The Gaming Den

Maxus wrote:If you're that mad about it, PM me and we can track him down and pound his hands flat with a baseball bat so he can see what living with a disability or being flat-out unable to provide for himself is like.

I really needed to vent. It's clear that a lot of the comments made here have been through sheer ignorance and/or lack of imagination, and most of the time I can ignore them. But just like Count has his topics that piss him off, I have mine - and they relate to my family.

PR wrote:yes, there are minority groups in america that teach their children to be on welfare through generational poverty.

There are also minority groups that pass down ideas like "fuck the poor" through their generational wealth. I don't know that I want that, either.

If you're that mad about it, PM me and we can track him down and pound his hands flat with a baseball bat so he can see what living with a disability or being flat-out unable to provide for himself is like.

come at me bro

There are also minority groups that pass down ideas like "fuck the poor" through their generational wealth. I don't know that I want that, either.

me either. I hate greed. it's an ugly thing. which is why I said we need to stop subsidies to corporations.

if we want the country to survive, we need to return to its conservative origins--people doing things for themselves and for others rather than depending on the federal government to do so. main problem is the overreach of the federal government. I don't give a damn if liberals want to create a pseudo-european welfare state; they can have california for all I care. let them do it on the state level, though, and not the federal level. problem becomes when they want to raise my taxes to pay for a bunch of illegal immigrants. (likewise when republicans want to fund their neocon excursions in the middle east--let the people who want the war pay for it)

federal government shouldn't be taxing states and then redistributing the wealth. states should fund themselves. doesn't much matter either way. we're probably going to collapse in the next 20 years or so, and then I'm betting we'll adopt more european-style policies.

not my favorite, but whatever.

Psychic Robot wrote: fuck off retard, just because I'm not chanting some libtard line about how evil amerikkka needs more welfare doesn't mean I'm trolling. I wasn't even really participating in the thread until maj started screaming like an idiot. fact is my views are quite consistent: stop giving government handouts to people and corporations. let people take care of themselves and get the government out of their lives. just because maj throws a tantrum and gets pissed because she's a mother and WE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND MOTHERHOOD I WAS ON WELFARE AND YOU'RE ALL BAD PEOPLE doesn't mean that I'm trolling for telling her to eat ten dicks.

Tell you what. I'll kill you and take all your stuff the day we live in the world you foolishly want to live in.

Psychic Robot wrote:if we want the country to survive, we need to return to its conservative origins--people doing things for themselves and for others rather than depending on the federal government to do so. main problem is the overreach of the federal government. I don't give a damn if liberals want to create a pseudo-european welfare state; they can have california for all I care. let them do it on the state level, though, and not the federal level.

Doesn't work, without the ability to have your own currency and the ability to restrict trade you're always locked into a race to the bottom of deregulation and tax reductions for the producers.

Not for the workers though, at least not the ones for which there is a surplus or with low mobility ... sure they won't be able to consume, but you're building your economy on competition for non-local trade ... so if non-producers still have some money stashed away somewhere, then better to tax them and subsidise production so you can get a bigger share of non-local trade ...

This is the inbuilt deflationary bias of free trade, it promotes mercantilism. Which always fucks the workers, at least in the short term ... in China it might work out nicely for the workers in the end, if the State increases in minimum wage/medical care/pensions before the rich manage to take over the Diet completely.

Doesn't work, without the ability to have your own currency and the ability to restrict trade you're always locked into a race to the bottom of deregulation and tax reductions for the producers.

I'm pretty much set against immigration, I don't buy into the libertarian line about open borders because anyone for open borders is an enemy of america. not big on free trade even though I want less government.

Tell you what. I'll kill you and take all your stuff the day we live in the world you foolishly want to live in.

lol you wish. lots of guns in a free america, I'll shoot your ass if you dare come onto my property lisping about how bad the free market is

Maj wrote:Forced birth control is bad.

I agree, but that doesn't mean requiring people who are on government assistance to stop having children would be bad. Obviously, forced sterilization of any sort is ridiculously fucking invasive and inhumane. Similarly, taking away children from their parents because they don't make some arbitrary amount of money per child is pretty much a disgusting idea.

But requiring that people receiving government assistance restrict themself to the children they already have (or up to 1 or 2) is reasonable. It will make the family more financially stable and give the children better chances, which I think is what everyone is trying to get at and then coming up with incredibly inhumane, disgusting ways to implement it.

Teetering on the edge of personal financial ruin and deciding, "hey, it's time to have another kid," is irresponsible, and is going to hurt the child and hurt the state, and we should probably find a way to discourage that. Starting with better access to and education about birth control methods.

PR wrote:yes, there are minority groups in america that teach their children to be on welfare through generational poverty.

That's a hilariouslt incorrect representation of what actually happens. Poverty begets poverty because poverty does not normally come with opportunity. Or do you seriously believe, "America is the land of opportunity - everyone has an equal shot. The person from the rich white school in the suburbs, the person from the inner city ghetto school, both have the same chance of being a successful doctor some day." If you believe that, "hahaha," and "fuck you."

And if you're willing to recognize that opportunity is based on your upbringing and home environment, then it should be immediately fucking obvious why 'welfare runs in families.' Because 'lack of opportunity' is running in families.

I can't bring myself to argue with the rest, because it must be trolling.

just because you don't believe it doesn't make it true.

Poverty begets poverty because poverty does not normally come with opportunity. Or do you seriously believe, "America is the land of opportunity - everyone has an equal shot. The person from the rich white school in the suburbs, the person from the inner city ghetto school, both have the same chance of being a successful doctor some day." If you believe that, "hahaha," and "fuck you."

get a college education. government will loan you money to pay for it.

then it should be immediately fucking obvious why 'welfare runs in families.' Because 'lack of opportunity' is running in families.

sorry dawg, people teach their children to be on welfare. obviously this isn't always the case, but it is true in some cases. you bring your kids up with proper values, and that's not going to happen. you bring your kids up without a sense of shame in accepting government handouts, and you're going to promote generational poverty. and I'm not even seeing it happens just with blacks or whatever, it happens with whites, too, and it's really frustrating because these people are not living up to their potential

I was under the impression that going back to our conservative roots and reducing the reach of the government is why there are so many people working multiple jobs and are still on welfare? Reagan sure did make it so the very wealthy could do more without getting their fingers slapped.

To put it bluntly, the founding fathers thought that drinking grain alcohol every morning was healthy, that mercury was a cure-all, and that is was morally defensible to own people as property. I am not interested on going back to those times.

DSMatticus wrote:I think is what everyone is trying to get at and then coming up with incredibly inhumane, disgusting ways to implement it.

I am inhumane, so the inhumanity of my solutions is intentional.

DSMatticus wrote:Or do you seriously believe, "America is the land of opportunity - everyone has an equal shot. The person from the rich white school in the suburbs, the person from the inner city ghetto school, both have the same chance of being a successful doctor some day." If you believe that, "hahaha," and "fuck you."

I can't bring myself to argue with the rest, because it must be trolling.

Yes, he really does believe that, and it's only trolling in the sense that PR really believes shit that is absurd, and chooses to talk about his absurd beliefs especially in the presence of people who disagree with him.

Psychic Robot wrote: get a college education. government will loan you money to pay for it.

Yeah, don't do this. I don't know anyone who took government loans that weren't enslaved afterwards. Trust me on this, financially you are better off continuing to work a shitty job then get a government loan.

I was under the impression that going back to our conservative roots and reducing the reach of the government is why there are so many people working multiple jobs and are still on welfare? Reagan sure did make it so the very wealthy could do more without getting their fingers slapped.

see reagan conservatism isn't conservatism. reagan loved his big government spending, just not on social programs. he wanted to make sure the boys at top got everything while the rest ate shit. paleocons like less government overall--no subsidies to businesses and the elimination of the welfare state. I don't support total elimination of welfare for people, just scaling back.

Yeah, don't do this. I don't know anyone who took government loans that weren't enslaved afterwards. Trust me on this, financially you are better off continuing to work a shitty job then get a government loan.

it's terrible and the result of the government propping up the educational bureaucracy in the first place. but under the assumption that the black kid or whatever can't get a decent job and is trapped in poverty, he can at least pull out some loans and become a doctor or at the least a nurse

I'm wondering about something though (honest question, not trying to troll here). Under a restricted government, what's going to force businesses to actually raise wages so people can afford to life away from welfare?

I understand the idea that if one could work 40 hours and make enough money to live off there'd be no need for welfare, I just don't understand how you would force the big dogs to throw more scraps to the little dogs without stomping on a few throats.

Under a restricted government, what's going to force businesses to actually raise wages so people can afford to life away from welfare?

competition for labor and/or unionization. also, without government subsidies and preferential treatment from the government, I don't think that companies would be able to get so large they can take a shit on the workers the way walmart and other chain stores do now. in an ideal free market system, the shareholders couldn't sue for the company trying to raise its workers wages

What's going to stop the businesses from just moving the factories to India?

tairiffs, which would be based on a human development index. less-developed countries have higher tairiffs; more developed countries have lower tairiffs.

also if I were president I would tell the american people to form lynch mobs against any asshole trying to outsource jobs

You do understand that when you have weak federal government, you end up with Boss Hog right?

You do understand that when you have weak federal government, you end up with Boss Hog right?

boss hog already exists. the more government you have, the more government corruption exists, ensuring that boss hog gets more favors while the small business owners get screwed.

That would be a nice idea (and I admit I am letting personal experience speak here), but I know too many corrupt local people that made life hell for people in these small Virginia towns (who in several cases had the mayor, town council, and police force in their pockets) that were only stopped because the feds got involved. (It's possible to use money to sway a $12k a year small town cop and an unpaid mayor, but the DEA and IRS are much harder to corrupt in that fashion).

I don't really trust either federal or local governments to look after my own interests, but the feds tend to crack down on the corrupt local people when they are aware of them.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

Psychic Robot wrote: get a college education. government will loan you money to pay for it.

Yeah, don't do this. I don't know anyone who took government loans that weren't enslaved afterwards. Trust me on this, financially you are better off continuing to work a shitty job then get a government loan.

(bolded for emphasis)

*raises hand*

Of course, I did all my basics at community college with no loans at all (out of pocket and pell grant), and then did my last 2 years at a state school...I had less than $15,000 in debt overall, mostly federal stafford loans.

It also helped that I did it 11 years ago when tuitions were lower, but whatever. And I also got a liberal arts degree (English), and I've never worked in a field directly related to my major. But just having the college degree has gotten me jobs I wouldn't have otherwise, and I did learn useful stuff at college.

So yeah, I recommend going to college...just be smart about it. Don't go racking up 100 G's of debt unless you're getting a degree for a good field that will help you earn it back.

I, admittedly, was stupid and listened to all the stuff the financial aid officer told me about student loans. And got caught up in details I wasn't aware of. And was in default before I even graduated.

Admittedly, I was stupid and shouldn't have trusted anyone. Especially from someone that stands to make a lot of money from my misfortune. I got off very light with the student loan debt, I know people who have it hanging over their heads 30 and 40 years later. And the only doctor I know doesn't even make enough to feed herself after her student loans take everything.

That would be a nice idea (and I admit I am letting personal experience speak here), but I know too many corrupt local people that made life hell for people in these small Virginia towns (who in several cases had the mayor, town council, and police force in their pockets) that were only stopped because the feds got involved. (It's possible to use money to sway a $12k a year small town cop and an unpaid mayor, but the DEA and IRS are much harder to corrupt in that fashion).

I don't really trust either federal or local governments to look after my own interests, but the feds tend to crack down on the corrupt local people when they are aware of them.

well that's not to say that there shouldn't be federal oversight of government or no federal government at all. I just support limited federal oversight because more government means more bureaucracy which means more taxes and more potential for corruption. sucks that you lived with a bunch of pigfuckers though.

Mandatory birth control procedures won't work. Surgeries are expensive as hell. You're better off actually having government funded free abortion clinics for people on welfare and just cutting down people's benefits for having more children. Make it to their advantage to abort the child instead of having it.

Of course to do that you have to get rid of all the pro-life bullshit.

Maj wrote:On top of all that, there's this great idea of "can't afford kids." What the fuck does that even mean anyway? Do you know? What quantity of arbitrarium do you have to have in order to qualify? What guarantee do you have that poverty precludes raising useful/good/decent/intelligent/whatever children, while having "enough" arbitrarium guarantees it? Why the hell aren't you arguing for psych evaluations for every person in the US instead, so we can determine who has the right mindset to raise a child?

If you're living off the government on a permanent or semi-permanent basis, then you can't afford kids. It's fine if someone loses their job and you hit hard times for a year, but if it's the general plan to have government checks for most of the time the child is growing up... then you're too poor to be raising kids.

You're better off actually having government funded free abortion clinics

ahahaha your dreams of a socialist abortion mill will never come to fruition in america

Psychic Robot wrote:as far as I understand it, k is being a pinko twat and kaelik is calling him on his bullshit because even though kaelik is a leftist and agrees with k's viewpoints, kaelik has some sense of honor and decency when it comes to argumentation (unlike k) and he (kaelik) has a tendency to sperg out when someone does something that is any way perceived as "wrong." as k is being a pinko twat and strawmanning, kaelik is duty-bound to correct him because his aspie tendencies lock him into a rigid mode of thinking where he must engage in every possible debate because he has an opinion and this is the goddamn internet DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND

basically it's just kaelik being kaelik

You really don't understand people or the world, do you? How frightening it must be for you.

Back on topic: you can't wean people off poverty by giving them assistance and then slowly taking it away, or taking their kids away, or taking away their ability to have kids. That's what I was commenting on.

You see, it is a basic fact that there are X number of living wage jobs (and combos of 1st and 2nd and even 3rd jobs) and X+Y number of people who need those jobs to eat. This means that whatever people want to say about education or opportunity or motivation is actually complete nonsense because there aren't enough jobs for the number of people we have.

The reason we give people government assistance is not for charity, but because it's cheaper for society to pay the poor than to let citizens who would be law-abiding be forced into crime. When it comes down to death by starvation or crime, people always pick crime.

And crime is very expensive to society both in taxes for police and prisons and the legal system, but it is also disproportionately expensive to society directly in damage. The damage caused when people commit crimes is often hundreds of times more than the actual amount of money the criminal receives (stealing $30 worth of items is often accomplished by breaking a $3000 store window).

Trust me, the amount of money people get on government assistance is the bare minimum to keep people from turning to crime. Anyone who doesn't agree with that is either completely ignorant or just delusional and stupid. "Welfare queens" are an urban myth.

Society works because we subsidize things that are good for society. The US subsidizes food and fuel because if we didn't then people would starve in the streets and our population growth would nosedive(3 billion a year to oil companies, and we send our military out to intimidate oil-producing nations...we don't even need to address corn and wheat subsidies). We subsidize corporations because if we didn't then they would stop employing people (2/3rds of US corporations pay no Federal tax). We subsidize air travel and railroads because if we didn't then the US wouldn't be able to move goods or people efficiently.

Poverty exists because it's built into our system. There are groups trying to lower the minimum wage and prevent unions simply because they understand that there are X jobs and X+Y people, and a completely free market means that they can pay people a few dollars a day and someone will always be there to take that job because it'd be the better alternative to getting shot by police when they try to steal enough food to prevent death.

Psychic Robot wrote:

Tell you what. I'll kill you and take all your stuff the day we live in the world you foolishly want to live in.

lol you wish. lots of guns in a free america, I'll shoot your ass if you dare come onto my property lisping about how bad the free market is

I find it mildly hilarious that you think you could possibly defend against someone like me. If I wanted to kill you, you have 2 choices: Never leave your house or die.

That's it. There's no defense against people who want to kill you and know where you are (beyond hiding) in a "free" america. Killing you and taking your stuff would be laughably easy. Avoiding someone else doing the same to me? Kinda impossible.