Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yours is "I got yours, so f*ck you." Which one is better?
I like how he takes pride in the fact that "I've got mine so to heck with you!" IS his stance on the world, and yet he expects us to be impressed by his sadistic ignorance while trying to hide behind the false claim that "everyone else wants his stuff."
I'm sure what I'm about to say is far too complex for you to understand, child, but get with the program - the world is NOT a meritocracy. It is not fair, hard work and effort often do NOT pay off, and there are NOT enough jobs. You have failed to address all of these points and have done nothing but spew venom and ignorance. Your kind are laughably transparent. Through good fortune, things have gone your way, but you believe that it is all your "skill" and "hard work" and "effort" that got you to where you are today. Based on that insanity, you clearly also believe that those who have not succeeded are "lazy" or "stupid" and so on. Your raging hatred of "liberals" - without even knowing the definition of the word - gives you away, as does your pathological fear of "them" coming for your money. You are nothing but another spiteful believer in the Just World Fallacy, and if you don't know what that is, look it up.
The level of selfishness required to actively deny social safety nets and basically tell people to "get a job or drop dead!" is appalling and fails to address reality - the lack of jobs and the fact that some people honestly can't work. Of course, your kind always think you're above this, and yet all it takes is one illness or accident, and suddenly you will be part of the surplus population. When that time eventually happens - and it will, since everyone gets old eventually - I truly hope that you are meant with no one but younger versions of your own selfish nature, and that they deal with you in the same soulless way you wish for those out of work to be dealt with.
Last edited by Rambler123; 04-02-2014 at 08:38 PM..
That's fascinating. First, you say that there weren't riots ...but there WOULD have been if we could "rerun" history. Then you immediately say there were. It's great because you "prove" there were riots and there were no riots, then claim both were true and both prove your point and, anyways, even if it didn't happen if we replayed history the right way it would happen. That's fascinating.
Ah, yes - the classic debating tactic of the guy with no points of his own - nitpicking at things while ignoring the actual facts and then attempting to make snarky insults to cover his lack of factual support or reasoning ability.
If you bothered to read his post and see what he was getting at, you'd realize that there were riots and they would have been a lot worse had nothing been done about the economic situation. But, of course, you ignore that and try to nitpick the sentence structure and so on. Your inability to address the Great Depression and what happened then is also doubly funny coming from a know-it-all who claims to base his stance on "American history" and yet is clearly profoundly ignorant of it!
It's really fascinating since you have never once addressed a single fact in all your cute little posts. All you do is spew sad insults, nitpick sentence structure or phrasing, or made idiotic pronouncements, such as everyone who disagrees with you is a "liberal" or wants "statist welfare" or "wants to take your stuff."
Why are you even on this thread? You have nothing intelligent to say, can't debate worth squat, and clearly have only a passing relationship with reality. You are a waste of bandwidth, nothing more...
That's fascinating. First, you say that there weren't riots ...but there WOULD have been if we could "rerun" history. Then you immediately say there were. It's great because you "prove" there were riots and there were no riots, then claim both were true and both prove your point and, anyways, even if it didn't happen if we replayed history the right way it would happen. That's fascinating.
If I wanted to play the same game, I could point out that the way you phrased it, your claim was that you personally didn't see any rioting during the Depression. Well, you probably weren't alive then, so that's not surprising. Even if you were, maybe you weren't in the right place at the right time. You didn't, taken literally, make any claim at all about whether rioting happened or not, just that you didn't see it yourself.
But I tried to respond to what I believe you meant to say rather than what you actually wrote. My apologies if I should have taken that literally. In that case, yes, I do believe you when you claim that you personally did not see any rioting in the 1930s.
I will apologize for not phrasing my first sentence as, "No, rioting and criminality were limited, because...." And I'll note that you do not address the substance I offered whatsoever. Good night.
A better solution to safety nets is to make them more efficient. People need to always be motivated to try to find ways out of whatever safety net they're in. Make the safety nets cheaper and less comfortable. Then we can afford to provide for everyone who needs it, while motivating them to not need it any longer than absolutely necessary. Presently we aren't even providing for everyone who needs it, but are focusing more on those who want a career of being in a safety net forever.
As just one example, being on disability has become a career for a lot of people because it's a major investment of time and effort, which would be wasted if they got off disability and got a job. In other words, the hoops they have to jump through to get on disability, are what motivate them to stay on it. Sometimes getting on disability involves years of hearings, lawyers, etc. So it's a major investment. The return on that investment depends on staying on disability for a long time. If they ever get a job and get off disability, they have the risk of losing the job, and having to start over jumping through all the hoops to get back on disability, which becomes a much more reliable source of income than a job.
One possible solution to the disability problem is to treat disabled people like all impoverished people, and not give them any special status just because they're disabled. They could make use of the same cheap efficient safety net mentioned above.
The most important thing about a safety net is that it be available to those who need it. America is full of homeless shelters that turn away homeless people because they reach capacity. People who most need welfare often don't get it because they don't have the skills to jump through all the hoops to officially qualify for it. Being a good welfare bum is an art, practiced most successfully by those most skilled in that art.
The cheap efficient safety net could consist of building a lot more homeless shelters, so they never run out of capacity. And stop spending money on welfare, but spend some of it on those homeless shelters. And require the residents to spend their time getting ready to get jobs. Such as by training, job applications, etc. Even disabled people can train for jobs. And not giving the residents any money. Having money motivates them towards drugs, etc. The accommodations should be Spartan and the rules should be strict. The residents need to feel like they're in basic training in the Army, to be motivated to get out of it. But getting in should not require paperwork, applications, hearings, or anything like that. Whoever goes to such an undesirable place, should be considered to need it, and to qualify for it, just by going there. And that lack of qualifications would remove a whole layer of bureaucracy, making it even more efficient. If people are concerned that illegal aliens would live there, that problem could be solved by having residents investigated for their immigration status at random times while they're living there, and deported if appropriate. Much more efficient than trying to prove the immigration status of everyone who goes there, before admitting them. By putting the welfare money into these homeless shelters instead of paying it to welfare bums and bureaucrats, we can make the system work much better than what we have now. Each shelter can have a number of buildings. Keep the children and their parents in one building, the drug addicts and former convicts in another, etc. The key to success is to have people run the system who are experts at efficiency and providing what people need with minimal waste. Give three small meals per day, and no couches to become a couch potato. You sleep and you work. No TV or anything, except to the extent that it helps educate them to get jobs. Change the channel to PBS or whatever. If they use computers, it's to help them get jobs. To train them and connect them with employers. No games. If you want to play games, get a job first. The kids can play educational games, and the adults can play games that improve their job skills. But not the kinds of games that make people waste weeks when they should be looking for a job. Those of you who aren't reading this should immediately stop playing those games and start reading.
This whole idea is full of holes and inconsistencies, but that's no reason to reject it. It just means people need to get busy patching the holes. The best ideas start out as nonsense, and only very gradually gain a following, and improvements.
For those of you who don't have time to read this whole message, the first paragraph is the essence of it.
People can't find jobs right now because the government has made the process of hiring and firing so expensive and cumbersome that many employers don't even bother. If the government simply got out of the way and stopped pretending that it can do things better than the private sector, we'd all be much better off.
People can't find jobs right now because the government has made the process of hiring and firing so expensive and cumbersome that many employers don't even bother. If the government simply got out of the way and stopped pretending that it can do things better than the private sector, we'd all be much better off.
Employers have work that needs to be done. If they don't hire people, they need other solutions. One solution is to put more time, money, and effort, into developing intelligent robots to do the work. So having the government as an obstacle can actually cause technology to advance faster.
People can't find jobs right now because the government has made the process of hiring and firing so expensive and cumbersome that many employers don't even bother. If the government simply got out of the way and stopped pretending that it can do things better than the private sector, we'd all be much better off.
With kind respect intended, it's a popular myth that the government is not able to innovate or do certain things better than the private sector. If the government had not developed the ARPANet, which was the prototype for the modern Internet, the Internet as we know it might today might not exist, or be much more feature-limited. Much of the foundational framework for the modern Internet, one of the great, late-20th century inventions, originally came from this government technological experiment, rather than the private sector.
Employers have work that needs to be done. If they don't hire people, they need other solutions. One solution is to put more time, money, and effort, into developing intelligent robots to do the work. So having the government as an obstacle can actually cause technology to advance faster.
It will if the creation of technology is cheaper than existing workers. McDonalds will only go to burger flipping robots and self-service kiosks if and only if it is worth the costs to install and will be cheaper than labor costs. Walmart will use RFID for self-checkout if and only if it is worth the costs to replace existing scans and self-checkouts are more efficient than cashiers. Unless the juice is worth the squeeze, employers will need workers to do the work (imagine that.)
People can't find jobs right now because the government has made the process of hiring and firing so expensive and cumbersome that many employers don't even bother. If the government simply got out of the way and stopped pretending that it can do things better than the private sector, we'd all be much better off.
Can you name a few specific things that the government is doing to increase the expense of hiring and firing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
