"Never Worked a Day in My Life": Urban Myth?


Off-Topic Discussions

651 to 700 of 754 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

Yeah, but those people aren't really human anyway, are they? I mean they're just poor people.

If they don't want to starve they always could just eat their children, right?

Just a Modest Proposal, really.

Tweet! Tagged for a combination reductio ad absurdum/straw man penalty. Ten yard penalty! Automatic first down.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Funny you should mention taxes.

One of the best places to start would be restoring the high marginal rates to actually encourage investment over profit taking, reinstating a STET, and getting rid of all the loopholes that let people claim income as capital gains.

Making corporations actually pay their taxes would help too.

And don't get me started on the socialization of risk and privatization of profit.

Liberty's Edge

DM Barcas wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Yeah, but those people aren't really human anyway, are they? I mean they're just poor people.

If they don't want to starve they always could just eat their children, right?

Just a Modest Proposal, really.

Tweet! Tagged for a combination reductio ad absurdum/straw man penalty. Ten yard penalty! Automatic first down.

It's called satire. Go read A Modest Proposal and it's analysis.

Swift did a very good job showing the absurdity and immorality of the sort of simplistic solutions typically proposed for resolving complicated societal problems when the real solutions are unacceptable to those in power.

Besides, I wasn't talking about you anyway.


I've read it. I understood the reference just fine. That doesn't make it any less of a RAA, especially in context of this particular debate.


Andrew R wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I love america for what it was, what it was meant to be, now i pity it like a dying deranged old dog. I know what it was, what potential it had but now can only wait for the inevitable end
May I ask what decade or year you're talking about?
All of them, when americans worked hard and strove to do bigger and better, not waste and expect to take from others. We have always been a people to value hard work, what happened?
Considering that our entire continent was taken from others, I dont know which time period you talk about.
Taken from others that took it from others, like every land
So long, does this mean you have no problem when others do it to you? I mean, people have been stealing from one another since time immemorial, why should you get upset when it's your turn? It seems like you are hand waving away atrocities at the very least, encouraging them so long as you directly profit from them at worse.
I am a descendant of european stock, all that land has been stolen back and forth, my ancestors have lost land. my irish ancestors fled what amounts to slavery. All of us can look down our bloodlines and see someone taking our land.

So...It's okay because everybody does it? I'm not getting your point here.


Krensky wrote:

Funny you should mention taxes.

One of the best places to start would be restoring the high marginal rates to actually encourage investment over profit taking, reinstating a STET, and getting rid of all the loopholes that let people claim income as capital gains.

Making corporations actually pay their taxes would help too.

And don't get me started on the socialization of risk and privatization of profit.

I'm all for privatizing risk and reward equally. You won't find much argument there.

However, tax proposals that don't propose increasing the taxpayer pool are doomed to failure. Pushing more and more of the burden into an ever-shrinking share in the name of progressive tax rates is unsustainable. High marginal rates will not accomplish much in the grand scheme of things.

A STET, which I had to look up, seems a poor idea. Maybe I could get behind a STET for short-term holdings to discourage volatility.

Call me a corporatist if you will, but I would be okay with a tax structure that taxed corporations at almost nothing if they produced and maintained enough good American jobs. You'd have to set it up to offset the loss in revenue with gains in increased income tax revenue from the new jobs.


houstonderek wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
We have illegals a plenty working fields, cleaning etc. Jobs lazy ass americans are being allowed to refuse. Flush out the illegals and get americans to work.

Often for less than minimum wage and under illegal conditions because they can't complain without the risk of being deported.

And how, exactly, do you plan on deporting millions of undocumented people?

Having a crap economy is working wonders. Immigration from Mexico and points south is actually trending towards the negative as construction and agricultural jobs dry up. A two year drought in Texas and a current drought in the northeast is killing the ag industry.

No need to do anything. Although Obama is doing a fine job of deporting illegals at a much higher rate than his predecessor.

Indeed. Obama aside, this could be seen as a natural part of economic booms and busts.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I love america for what it was, what it was meant to be, now i pity it like a dying deranged old dog. I know what it was, what potential it had but now can only wait for the inevitable end
May I ask what decade or year you're talking about?
All of them, when americans worked hard and strove to do bigger and better, not waste and expect to take from others. We have always been a people to value hard work, what happened?
Considering that our entire continent was taken from others, I dont know which time period you talk about.
Taken from others that took it from others, like every land
So long, does this mean you have no problem when others do it to you? I mean, people have been stealing from one another since time immemorial, why should you get upset when it's your turn? It seems like you are hand waving away atrocities at the very least, encouraging them so long as you directly profit from them at worse.
I am a descendant of european stock, all that land has been stolen back and forth, my ancestors have lost land. my irish ancestors fled what amounts to slavery. All of us can look down our bloodlines and see someone taking our land.

You still entirely miss the point of this tangent. You are whining about people on welfare taking from you while lauding real americans who didn't expect to take from others. Except they did take from others. They took the land and killed the others in the process. And enslaved others to work for them.

But at least they didn't rely on tax dollars.

This isn't an "evil white folks" rant. This is just a counter to the mythologized ideal of Americans in the past getting by just by working hard and not taking from others.

I gave up, but yeah, this.

Gaah, ninjaed.

The Exchange

DM Barcas wrote:

Andrew, I appreciate that you have strong feelings on the matter, but sharing feelings and platitudes convinces no one and only serves to distract honest debate. No one will take suggestions of sterilization seriously.

Hiwever, speaking of reproductive issues, it would be easy to implement a fix: subsidized birth control plus a cap on benefits the way the military does it (binary family pay).

No one my ass, i did it. Will not risk creating a child with the genetic issues i suffer and that i cannot afford. It is simple responsibility, Something many (especially young men) all too often lack. i do not for the life of me understand the fear of not breeding like animals.


DM Barcas wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Funny you should mention taxes.

One of the best places to start would be restoring the high marginal rates to actually encourage investment over profit taking, reinstating a STET, and getting rid of all the loopholes that let people claim income as capital gains.

Making corporations actually pay their taxes would help too.

And don't get me started on the socialization of risk and privatization of profit.

I'm all for privatizing risk and reward equally. You won't find much argument there.

However, tax proposals that don't propose increasing the taxpayer pool are doomed to failure. Pushing more and more of the burden into an ever-shrinking share in the name of progressive tax rates is unsustainable. High marginal rates will not accomplish much in the grand scheme of things.

A STET, which I had to look up, seems a poor idea. Maybe I could get behind a STET for short-term holdings to discourage volatility.

Call me a corporatist if you will, but I would be okay with a tax structure that taxed corporations at almost nothing if they produced and maintained enough good American jobs. You'd have to set it up to offset the loss in revenue with gains in increased income tax revenue from the new jobs.

They'd NEVER go for it unless they could slash wages to ensure continual profit quarter after quarter after quarter.

The Exchange

A Man In Black wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

I disagree with a good bit of what Andrew wrote, but you do realise that he never wrote that, right?

Nothing about forcing anyone to do anything.

Telling people in poverty that you will pay them to do something is "Do this or starve." People are going to take that payment either because they are shortsighted (which is voluntary, if unfortunate) or because they are desperate (which is absolutely not voluntary).

I don't mean to be getting all Marxist on everyone here*, but paying people to give up basic human rights is only slightly less monstrous than taking them away at the point of a gun. The threat of destitution is still a mortal threat.

*- Anklebiter, you can take the gloating as read.

Blood banks pay, why are not all of the poor tapped daily? After all if you offer them money they have no choice.


Andrew R wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:

Andrew, I appreciate that you have strong feelings on the matter, but sharing feelings and platitudes convinces no one and only serves to distract honest debate. No one will take suggestions of sterilization seriously.

Hiwever, speaking of reproductive issues, it would be easy to implement a fix: subsidized birth control plus a cap on benefits the way the military does it (binary family pay).

No one my ass, i did it. Will not risk creating a child with the genetic issues i suffer and that i cannot afford. It is simple responsibility, Something many (especially young men) all too often lack. i do not for the life of me understand the fear of not breeding like animals.

Friend, if that worked for you, it worked for you. I will never allow your decisions to affect what goes on in my loins, however.


I mean that no one will take suggestions of forcing or incentivizing sterilization seriously. There are some bad historical cases of such attempts. They turned out poorly. It may be a good idea to not have kids, but you won't find much support for any such proposal of sterilization.

The Exchange

DM Barcas wrote:

Isn't the Marxist credo "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? Seems that many of these suggestions ignore the first half. Forgive me if I've misunderstood. I am not a Marxist.

Of course, I'm not a Rand-ist either. I understand that we have an obligation to assist the needy. However, I want to do it fairly and efficiently. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers as well. It isn't the government's money - it is the few remaining taxpayers' money.

If not for the masses of lazy it sounds like the thing Jesus would be all for, so im surprised communism is so hated.....

The Exchange

DM Barcas wrote:
I mean that no one will take suggestions of forcing or incentivizing sterilization seriously. There are some bad historical cases of such attempts. They turned out poorly. It may be a good idea to not have kids, but you won't find much support for any such proposal of sterilization.

Incentive yes, forced no. Except some extreme cases like the worthless &^%$# that had 5 babies all born with crack in their systems.

The Exchange

Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:

Andrew, I appreciate that you have strong feelings on the matter, but sharing feelings and platitudes convinces no one and only serves to distract honest debate. No one will take suggestions of sterilization seriously.

Hiwever, speaking of reproductive issues, it would be easy to implement a fix: subsidized birth control plus a cap on benefits the way the military does it (binary family pay).

No one my ass, i did it. Will not risk creating a child with the genetic issues i suffer and that i cannot afford. It is simple responsibility, Something many (especially young men) all too often lack. i do not for the life of me understand the fear of not breeding like animals.
Friend, if that worked for you, it worked for you. I will never allow your decisions to affect what goes on in my loins, however.

And no one is saying you have to do anything. i just think that we have many that should not breed and giving them incentive not to can't hurt.


Andrew R wrote:
Blood banks pay, why are not all of the poor tapped daily?

Because it would kill them.

Is that a problem for you?

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Blood banks pay, why are not all of the poor tapped daily?

Because it would kill them.

Is that a problem for you?

But they can donate weekly with no ill effect, so if they must "do or starve" if offered money why do they not all donate and end the blood shortage?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Andrew R wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Blood banks pay, why are not all of the poor tapped daily?

Because it would kill them.

Is that a problem for you?

But they can donate weekly with no ill effect, so if they must "do or starve" if offered money why do they not all donate and end the blood shortage?

Weekly? What?! In the Uk, you're not allowed to give blood for four MONTHS after your last donation. You can't give weekly. This igores, of course,any concerns about problems caused by the apparent widespread drug use of 'the poor'you keep moaning about.

Besides that, do you have any idea how much of a facist prick you sound like? "I'm paying for you, boy, so I own you." Why don't you go the whole hog and reintroduce slavery for welfare claimants. It will be pretty much the same thing as what you're proposing and at least tou'll be being honest about it. Seriously, when Monty Burns looks at the plan and says "Steady on, this goes a bit far." you've got a serious problem.


Andrew R wrote:


But they can donate weekly with no ill effect, so if they must "do or starve" if offered money why do they not all donate and end the blood shortage?

No. Biology does not conform to your wishes, I'm sorry. You are entitled to your own opinions you are not entitled to your own facts. Taking blood from someone weekly is going to KILL them.

Wiki

Donated plasma is replaced after 2–3 days.[56] Red blood cells are replaced by bone marrow into the circulatory system at a slower rate, on average 36 days in healthy adult males. In one study, the range was 20 to 59 days for recovery.[57] These replacement rates are the basis of how frequently a donor can give blood.

The plasma from your donation is replaced within about 24 hours. Red cells need about four to six weeks for complete replacement. That’s why at least eight weeks are required between whole blood donations. - Red cross

The going rate for blood the last time i checked was around 20 bucks. You are NOT going to (more or less literally) squeeze the poor for more cash to the tune of 20 bucks every three months (less than a world of warcraft subscription) .. and thats BEFORE you run into the supply/demand problem of you having more blood on hand than anyone can possibly use, dropping the price down even further.

The Exchange

Paul Watson wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Blood banks pay, why are not all of the poor tapped daily?

Because it would kill them.

Is that a problem for you?

But they can donate weekly with no ill effect, so if they must "do or starve" if offered money why do they not all donate and end the blood shortage?

Weekly? What?! In the Uk, you're not allowed to give blood for four MONTHS after your last donation. You can't give weekly. This igores, of course,any concerns about problems caused by the apparent widespread drug use of 'the poor'you keep moaning about.

Besides that, do you have any idea how much of a facist prick you sound like? "I'm paying for you, boy, so I own you." Why don't you go the whole hog and reintroduce slavery for welfare claimants. It will be pretty much the same thing as what you're proposing and at least tou'll be being honest about it. Seriously, when Monty Burns looks at the plan and says "Steady on, this goes a bit far." you've got a serious problem.

Pay attention, i have said nor implied any such thing. I suggested making birth control free and even offering cash incentive to be sterile. Someone claim that offering cash forces them to do it so i asked why they don't all sell blood if they must do anything for money as the poster suggested. Not once did i suggest forcing anyone anything.

But you are right on one thing they DO owe this nation and the tax payers.

And here in the US you can make $200 a month for blood donations in my area. And the poor here are mostly simple dope heads. Pot isn't a big issue with donating and surprise, if they want the money, they CAN go without.

And the current system might as well slave the workers to pay for the welfare/criminal class.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:


But they can donate weekly with no ill effect, so if they must "do or starve" if offered money why do they not all donate and end the blood shortage?

No. Biology does not conform to your wishes, I'm sorry. You are entitled to your own opinions you are not entitled to your own facts. Taking blood from someone weekly is going to KILL them.

Wiki

Donated plasma is replaced after 2–3 days.[56] Red blood cells are replaced by bone marrow into the circulatory system at a slower rate, on average 36 days in healthy adult males. In one study, the range was 20 to 59 days for recovery.[57] These replacement rates are the basis of how frequently a donor can give blood.

The plasma from your donation is replaced within about 24 hours. Red cells need about four to six weeks for complete replacement. That’s why at least eight weeks are required between whole blood donations. - Red cross

The going rate for blood the last time i checked was around 20 bucks. You are NOT going to (more or less literally) squeeze the poor for more cash to the tune of 20 bucks every three months (less than a world of warcraft subscription) .. and thats BEFORE you run into the supply/demand problem of you having more blood on hand than anyone can possibly use, dropping the price down even further.

My bad, blood plasma not actual blood. and i DO know a few working poor that do exactly this to make ends meet without touching welfare. The POINT however was to show that offering money doesn't force anyone to do anything.


Andrew R wrote:
My bad, blood plasma not actual blood. and i DO know a few working poor that do exactly this to make ends meet without touching welfare.

And its not good for you. If they're making 200 bucks a month they're donating at different places across town under different names. They are going to make themselves sick, forgo medications (you shouldn't donate with aspirin in your system), and wind up on the very programs that you're decrying the use of.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
My bad, blood plasma not actual blood. and i DO know a few working poor that do exactly this to make ends meet without touching welfare.

And its not good for you. If they're making 200 bucks a month they're donating at different places across town under different names. They are going to make themselves sick, forgo medications (you shouldn't donate with aspirin in your system), and wind up on the very programs that you're decrying the use of.

Doing that short term 5-6 times a month isn't too bad and i respect them for doing what it takes.


Send them back to serfdom.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
My bad, blood plasma not actual blood. and i DO know a few working poor that do exactly this to make ends meet without touching welfare.
And its not good for you. If they're making 200 bucks a month they're donating at different places across town under different names. They are going to make themselves sick, forgo medications (you shouldn't donate with aspirin in your system), and wind up on the very programs that you're decrying the use of.

No, he's right here. He's talking about donating plasma. It's a more complicated process, they run it through a machine, separate out the plasma and pump the red blood cells back into you. You can safely do this more often.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
BTW, "give up your reproductive rights or starve" is straight up villainous. Andrew R, it is impossible to take you seriously any more.

I disagree with a good bit of what Andrew wrote, but you do realise that he never wrote that, right?

Andrew R wrote:
I would rather pay for [birth control] than each ever growing generation. hell, i say offer cash payment for a permanent fix. most anyone that would take it should not be having kids anyway
Nothing about forcing anyone to do anything.
You said
Quote:
And requiring it to get welfare would not be fascist either, they are not required to get welfare

For those who need welfare to survive, which in your world would be everyone who gets it, requiring sterilization to get welfare would be forcing it. Sterilization or starve.


DM Barcas wrote:
Isn't the Marxist credo "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? Seems that many of these suggestions ignore the first half. Forgive me if I've misunderstood. I am not a Marxist.

Probably already been ninjaed, but the American government, nor the majority of posters here, aren't Marxist either. Unfortunately.


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
BTW, "give up your reproductive rights or starve" is straight up villainous. Andrew R, it is impossible to take you seriously any more.

I disagree with a good bit of what Andrew wrote, but you do realise that he never wrote that, right?

Andrew R wrote:
I would rather pay for [birth control] than each ever growing generation. hell, i say offer cash payment for a permanent fix. most anyone that would take it should not be having kids anyway
Nothing about forcing anyone to do anything.
You said
Quote:
And requiring it to get welfare would not be fascist either, they are not required to get welfare

For those who need welfare to survive, which in your world would be everyone who gets it, requiring sterilization to get welfare would be forcing it. Sterilization or starve.

Thejeff, would you be willing to edit this post? I NEVER said the bolded part. Forced sterilization is creepy, fascist, and definitely NOT something I would ever entertain. I dont think you meant to quote me in the first part of your post.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
BTW, "give up your reproductive rights or starve" is straight up villainous. Andrew R, it is impossible to take you seriously any more.

I disagree with a good bit of what Andrew wrote, but you do realise that he never wrote that, right?

Andrew R wrote:
I would rather pay for [birth control] than each ever growing generation. hell, i say offer cash payment for a permanent fix. most anyone that would take it should not be having kids anyway
Nothing about forcing anyone to do anything.
You said
Quote:
And requiring it to get welfare would not be fascist either, they are not required to get welfare

For those who need welfare to survive, which in your world would be everyone who gets it, requiring sterilization to get welfare would be forcing it. Sterilization or starve.

Thejeff, would you be willing to edit this post? I NEVER said the bolded part. Forced sterilization is creepy, fascist, and definitely NOT something I would ever entertain. I dont think you meant to quote me in the first part of your post.

My apologies. I can't edit, since it's too late, but I'll respond.

I was responding to your defense of Andrew R. The "You said" should have been "Andrew R said".

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
BTW, "give up your reproductive rights or starve" is straight up villainous. Andrew R, it is impossible to take you seriously any more.

I disagree with a good bit of what Andrew wrote, but you do realise that he never wrote that, right?

Andrew R wrote:
I would rather pay for [birth control] than each ever growing generation. hell, i say offer cash payment for a permanent fix. most anyone that would take it should not be having kids anyway
Nothing about forcing anyone to do anything.
You said
Quote:
And requiring it to get welfare would not be fascist either, they are not required to get welfare

For those who need welfare to survive, which in your world would be everyone who gets it, requiring sterilization to get welfare would be forcing it. Sterilization or starve.

Thejeff, would you be willing to edit this post? I NEVER said the bolded part. Forced sterilization is creepy, fascist, and definitely NOT something I would ever entertain. I dont think you meant to quote me in the first part of your post.

My apologies. I can't edit, since it's too late, but I'll respond.

I was responding to your defense of Andrew R. The "You said" should have been "Andrew R said".

And i never said it was a good idea, just that it is not fascist to put restrictions on handouts. Obamacare is fascist because every person must do so just for being alive.

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
Isn't the Marxist credo "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? Seems that many of these suggestions ignore the first half. Forgive me if I've misunderstood. I am not a Marxist.
Probably already been ninjaed, but the American government, nor the majority of posters here, aren't Marxist either. Unfortunately.

Marxism is a failed concept, without the first half the second cannot happen. Very early christian philosophy though, humorous that beyond that core tennet it stressed atheism.....

The Exchange

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Send them back to serfdom.

It is getting to serfdom but the serfs don't work, the nobles just pay for them.


Andrew R wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Send them back to serfdom.
It is getting to serfdom but the serfs don't work, the nobles just pay for them.

The nobles are paying less than they've paid in the last 70 years. Less, as a percentage, than most of us. Less, if you look beyond income tax, than many of the poor.

The "serfs" are getting a pittance, no matter how easy you think life on the dole may be.


Andrew R wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
BTW, "give up your reproductive rights or starve" is straight up villainous. Andrew R, it is impossible to take you seriously any more.

I disagree with a good bit of what Andrew wrote, but you do realise that he never wrote that, right?

Andrew R wrote:
I would rather pay for [birth control] than each ever growing generation. hell, i say offer cash payment for a permanent fix. most anyone that would take it should not be having kids anyway
Nothing about forcing anyone to do anything.
You said
Quote:
And requiring it to get welfare would not be fascist either, they are not required to get welfare

For those who need welfare to survive, which in your world would be everyone who gets it, requiring sterilization to get welfare would be forcing it. Sterilization or starve.

Thejeff, would you be willing to edit this post? I NEVER said the bolded part. Forced sterilization is creepy, fascist, and definitely NOT something I would ever entertain. I dont think you meant to quote me in the first part of your post.

My apologies. I can't edit, since it's too late, but I'll respond.

I was responding to your defense of Andrew R. The "You said" should have been "Andrew R said".

And i never said it was a good idea, just that it is not fascist to put restrictions on handouts. Obamacare is fascist because every person must do so just for being alive.

It may not be fascist, though eugenics was definitely a fascist thing. It's definitely disgusting and immoral. It would also certainly be unconstitutional, if only for the disproportionate racial impact.

You have an interesting definition of fascist, if you think the PPACA, for all its flaws, is fascist, but offering poor people the choice between sterilization and starvation isn't.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Andrew R wrote:
Blood banks pay, why are not all of the poor tapped daily? After all if you offer them money they have no choice.

Because they pay a pittance, getting to a bloodbank is nontrivial, and because responsible ones won't let you donate daily.

Donating blood is also not giving up a basic human right.


DM Barcas wrote:
GentleGiant - That's profoundly alarmist. It's also conjectural with no basis in fact. Recertification has actually shown benefits in getting people back into the workforce faster in States where it has been implemented. You'll have to find evidence to back up your claim.

I wish it was just alarmist. And if you read what I wrote again, you'd notice that I wasn't just talking about people who are "just" unemployed. I'm talking about people with mental illness.

You might dismiss my sources as anecdotal, but I'm saying that that's what is going to happen based on knowledge by people in the psychiatric system and by listening to and reading numerous accounts of how much such pressure puts on people who are already fatigued by both illness (which actually doesn't have to be mental) and the strain of getting through the system. It's not at all unheard of that people with physical injuries or illnesses develop additional mental problems (most commonly depression and various severe stress- and anxiety related problems) after being tested for whether they qualify for SSI.
This is based on the system here in Denmark, where it's already very, very difficult to get on what I take is the equivalent of SSI.
You're proposing making it harder than it is now to get it (which is why I'm comparing it to the system we have - which isn't as easy to get on as opposed to what you (and others) think the US system is) and then to have frequent check-ups and re-certifications. That is going to put a lot of strain on people who already deal with lots of problems on a daily basis, the uncertainty of whether they'll qualify at the next check-up can be downright paralytic and fatal.
Now take a page from your own experiences as a police officer and I'm sure you'll have lots of stories of what can happen when you push already desperate people.
I could link to a forum I frequent if you want to read more personal stories, but it's in Danish so I doubt even a Google translation would do the stories justice. So I'm reporting to you what a system that is already tough to get through would result in if you add more control and uncertainty on top of it. It doesn't take pages of some Phd study to get to this conclusion, just use common sense and a bit of logic.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

GentleGiant wrote:
You might dismiss my sources as anecdotal,

I don't think Barcas has any room to dismiss anecdotes at this point.


Andrew R wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Blood banks pay, why are not all of the poor tapped daily?

Because it would kill them.

Is that a problem for you?

But they can donate weekly with no ill effect, so if they must "do or starve" if offered money why do they not all donate and end the blood shortage?

Weekly? What?! In the Uk, you're not allowed to give blood for four MONTHS after your last donation. You can't give weekly. This igores, of course,any concerns about problems caused by the apparent widespread drug use of 'the poor'you keep moaning about.

Besides that, do you have any idea how much of a facist prick you sound like? "I'm paying for you, boy, so I own you." Why don't you go the whole hog and reintroduce slavery for welfare claimants. It will be pretty much the same thing as what you're proposing and at least tou'll be being honest about it. Seriously, when Monty Burns looks at the plan and says "Steady on, this goes a bit far." you've got a serious problem.

Pay attention, i have said nor implied any such thing. I suggested making birth control free and even offering cash incentive to be sterile. Someone claim that offering cash forces them to do it so i asked why they don't all sell blood if they must do anything for money as the poster suggested. Not once did i suggest forcing anyone anything.

But you are right on one thing they DO owe this nation and the tax payers.

And here in the US you can make $200 a month for blood donations in my area. And the poor here are mostly simple dope heads. Pot isn't a big issue with donating and surprise, if they want the money, they CAN go without.

And the current system might as well slave the workers to pay for the welfare/criminal class.

Where in the US can I get $200 for my blood?


Vikingchris wrote:


Where in the US can I get $200 for my blood?

Multiple pheresis sessions. An hour or two hooked up to a machine that filters out the plasma and returns the red blood cells to you.

AFAIK, they don't pay for it around here. The idea skeeves me out a bit, but I guess they've got good tests for keeping dangerous stuff out of the blood supply these days.


thejeff wrote:
Vikingchris wrote:


Where in the US can I get $200 for my blood?

Multiple pheresis sessions. An hour or two hooked up to a machine that filters out the plasma and returns the red blood cells to you.

AFAIK, they don't pay for it around here. The idea skeeves me out a bit, but I guess they've got good tests for keeping dangerous stuff out of the blood supply these days.

You're not supposed to do it more than 12 times a year.


Eugenics certainly was a fascist thing, that is, a thing that fascists were into, but they certainly weren't the only people.

The Nazis largely expanded upon good old scientific proof that white people were better than everybody else--and English and Germanic white people even better than that--that had been largely verified here in the good ol' USA.

The Progressive Movement--with capital letters, as in, the guys who called themselves the Progressives in the early years of the 20th century--in this country was all up in poor, "untermenschen", "feebleminded" women's uteruses before fascism even existed and no one should ever forget it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

When down and out, I was able to donate plasma twice a week for 30 bucks a pop. That's nothing to live off of, but it helped.


I have (well, had, at this point) the pleasure of dealing with a lot of people with various mental health issues in various stages of mental health crises. I've seen just about every type of mental health issue up-close and personal. I'm quite sympathetic to those in need of help. In a side note, my department is actually one of the leading departments in the nation in terms of Crisis Intervention Training and equipping the officers to deal with the mentally ill. We have pioneered a number of successful programs. I've also worked roughly a dozen suicides of all economic strata.

I'm all for helping people in need. However, when I run into people actually using the system, it is more often that they are not in true need. Those in true need, actually, are less often on the system because they have not learned how to game it. It's a jacked-up way to do things.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

DM Barcas wrote:
Call me a corporatist if you will, but I would be okay with a tax structure that taxed corporations at almost nothing if they produced and maintained enough good American jobs. You'd have to set it up to offset the loss in revenue with gains in increased income tax revenue from the new jobs.

I don't agree with the statements about taxation which I didn't bother quoting and am not interested in discussing, but a plan linking tax breaks to guaranteed employment (including employment for even the most incompetent) would not be a terrible thing in my book. If anyone, irrespective of their comptence, can get a job, a lot of my concerns regarding the need for a social safety net are mitigated. There are, of course, other problems inherent in such a regime (much as the question of "if everyone gets a handout, who does the work" dogs welfare, the question of "if the incompetent are guaranteed a job, how can a business make a proft or be competitive"), but they don't strike me as any worse than the existing problems in the existing structure.

When I'm feeling particularly socialistic, I start to think that the corporations should be required to issue equity to their employees or to the U.S. gov't as part of their taxes (which equity would then be redistributed amongst the general populace), but there's so many problems in/obstacles to such a system, that soon I realize I just need to hit the bong again and focus on how big my hands are instead.


DM Barcas wrote:
I'm all for helping people in need. However, when I run into people actually using the system, it is more often that they are not in true need. Those in true need, actually, are less often on the system because they have not learned how to game it. It's a jacked-up way to do things.

And I'm telling you that your proposal will impact those who need the help more than those who "game the system" as you call it - negatively impact them, to the point of suicide for many.

Liberty's Edge

Obamacare isn't fascist. If it was it would include force sterilzation and euthanasia for the poor, the terminally ill, the mentally ill, the handicapt, the elderly, homosexuals, and those with congenital and genetic diseases or who are carriers for it. It would also have far more concern for women's healt along with pre and neonatal care.

Fascism, in this area, is concerned with eliminating the 'weak', 'degenerate', and 'unproductive' while encouraging reproduction of the strong for the glory and good of the state.

I swear, people just use the word as a pejorative without knowing what the hell it means.


Krensky wrote:

Obamacare isn't fascist. If it was it would include force sterilzation and euthanasia for the poor, the terminally ill, the mentally ill, the handicapt, the elderly, homosexuals, and those with congenital and genetic diseases or who are carriers for it. It would also have far more concern for women's healt along with pre and neonatal care.

Fascism, in this area, is concerned with eliminating the 'weak', 'degenerate', and 'unproductive' while encouraging reproduction of the strong for the glory and good of the state.

I swear, people just use the word as a pejorative without knowing what the hell it means.

Well, duh.

It means "bad". Just like communist and socialist.

Which is how we have people arguing that Nazis were really communists.


I certainly don't believe Obamacare is fascist, nor do I like it very much, but, still, there are other governments that have carried out forced sterilizations of the poor, the mentally ill, and the black. I think North Carolina did it up until the 1970s. Oops, maybe a bad example.

Spoiler:
I kid, North Carolinians, I kid.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

GentleGiant wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
I'm all for helping people in need. However, when I run into people actually using the system, it is more often that they are not in true need. Those in true need, actually, are less often on the system because they have not learned how to game it. It's a jacked-up way to do things.
And I'm telling you that your proposal will impact those who need the help more than those who "game the system" as you call it - negatively impact them, to the point of suicide for many.

Based on what? DM Barcas has come in with his own first-hand experience, which has been, correctly identified as anecdotal and of limited value in making policy determinations, but your statement that his vague changes will result in suicides is even less supported.

651 to 700 of 754 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / "Never Worked a Day in My Life": Urban Myth? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.