labor, though, possibly on the off-chance that you might be able to "earn" a profit from it.
I don't think you understand the real issue here, Nigel.
What matters here is that it is a moral imperative to make sure that the children of the
untermenschen are punished for daring to have parents who are shitty and poor (even though everyone knows that the two go hand in hand, AMIRITE LOL).
DPickle, I think you really need to drop the "I'm still learning" schtick and come clean. You've pretty consistently demonstrated that you have no real interest in changing your sociopathic worldview, since you keep bringing it up in the exact same form over and over again.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:14:14 AM
Quote from: Luna on October 21, 2011, 03:50:22 AM
Well, gee, Pickle, you're right. When you lose your job, you can just walk in, and tell your boss, "But I have two kids, you CAN'T fire me!" and he has to let you stay, right?
Jesus fucking Christ, if you're going to be an asshole, at least attempt to not be a STUPID asshole, would ya?
I was talking about the origins of people who would do that, outside of having any skill set that would help them support a family of four.
I was a child of a family of four that couldn't support themselves, BTW. There were "Other Circumstances" that prevented them from doing that successfully, but we can pass them over for the sake of conversation even though they are completely relevant.
The root of my question is why a person not entirely secure (or at the least, reasonably secure) in their profession would CHOOSE to have children? Especially two?
Yes, layoffs happen. Yes economic conditions in a particular region can mean you can't readily find a job in your field.
What exactly is the issue you have with my post? That DITK family providers can get fired and not be able to find new work in their field?
I gotta ask ya, DP...Seriously, now...Are you actually of the mind that people will make rational decisions not to reproduce?
Or that people who knock up the girl next door give economics any thought at all, regardless of tax structures/assistance, or the lack thereof? Because, if you do, you haven't spent any time observing primates, who
breed faster when times are tough. This is why we have a birth rate of ~ 1.6, and Central Africa has a birth rate of about 4.
We're not rich because we breed less, we breed less because we're rich. We're reasonably certain that our 1.6 kids will survive to breed, so we have less kids to spread the resources around. When people are uncertain about the future, they breed like rabbits.
Want the poor to slow their roll? Alleviate the effects of their poverty.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 03:45:31 AMwho the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?
Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?
Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?
- Pickle,
Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.
(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7144/cabbage.jpg)
Quote from: NigelI am kind of hoping you can answer that question yourself through a process called "deductive reasoning"
He is incapable.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?
No.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?
People with faulty birth control. People who were gainfully employed and then thanks to the Economic Calamity of 08, are now NOT gainfully employed. Young people who don't always make the best decisions and end up having twins. There are a myriad of reasons and scenarios where poor people have children or people who have children become poor. More than you can hope to collect and codify with welfare guidelines and stipulations.
QuoteWhy is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?
For one it is a survivability mechanism. Ever notice how fish have a shit ton of babies? It's because fish tend to be easy prey and need to make a shit ton of babies to up the chance that their genes are perpetuated. People in poverty don't face the risk of being literally eaten but there are a lot of challenges they face. So on some level nature may kick in and more children may be born to up the chances of perpetuating the blood line. Not that this is necessarily a deliberate and conscious course of action.
As far as the subsidizing piece, you have it all wrong. It's not about subsidizing procreation amongst the poor. It's about taking care of the kids. Societies have obligations and responsibilities related to the welfare of their children. That's why poor people with children get extra support compared to those who don't. It is all about giving the kids resources to be healthy and to have a chance to grow up and become healthy adults. WHICH, by the way, is in the best interest of everyone if you want to look at it economically. More kids who grow up to be healthy adults means more productive workers being introduced to the local economy. Kids who are malnourished and who don't get healthcare will also be a drag as they will require more (costly) emergency and crisis services.
So you can put in a little now to prevent those kinds of costs or you can decide to not invest in the welfare of children and pay for it many times more on the other end. Nevermind the additional costs that communities will pay in terms of crime, drop-outs, mental health, substance abuse, etc., etc.,
You are going to pay for these kids one way or another. Why not do it up front where you can A) help kids have a fighting chance at surviving in this hell hole called Earth and B) save money over the long haul.
It's insane to NOT support poor kids.
QuoteDoesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?
No. Not investing in the welfare of kids in poverty is going to encourage growth in all of the things I listed above and THAT is going to cost taxpayers even more. Never mind the tax on your soul for being a cheap, insensitive bastard.
Quote from: The Reverend What's-His-Name? Experience on October 21, 2011, 04:02:22 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?
People with faulty birth control. People who were gainfully employed and then thanks to the Economic Calamity of 08, are now NOT gainfully employed. Young people who don't always make the best decisions and end up having twins. There are a myriad of reasons and scenarios where poor people have children or people who have children become poor. More than you can hope to collect and codify with welfare guidelines and stipulations.
You left out the big one (at least here in the near South): Victims of abstinence-only education who don't use birth control because they've been told it's not effective anyway or who rely on birth control methods based on rumor because nobody ever told them that rumor is not, in fact, science.
Quote from: The Reverend What's-His-Name? Experience on October 21, 2011, 04:02:22 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?
People with faulty birth control. People who were gainfully employed and then thanks to the Economic Calamity of 08, are now NOT gainfully employed. Young people who don't always make the best decisions and end up having twins. There are a myriad of reasons and scenarios where poor people have children or people who have children become poor. More than you can hope to collect and codify with welfare guidelines and stipulations.
QuoteWhy is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?
For one it is a survivability mechanism. Ever notice how fish have a shit ton of babies? It's because fish tend to be easy prey and need to make a shit ton of babies to up the chance that their genes are perpetuated. People in poverty don't face the risk of being literally eaten but there are a lot of challenges they face. So on some level nature may kick in and more children may be born to up the chances of perpetuating the blood line. Not that this is necessarily a deliberate and conscious course of action.
As far as the subsidizing piece, you have it all wrong. It's not about subsidizing procreation amongst the poor. It's about taking care of the kids. Societies have obligations and responsibilities related to the welfare of their children. That's why poor people with children get extra support compared to those who don't. It is all about giving the kids resources to be healthy and to have a chance to grow up and become healthy adults. WHICH, by the way, is in the best interest of everyone if you want to look at it economically. More kids who grow up to be healthy adults means more productive workers being introduced to the local economy. Kids who are malnourished and who don't get healthcare will also be a drag as they will require more (costly) emergency and crisis services.
So you can put in a little now to prevent those kinds of costs or you can decide to not invest in the welfare of children and pay for it many times more on the other end. Nevermind the additional costs that communities will pay in terms of crime, drop-outs, mental health, substance abuse, etc., etc.,
You are going to pay for these kids one way or another. Why not do it up front where you can A) help kids have a fighting chance at surviving in this hell hole called Earth and B) save money over the long haul.
It's insane to NOT support poor kids.
QuoteDoesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?
No. Not investing in the welfare of kids in poverty is going to encourage growth in all of the things I listed above and THAT is going to cost taxpayers even more. Never mind the tax on your soul for being a cheap, insensitive bastard.
:mittens:
Quote from: Cainad on October 21, 2011, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 07:02:47 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:49:17 AM
You know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
Your grandparents and THEIR grandparents did without your fucking TV and your car and your spoiled little shit's video games.
UGH.
I do not fit in here.
This is, seriously, one of the most repulsively sociopathic things I think I've ever seen anyone post here. I think you might be right about not fitting in here: for one thing, you appear to be incapable of learning, and for another thing, you appear to have a literally monstrously low level of concern for the well-being of children who should, for the benefit of society, be given as decent a baseline head-start as possible, even if their parents are LITERALLY retarded selfish assholes.
It sounds a lot as if you would like to return to the days of poor farms and child labor, though, possibly on the off-chance that you might be able to "earn" a profit from it.
I don't think you understand the real issue here, Nigel.
What matters here is that it is a moral imperative to make sure that the children of the untermenschen are punished for daring to have parents who are shitty and poor (even though everyone knows that the two go hand in hand, AMIRITE LOL).
DPickle, I think you really need to drop the "I'm still learning" schtick and come clean. You've pretty consistently demonstrated that you have no real interest in changing your sociopathic worldview, since you keep bringing it up in the exact same form over and over again.
I think you're right. It's a punitive and immature worldview, and I think that rather than thinking "a healthy and prosperous society = more for me" he thinks "less for them = more for me".
He apparently hasn't yet figured out that it's better to be the poorest house on the rich block than the richest house on the poor block, for a multitude of reasons. Personally, I don't want to be King of Tin Can Alley... I do want to contribute to feeding and educating the poor, because evidence shows that when you educate the poor, they tend to stop being so damn poor, assuming economic opportunities exist. Call me selfish, but this isn't entirely out of compassion, and not because I want a free ride, but also because I don't wish to live in a society that consists largely of impoverished, uneducated people. Living in such a society doesn't benefit me or my children at all. For one thing, the poor are shitty customers if you're a small business owner (unless, of course, you're a parasite like a bail bondsman or a process server, in which case you have a personal vested interest in there being enough poor fuckups in your area to keep you in business).
The problem with relying on voluntary charity for assisting the poor is that it has been shown time and time again not to work. For one thing, people tend to naturally fall into the "somebody else's problem" mindset or the "why should I pay for their laziness?" mindset. Private charities are free to discriminate against people they decide lack virtue or merit. Taxes are (or should be) part of a social contract that is designed to create a healthy and prosperous social structure... and the main reason that is failing right now is because of the "more for me" mindset of the wealthy who do not care if their increased wealth comes at the expense of society as a whole.
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 03:36:58 AM
Quote from: Donald Coyote on October 21, 2011, 01:50:28 AM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 21, 2011, 01:42:24 AM
What terrorism? :?
Saying mean things = terrorism :lulz:
Clearly, criticism = terrorism! Duh!
More stuff today: http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/threatening-the-left
QuoteAnother friend of Tea Party Nation got a good taste of liberal love this week. Melissa Brookstone wrote a blog on Tea Party Nation, which we featured on Tuesday. The left hyperventilated over this one. Keith Olbermann told his three viewers that Melissa was the worst person in the world. Liberals went on Melissa's personal blog saying terrible things about her. They attacked her business and wrote bad reviews about a book she has on Amazon, that they have never read.
...
As for Melissa, she is not a public figure, yet has had to put up with the full onslaught of liberal outrage.
:lulz:
She seems to be really upset about us writing bad reviews on her book. If anything, we've helped call attention to it and may even turn out to have helped her sell a few copies. She should be grateful, the ingrate.
Clearly, this calls for insanely positive reviews on the Amazon page.
Well said, Nigel, and
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 05:00:00 PM(unless, of course, you're a parasite like a bail bondsman or a process server, in which case you have a personal vested interest in there being enough poor fuckups in your area to keep you in business).
I see what you did there. :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 21, 2011, 05:02:59 PM
Clearly, this calls for insanely positive reviews on the Amazon page.
Fuck, yeah!
My review was positive, if semi-literate.
Reviews should be done along the lines of those for the Three Wolf Moon t-shirt.
OH THE HYPOCRISY!
:lulz: I love when people scream about how others expressing opposing viewpoints are trying to shut down free expression. STOP TRYING TO SUPPRESS ME BY ARGUING AGAINST ME, BIG MEANIE!!!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 21, 2011, 05:02:59 PM
Clearly, this calls for insanely positive reviews on the Amazon page.
Man, I gave her five stars and a GLOWING review, and she isn't even grateful. (I did read the preview for the book, too. It was awful. Why do all these people write at a 6th-grade level? Oh wait.)
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 05:10:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 21, 2011, 05:02:59 PM
Clearly, this calls for insanely positive reviews on the Amazon page.
Man, I gave her five stars and a GLOWING review, and she isn't even grateful. (I did read the preview for the book, too. It was awful. Why do all these people write at a 6th-grade level? Oh wait.)
This (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1116&bih=428&q=philosophical+rubbish+tailor-made+for+fourteen+year+olds&oq=philosophical+rubbish+tailor-made+for+fourteen+year+olds&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=387l11661l0l11783l56l54l0l43l43l0l188l1284l3.8l11l0) is why.
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2011, 05:08:37 PM
Reviews should be done along the lines of those for the Three Wolf Moon t-shirt.
Oh HELL yes.
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 21, 2011, 05:04:32 PM
Well said, Nigel, and
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 05:00:00 PM(unless, of course, you're a parasite like a bail bondsman or a process server, in which case you have a personal vested interest in there being enough poor fuckups in your area to keep you in business).
I see what you did there. :lulz:
:thanks:
I think I am going to have to finally checkout a copy of that book and read it. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2011, 05:16:40 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 05:10:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 21, 2011, 05:02:59 PM
Clearly, this calls for insanely positive reviews on the Amazon page.
Man, I gave her five stars and a GLOWING review, and she isn't even grateful. (I did read the preview for the book, too. It was awful. Why do all these people write at a 6th-grade level? Oh wait.)
This (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1116&bih=428&q=philosophical+rubbish+tailor-made+for+fourteen+year+olds&oq=philosophical+rubbish+tailor-made+for+fourteen+year+olds&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=387l11661l0l11783l56l54l0l43l43l0l188l1284l3.8l11l0) is why.
:lulz:
They would be so, so sad if they found out that it's not a big Liberal conspiracy, but just a bunch of jerks on the internet doing it for the funny.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:49:17 AM
You know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
Your grandparents and THEIR grandparents did without your fucking TV and your car and your spoiled little shit's video games.
UGH.
I do not fit in here.
No, having read that, I'm beginning to think that maybe you don't. I'm beginning to think that maybe you'd be more at home at teapartynation.com or something like it, somewhere where people live in a fantasy world where everyone gets what they deserve, and where plans go perfectly every time, and people always make the best, most rational decisions, en masse.
And you can sit there and tell each other than poor people aren't really people, and that they deserve every bad thing that happens to them, because they
chose to be poor.
You know, I've been a bit put off by Doktor Phox's and Trip's responses to you, as I felt they were being harsh for no reason. I seems that I owe them an apology, because I was wrong and they were right. You're a bad person, a sort of Dick Cheney writ small, and maybe it's time you found people that you fit in with.
Go, and be damned.
Quote from: Donald Coyote on October 21, 2011, 05:20:59 PM
I think I am going to have to finally checkout a copy of that book and read it. :horrormirth:
Meh, just read John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. Says the same thing and is written more intelligently.
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 05:25:09 PM
They would be so, so sad if they found out that it's not a big Liberal conspiracy, but just a bunch of jerks on the internet doing it for the funny.
I probably hate liberals more than most Tea Partiers. And for the right, nay,
righteous reasons.
People don't understand - just because I generally prefer certain policy methods and outcomes, doesnt mean I don't think, by and large, the subscribers to such things are a pack of vicious, ethnocentric, partisan fools, liars and conmen. Because they are. It just so happens the other side is much the same, and even funnier to pick on.
Warning - while you were typing a n
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 07:02:47 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:49:17 AM
You know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
Your grandparents and THEIR grandparents did without your fucking TV and your car and your spoiled little shit's video games.
UGH.
I do not fit in here.
This is, seriously, one of the most repulsively sociopathic things I think I've ever seen anyone post here. I think you might be right about not fitting in here: for one thing, you appear to be incapable of learning, and for another thing, you appear to have a literally monstrously low level of concern for the well-being of children who should, for the benefit of society, be given as decent a baseline head-start as possible, even if their parents are LITERALLY retarded selfish assholes.
It sounds a lot as if you would like to return to the days of poor farms and child labor, though, possibly on the off-chance that you might be able to "earn" a profit from it.
Yeah: don't get to caught up in the kid D'bait
iT reflects back to the Iran contra ERA & MissSing children
I called the period iCON Eron!-! it was a Carter (copTer) charter
best 4goTTen as the rapePERcuss'N is Scorse off ?{ maybe 1980's + 4Score
around or after 2060 most of US will be long gone BUT this board may REMain /-/
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
You know, I've been a bit put off by Doktor Phox's and Trip's responses to you, as I felt they were being harsh for no reason. I seems that I owe them an apology, because I was wrong and they were right. You're a bad person, a sort of Dick Cheney writ small, and maybe it's time you found people that you fit in with.
Go, and be damned.
It's okay, we was just dismissin' the Disco Cabbage before it got mainstream and everybody started doin' it, you know?
(besides, it's been the other way around often enough, hasn't it? :) so much, that I generally assume you turn out to be right about someone even if I don't see it yet)
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 21, 2011, 06:24:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
You know, I've been a bit put off by Doktor Phox's and Trip's responses to you, as I felt they were being harsh for no reason. I seems that I owe them an apology, because I was wrong and they were right. You're a bad person, a sort of Dick Cheney writ small, and maybe it's time you found people that you fit in with.
Go, and be damned.
It's okay, we was just dismissin' the Disco Cabbage before it got mainstream and everybody started doin' it, you know?
(besides, it's been the other way around often enough, hasn't it? :) so much, that I generally assume you turn out to be right about someone even if I don't see it yet)
It's not just the insane callousness he aims at anyone less fortunate than himself...It's also the fact that he insists on believing in things that just aren't so...That a political belief system that contradicts human nature can be implimented anyway, as long as people are "pure" enough. In this, he's no different than the most shrill university communist.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 06:27:47 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 21, 2011, 06:24:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
You know, I've been a bit put off by Doktor Phox's and Trip's responses to you, as I felt they were being harsh for no reason. I seems that I owe them an apology, because I was wrong and they were right. You're a bad person, a sort of Dick Cheney writ small, and maybe it's time you found people that you fit in with.
Go, and be damned.
It's okay, we was just dismissin' the Disco Cabbage before it got mainstream and everybody started doin' it, you know?
(besides, it's been the other way around often enough, hasn't it? :) so much, that I generally assume you turn out to be right about someone even if I don't see it yet)
It's not just the insane callousness he aims at anyone less fortunate than himself...It's also the fact that he insists on believing in things that just aren't so...That a political belief system that contradicts human nature can be implimented anyway, as long as people are "pure" enough. In this, he's no different than the most shrill university communist.
It's also a peculiar kind of arrogance that insists that everyone else who has different experience and observations just isn't as
smart as he is. :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 06:36:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 06:27:47 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 21, 2011, 06:24:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
You know, I've been a bit put off by Doktor Phox's and Trip's responses to you, as I felt they were being harsh for no reason. I seems that I owe them an apology, because I was wrong and they were right. You're a bad person, a sort of Dick Cheney writ small, and maybe it's time you found people that you fit in with.
Go, and be damned.
It's okay, we was just dismissin' the Disco Cabbage before it got mainstream and everybody started doin' it, you know?
(besides, it's been the other way around often enough, hasn't it? :) so much, that I generally assume you turn out to be right about someone even if I don't see it yet)
It's not just the insane callousness he aims at anyone less fortunate than himself...It's also the fact that he insists on believing in things that just aren't so...That a political belief system that contradicts human nature can be implimented anyway, as long as people are "pure" enough. In this, he's no different than the most shrill university communist.
It's also a peculiar kind of arrogance that insists that everyone else who has different experience and observations just isn't as smart as he is. :lulz:
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about, Nigel. Here you are, dogging on his religion, when you just KNOW that with hard work and sacrifice, you'd be rich...Because, you know, what you do isn't work. Neither is what a mechanic does, or a plumber, or some schmuck gluing widgets together at minimum wage.
Spare a little sympathy for the hedge fund managers, who slave away until their joints shatter like glass, leaving them to flop around on the sidewalk of Wall Street, helplessly pooping themselves. Do any of you give a shit about what happens to oil execs, who work their fingers to the BONE, attenting conferences in Cabo, and banging their secretaries on the couch in their offices? NO. YOU DON'T. Instead, you support worthless eaters who only do shit like physically assemble or repair the things that keep us alive or make life worth living.
Picasso? PFFFFT! He'd have been a real artist, if he'd have invented mortgage-bundling.
You fuckers are ruining America, with your anti-capitalist moaning and making the parks all smelly with your endless complaining about our poor captains of industry. I hope you're fucking happy.
Hey, DP, do you own anything that was made in China?
OMG, YOU ARE SUBSIDIZING CHINESE POVERTY!!!!!!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 06:44:47 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 06:36:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 06:27:47 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 21, 2011, 06:24:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
You know, I've been a bit put off by Doktor Phox's and Trip's responses to you, as I felt they were being harsh for no reason. I seems that I owe them an apology, because I was wrong and they were right. You're a bad person, a sort of Dick Cheney writ small, and maybe it's time you found people that you fit in with.
Go, and be damned.
It's okay, we was just dismissin' the Disco Cabbage before it got mainstream and everybody started doin' it, you know?
(besides, it's been the other way around often enough, hasn't it? :) so much, that I generally assume you turn out to be right about someone even if I don't see it yet)
It's not just the insane callousness he aims at anyone less fortunate than himself...It's also the fact that he insists on believing in things that just aren't so...That a political belief system that contradicts human nature can be implimented anyway, as long as people are "pure" enough. In this, he's no different than the most shrill university communist.
It's also a peculiar kind of arrogance that insists that everyone else who has different experience and observations just isn't as smart as he is. :lulz:
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about, Nigel. Here you are, dogging on his religion, when you just KNOW that with hard work and sacrifice, you'd be rich...Because, you know, what you do isn't work. Neither is what a mechanic does, or a plumber, or some schmuck gluing widgets together at minimum wage.
Spare a little sympathy for the hedge fund managers, who slave away until their joints shatter like glass, leaving them to flop around on the sidewalk of Wall Street, helplessly pooping themselves. Do any of you give a shit about what happens to oil execs, who work their fingers to the BONE, attenting conferences in Cabo, and banging their secretaries on the couch in their offices? NO. YOU DON'T. Instead, you support worthless eaters who only do shit like physically assemble or repair the things that keep us alive or make life worth living.
Picasso? PFFFFT! He'd have been a real artist, if he'd have invented mortgage-bundling.
You fuckers are ruining America, with your anti-capitalist moaning and making the parks all smelly with your endless complaining about our poor captains of industry. I hope you're fucking happy.
:lulz:
That shit just unreels in my head at random.
I blame my misspent youth.
It's not like this shit is new, or anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragged_Dick
Seriously? I ask you.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 07:01:12 PM
It's not like this shit is new, or anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragged_Dick
Seriously? I ask you.
Oh, Algers.
I don't have any problem with rags-to-riches fantasy stories, but the problem comes in when you posit not only that virtue and diligence will help you prosper, but also that therefore all prosperity comes from virtue and diligence. The obvious logical extension of that line of thinking is that A: The rich are inherently virtuous and diligent, and B: The poor are inherently amoral and lazy.
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 07:11:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 07:01:12 PM
It's not like this shit is new, or anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragged_Dick
Seriously? I ask you.
Oh, Algers.
I don't have any problem with rags-to-riches fantasy stories, but the problem comes in when you posit not only that virtue and diligence will help you prosper, but also that therefore all prosperity comes from virtue and diligence. The obvious logical extension of that line of thinking is that A: The rich are inherently virtuous and diligent, and B: The poor are inherently amoral and lazy.
And THAT, of course, is the central message behind all of Alger's "novels". The poor are poor because they are bad people. The rich are rich because they are virtuous.
And THAT, kiddies, is how we get Calvinists and Libertarians.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 07:01:12 PM
It's not like this shit is new, or anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragged_Dick
Seriously? I ask you.
Nope, not new at all.
Quote from: GodPs 37:25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread.
Pr 13:22 A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.
Pr 15:6 In the house of the righteous is much treasure.
That's from the real Bible, too, not the Conservapedia one.
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 21, 2011, 08:11:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 07:01:12 PM
It's not like this shit is new, or anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragged_Dick
Seriously? I ask you.
Nope, not new at all.
Quote from: GodPs 37:25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread.
Pr 13:22 A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.
Pr 15:6 In the house of the righteous is much treasure.
That's from the real Bible, too, not the Conservapedia one.
Some of that may be the riches and treasure to be found in the invisible sky mansions awaiting the righteous after death.
Quote from: Emo Howard on October 21, 2011, 08:29:36 PM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 21, 2011, 08:11:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 07:01:12 PM
It's not like this shit is new, or anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragged_Dick
Seriously? I ask you.
Nope, not new at all.
Quote from: GodPs 37:25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread.
Pr 13:22 A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.
Pr 15:6 In the house of the righteous is much treasure.
That's from the real Bible, too, not the Conservapedia one.
Some of that may be the riches and treasure to be found in the invisible sky mansions awaiting the righteous after death.
Yeah, the Bible is really big on promising that if you're poor and humble in life, you'll get rewarded in the afterlife. Jesus was especially fond of using wealth and prosperity metaphors when referring to spirituality and virtuosity.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:49:17 AM
You know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
Your grandparents and THEIR grandparents did without your fucking TV and your car and your spoiled little shit's video games.
UGH.
I do not fit in here.
You almost make it sound like you think taxing the rich to help the poor is unethical or immoral when it's really just
FREE MARKET CAPITALISM.
This will all become quite clear once you realize that
CITIZENSHIP IS A PRODUCT.
Quote from: Emo Howard on October 21, 2011, 08:29:36 PM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 21, 2011, 08:11:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 07:01:12 PM
It's not like this shit is new, or anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragged_Dick
Seriously? I ask you.
Nope, not new at all.
Quote from: GodPs 37:25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread.
Pr 13:22 A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.
Pr 15:6 In the house of the righteous is much treasure.
That's from the real Bible, too, not the Conservapedia one.
Some of that may be the riches and treasure to be found in the invisible sky mansions awaiting the righteous after death.
I don't think so. Those quotes are from the old testament, and there really isn't any talk about afterlife in the Bible until Jesus came along.
ETA, The Pr 15:6 could easily be talking about more than just monetary treasure, though, but the Ps 37:25 seems to me to clearly be saying that only wicked people are poor.
"Verily I say unto you, it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven"?
I want to blame latent judeo-christian bullshit on the libertarian point of view, but I think it comes more down to the fact that we do a pisspoor job of teaching others simple civics and the type of detailed summary of facts as they stand as RWHN laid out this morning...the movement of society geopolitically was a really interesting course I took in university that really hit home some truths about us hairless apes and our behaviors.
I know of quite a few of my acquaintances who believe as DP does...that the poor are at fault for their own poverty. That shit just CAN'T happen to those who plan! No way, no how. There's a contingency for every disaster, and if you're caught with your pants down, shame on you. They're your pants and your dick, after all. If it's hanging in the breeze, you obviously put it there to begin with.
The only time they usually DO learn is when it happens to them...thing is, some of them DID come to this after SURVIVING ordeals as kids...and rather than learn the lesson that you can't always prepare for every contingency, they rather learned the opposite. That luck has nothing to do with it, rich people really ARE ok and should hold on to every penny of that wealth, and the government is only out to rape you, so shouldn't be trusted to help you. No matter what.
I can't shout in the wind without getting hoarse, so really, I just figure, they'll find out soon enough.
Quote from: Jenne on October 21, 2011, 08:41:43 PM
"Verily I say unto you, it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven"?
I want to blame latent judeo-christian bullshit on the libertarian point of view, but I think it comes more down to the fact that we do a pisspoor job of teaching others simple civics and the type of detailed summary of facts as they stand as RWHN laid out this morning...the movement of society geopolitically was a really interesting course I took in university that really hit home some truths about us hairless apes and our behaviors.
I know of quite a few of my acquaintances who believe as DP does...that the poor are at fault for their own poverty. That shit just CAN'T happen to those who plan! No way, no how. There's a contingency for every disaster, and if you're caught with your pants down, shame on you. They're your pants and your dick, after all. If it's hanging in the breeze, you obviously put it there to begin with.
The only time they usually DO learn is when it happens to them...thing is, some of them DID come to this after SURVIVING ordeals as kids...and rather than learn the lesson that you can't always prepare for every contingency, they rather learned the opposite. That luck has nothing to do with it, rich people really ARE ok and should hold on to every penny of that wealth, and the government is only out to rape you, so shouldn't be trusted to help you. No matter what.
I can't shout in the wind without getting hoarse, so really, I just figure, they'll find out soon enough.
Like I said, it's a fear-based belief. If you believe that bad things only happen to bad people, you can allay the fear of bad things happening to you. This fear is particularly potent in people who come from a background of deprivation or abuse, and made their way out of it, which is why you see so many "self-made men" who absolutely cling to the belief that their success was purely due to merit. "Nothing bad can happen to me, because I'm good! Right? Right?"
It's rooted in the same superstitious mindset as the one that proclaims that God makes natural disasters happen to punish those who are not devout enough, or that children born into famines did bad things in a former life. It's actually the opposite of rational, but dressed in the trappings of reason.
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 08:46:12 PM
Quote from: Jenne on October 21, 2011, 08:41:43 PM
"Verily I say unto you, it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven"?
I want to blame latent judeo-christian bullshit on the libertarian point of view, but I think it comes more down to the fact that we do a pisspoor job of teaching others simple civics and the type of detailed summary of facts as they stand as RWHN laid out this morning...the movement of society geopolitically was a really interesting course I took in university that really hit home some truths about us hairless apes and our behaviors.
I know of quite a few of my acquaintances who believe as DP does...that the poor are at fault for their own poverty. That shit just CAN'T happen to those who plan! No way, no how. There's a contingency for every disaster, and if you're caught with your pants down, shame on you. They're your pants and your dick, after all. If it's hanging in the breeze, you obviously put it there to begin with.
The only time they usually DO learn is when it happens to them...thing is, some of them DID come to this after SURVIVING ordeals as kids...and rather than learn the lesson that you can't always prepare for every contingency, they rather learned the opposite. That luck has nothing to do with it, rich people really ARE ok and should hold on to every penny of that wealth, and the government is only out to rape you, so shouldn't be trusted to help you. No matter what.
I can't shout in the wind without getting hoarse, so really, I just figure, they'll find out soon enough.
Like I said, it's a fear-based belief. If you believe that bad things only happen to bad people, you can allay the fear of bad things happening to you. This fear is particularly potent in people who come from a background of deprivation or abuse, and made their way out of it, which is why you see so many "self-made men" who absolutely cling to the belief that their success was purely due to merit. "Nothing bad can happen to me, because I'm good! Right? Right?"
It's rooted in the same superstitious mindset as the one that proclaims that God makes natural disasters happen to punish those who are not devout enough, or that children born into famines did bad things in a former life. It's actually the opposite of rational, but dressed in the trappings of reason.
I WORK HARD. SO THIS WON'T HAPPEN TO ME.
Yeah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
QuoteThe just-world hypothesis (also called the just-world theory, just-world fallacy, just-world effect, or just-world phenomenon) refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just. As a result, when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice they rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault.
Another theory entails the need to protect one's own sense of invulnerability. This inspires people to believe that rape, for example, only happens to those who deserve or provoke the assault. This is a way of feeling safer. If the potential victim avoids the behaviors of the past victims then they themselves will remain safe and feel less vulnerable.
Well, libertarianism has a bit of utopia built into it for a reason--it removes that element of "shit randomly happening to folks outside their own volition" and all that rot, doesn't it?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 06:44:47 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 06:36:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 06:27:47 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 21, 2011, 06:24:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 21, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
You know, I've been a bit put off by Doktor Phox's and Trip's responses to you, as I felt they were being harsh for no reason. I seems that I owe them an apology, because I was wrong and they were right. You're a bad person, a sort of Dick Cheney writ small, and maybe it's time you found people that you fit in with.
Go, and be damned.
It's okay, we was just dismissin' the Disco Cabbage before it got mainstream and everybody started doin' it, you know?
(besides, it's been the other way around often enough, hasn't it? :) so much, that I generally assume you turn out to be right about someone even if I don't see it yet)
It's not just the insane callousness he aims at anyone less fortunate than himself...It's also the fact that he insists on believing in things that just aren't so...That a political belief system that contradicts human nature can be implimented anyway, as long as people are "pure" enough. In this, he's no different than the most shrill university communist.
It's also a peculiar kind of arrogance that insists that everyone else who has different experience and observations just isn't as smart as he is. :lulz:
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about, Nigel. Here you are, dogging on his religion, when you just KNOW that with hard work and sacrifice, you'd be rich...Because, you know, what you do isn't work. Neither is what a mechanic does, or a plumber, or some schmuck gluing widgets together at minimum wage.
Spare a little sympathy for the hedge fund managers, who slave away until their joints shatter like glass, leaving them to flop around on the sidewalk of Wall Street, helplessly pooping themselves. Do any of you give a shit about what happens to oil execs, who work their fingers to the BONE, attenting conferences in Cabo, and banging their secretaries on the couch in their offices? NO. YOU DON'T. Instead, you support worthless eaters who only do shit like physically assemble or repair the things that keep us alive or make life worth living.
Picasso? PFFFFT! He'd have been a real artist, if he'd have invented mortgage-bundling.
You fuckers are ruining America, with your anti-capitalist moaning and making the parks all smelly with your endless complaining about our poor captains of industry. I hope you're fucking happy.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2011, 09:12:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
QuoteThe just-world hypothesis (also called the just-world theory, just-world fallacy, just-world effect, or just-world phenomenon) refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just. As a result, when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice they rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault.
Another theory entails the need to protect one's own sense of invulnerability. This inspires people to believe that rape, for example, only happens to those who deserve or provoke the assault. This is a way of feeling safer. If the potential victim avoids the behaviors of the past victims then they themselves will remain safe and feel less vulnerable.
Yep, exactly.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:49:17 AM
Woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof?
WOOF WOOF
Woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof.
Woof woof woof woof WOOF woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof.
WOOF.
Woof woof woof.
Oh there is SO much in this thread.... Nigel is beautiful in her eloquence, and being a child of a household with a somewhat similar situation to what she describes, I am fully aware of what she means, and I have neither the patience nor the ability to articulate the experience as well as she has here. And perhaps that's a failing I should address.
You see, I am harsh with Pickles because it's partially frustration with things in life, frustration with myself oveer my inability to properly express myself, and partially frustration with his seeming inability to actually follow through when he says "Oh, okay, I've learned from this." or "Oh, I'm going to read up on this and get back to you." That and the fact that posts like what he has made here are essentially telling me that it'd be better if I'd died in infancy. Or if my sister's kids died.
My brother in law was a cross-country trucker. He made pretty good money. Then his first daughter was born. So he took a bit of a pay cut by accepting a regular route between St. Louis and Paducah, so he could be at home with his daughter on the weekends. Then he took another paycut. And another. And then they laid him off, because the plant that he hauled to got shut down (I believe, could be wrong). So then he got a job delivering Coke products around the area. The upside, he's home every night, albeit late some nights. The downside massive reduction of benefits, and pay of less than a third of what he made when he was driving cross-country. And they had two kids, btw, who were not planned, after he got laid off. My sister has not been able to secure employment, because she is unskilled, and dropped out of college, because when they got married, her husband was making enough money for the two of them to live comfortably. They were renting-to-own a decent house (as houses go around here), and all in all, she didn't need a job. In fact, my brother-in-law was preparing a nest egg to buy his own truck and go into business for himself. That was in 2006. In 2009, when they were not so well off, she was looking for a job, she got pregnant and couldn't continue. Not that it particularly mattered, because she had absolutely zero luck finding anything she could resonably attain.
So, yeah... I tend to think Pickles has nothing positive to say about people in this situation, that he thinks it is somehow magically able to be resolved if the parents believe in fairies and vote for Ron Paul, and that no one worth considering is ever in this situation, and that children should starve a little so they try harder than their parents. And no matter how many hours you spend at work a week, you should totally have time to spend 6 hours a night helping your kids with their schoolwork, even if you have to pull a 16-hour shift driving a large truck, and if you are so fucking tired in the morning that you wreck your truck and lose your job, then, well it's your own goddamn fault for not being able to function with maybe an hour of sleep and even less time to eat.
So, Pickles, I guess what I am goign to say to you is this. You, sir, are the absolute worst example of a human being I have ever met. You are not a person. You do not deserve the rights you so cherish. You do not even deserve this essay I wrote, but I didn't write it for you, anyway. You deserve to be starving in the street. You deserve to be struggling for your life. Because you did not learn a goddamn thing from your experiences. You are the worst kind of egotist, and I really, truly hope that a catastrophe befalls you and you lose your livelihood. Have a pleasant weekend, Pickles. I hope it's your last pleasant one for many years to come.
I kinda love Phox right now.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on October 21, 2011, 10:55:48 PM
And no matter how many hours you spend at work a week, you should totally have time to spend 6 hours a night helping your kids with their schoolwork, even if you have to pull a 16-hour shift driving a large truck, and if you are so fucking tired in the morning that you wreck your truck and lose your job, then, well it's your own goddamn fault for not being able to function with maybe an hour of sleep and even less time to eat.
The American Dream: If you can't sleep/eat/shower in less than two hours you deserve to be poor. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Aucoq on October 22, 2011, 01:22:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on October 21, 2011, 10:55:48 PM
And no matter how many hours you spend at work a week, you should totally have time to spend 6 hours a night helping your kids with their schoolwork, even if you have to pull a 16-hour shift driving a large truck, and if you are so fucking tired in the morning that you wreck your truck and lose your job, then, well it's your own goddamn fault for not being able to function with maybe an hour of sleep and even less time to eat.
The American Dream: If you can't sleep/eat/shower in less than two hours you deserve to be poor. :horrormirth:
If you have to work that hard, it's because you made the
wrong choices. For instance, if I had made the choice to go into PHP scripting instead of lampworking... well, actually, going back a few decades, if I had made the choice to be mildly autistic so that I found PHP scripting fascinating... then I wouldn't be poor now.
It's all a matter of choices!
Pfft, it's not my fault you chose not to be born to wealthy parents.
QuoteYou know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
You know, I actually thought Roger was paraphrasing when he told me DiPshit said this, so it comes as a bit of a shock to see it word for word plastered on my screen. I don't know WHY I'm shocked, but Christ Allmighty.
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2011, 09:43:26 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2011, 09:12:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
QuoteThe just-world hypothesis (also called the just-world theory, just-world fallacy, just-world effect, or just-world phenomenon) refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just. As a result, when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice they rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault.
Another theory entails the need to protect one's own sense of invulnerability. This inspires people to believe that rape, for example, only happens to those who deserve or provoke the assault. This is a way of feeling safer. If the potential victim avoids the behaviors of the past victims then they themselves will remain safe and feel less vulnerable.
Yep, exactly.
Are you suggesting Pangloss deceived me cruelly?
Absolutely. Pangloss is a douche. If Pangloss claimed the sky was blue, I'd seek independent verification.
Of course, Pangloss' polar opposites are also wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_World_Syndrome). As one would naturally expect, since reversed stupidity is not intelligence.
from http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topic/show?id=3355873%3ATopic%3A1576865&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
(http://api.ning.com/files/ggRkx0Jfm4nF6oRFWD1DU2zLDDcxSN*nB3F596LfyG-oM6Jc*cpy3b1yHMJ276*D27ZPH69Y9I4g0zh1OJxBbdqs4vgY-oCL/JoinTeaPartyNation.jpg)
We know two things about liberals. First, they rarely have the courage to do anything under their own names and second, they usually lie.
The left is working overtime to try and spin Melissa Brookstone's blog into something that it was not.
Of course with liberals, you are not allowed to disagree with them. If you disagree with liberal Orthodoxy, you must be destroyed. Liberals always tell conservatives that we must be tolerant of their beliefs, yet what happens when a conservative expresses an opinion?
In this case, a liberal has tried to destroy Melissa's livelihood.
An anonymous liberal sent the following email to a professional group that Melissa is a part of.
Date sent: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:30:02 -0500
Subject: NAPPS Member's Call for Actions Intended to Harm America
From: Dont Teaonme <donteaonme@gmail.com>
To: administrator@napps.org
Copies to: melissa@coloradoprocessservers.net, openforum@denverpost.com, newsroom@denverpost.com
Mr. Crowe, I feel it is my duty as an American to bring to your attention that a member of your association has advocated actions intended to harm the United States economy and cause financial distress to American citizens. The manifesto promoted by Melissa Brookstone of Colorado Process Servers is an affront to all Americans. You can see the case against Ms. Brookstone here, as well as a link to a petition that seeks to hold her accountable. Many have called for people to let other concerns Ms. Brookstone deals with professionally know about her irresponsible and dangerous manifesto, including court officers and law firms in the Denver area, and I would urge you and your membership to disavow this type of activity from one of your members. -- Don't Tea On Me
Wow. Isn't that brave. Anonymously send an email to try and destroy someone's ability to make a living.
Of course, this liberal was either not bright enough to read the article or is deliberately misrepresenting it. In the article, Melissa laid out her complaints and said, "I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped. I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased. "I'm on strike!"
I know liberals are not the brightest people in the world, but "I" is the first person singular. In this case, it denotes an action SHE is taking. Nowhere in her blog does Melissa say anyone else should do this. She simply says she is doing it.
Speaking of lying and people who cannot figure out the plain meaning of the English language, reporter Chase Cain in Tampa got into the act too, filing a report on WTSP TV, claiming that Tea Party Nation was calling for employers to stop hiring. Chase Cain is a liberal reporter. You can tell his point of view from his twitter feed.
He is also not very bright. He attributes the comments made by Melissa Brookstone to me. Chase, here is a hint. When you look at a blog and see "Added by" that tells you who the author is.
In his story, he claimed he tried to reach Tea Party Nation for a comment.
He is a liar.
I have a nice computerized phone system that records incoming calls. If I miss a call at my office, the voicemail is emailed to me. I have a cell phone and I have multiple email accounts. CNN had no trouble reaching me this afternoon for my comment on this story and as soon as they realized what the story really was, they decided they were not running anything on this subject. The media has no trouble reaching me. I am not unavailable.
The truth is, Chase Cain never reached out to Tea Party Nation for a comment. He did not want one. All he wanted was a hit piece and a comment from us did not fit with his agenda.
If you are as disgusted as I am with a reporter who simply lies, then let WTSP know about it. WTSP's number is (727) 577-1010. Chase Cain's twitter feed is @chase_cain. WTSP's twitter feed is @WTSP10News, if you want to let them know what you think.
"People in general should just act rationally if left to their own devices!"
"What? No, I don't want to support a system that educates people with my tax dollars! FUCK OFF!"
Notice a contradiction?
Quote from: Cainad on October 26, 2011, 01:29:35 AM
"People in general should just act rationally if left to their own devices!"
"What? No, I don't want to support a system that educates people with my tax dollars! FUCK OFF!"
Notice a contradiction?
:lulz:
Typical of people who believe that success can happen in a vaccuum.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 20, 2011, 06:56:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 19, 2011, 10:29:19 PMYes; we need a progressive tax so that we are taxing excess income most heavily, and not taxing survival income at all.
That makes a lot of sense. So no taxes up to, say, $20k or something?
sales tax would also need to be eliminated, at least on those things deemed necessary for survival.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:14:14 AM
Quote from: Luna on October 21, 2011, 03:50:22 AM
Well, gee, Pickle, you're right. When you lose thy job, you can just walk in, and tell thy boss, "But I have two kids, you CAN'T fire me!" and he has to let you stay, right?
Jesus fucking Christ, if you're going to be an asshole, at least attempt to not be a STUPID asshole, would ya?
I was talking about the origins of people who would do that, outside of having any skill set that would help them support a family of four.
I was a child of a family of four that couldn't support themselves, BTW. There were "Other Circumstances" that prevented them from doing that successfully, but we can pass them over for the sake of conversation even though they are completely relevant.
The root of my question is why a person not entirely secure (or at the least, reasonably secure) in their profession would CHOOSE to have children? Especially two?
Yes, layoffs happen. Yes economic conditions in a particular region can mean you can't readily find a job in thy field.
What exactly is the issue you have with my post? That DITK family providers can get fired and not be able to find new work in their field?
So which of your siblings did not survive?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on October 31, 2011, 10:44:54 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 21, 2011, 04:14:14 AM
Quote from: Luna on October 21, 2011, 03:50:22 AM
Well, gee, Pickle, you're right. When you lose thy job, you can just walk in, and tell thy boss, "But I have two kids, you CAN'T fire me!" and he has to let you stay, right?
Jesus fucking Christ, if you're going to be an asshole, at least attempt to not be a STUPID asshole, would ya?
I was talking about the origins of people who would do that, outside of having any skill set that would help them support a family of four.
I was a child of a family of four that couldn't support themselves, BTW. There were "Other Circumstances" that prevented them from doing that successfully, but we can pass them over for the sake of conversation even though they are completely relevant.
The root of my question is why a person not entirely secure (or at the least, reasonably secure) in their profession would CHOOSE to have children? Especially two?
Yes, layoffs happen. Yes economic conditions in a particular region can mean you can't readily find a job in thy field.
What exactly is the issue you have with my post? That DITK family providers can get fired and not be able to find new work in their field?
So which of thy siblings did not survive?
IT'S A TRAP