Diamonds Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 I think the sad thing is that people don't live in reality anymore. This life is about you, get what you can from it. So what, I'm greedy. I also create jobs (higher paying for 99% of the people we hire internally and externally). That makes me a bad guy?? Sorry for being smart/strategic to become (someday) rich?!!?! As a point, the 26 year old kid that makes 125k was making 35k four years ago when I met him. Shame on me for developing him into what he is today, right? Where's the Superbad "fuck me, right" meme? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Is it wrong to not allow people to vote who don't pay into the system? In other words, if you rely on government directly for assistance to survive, and don't contribute monetarily to the (up to this point, piss poor) running of this country, you should have no say in how it's run, and who is elected. The sheer number of people who rely directly on handouts and assistance in order to survive is staggering. Is it really in our best interest to have them vote? We need to disincentivize those who choose government aid over getting off their fucking asses and working to survive. Maybe taking away voting priveledges would be a start. Crooked bullshit politicians have ruined a country that the greatest generation to ever live bled for during ww2. It's a disgrace. This isn't a serious question right? You are just saying this to start a conversation on the theory of democracy right? To have a government that is representative of society every one must be given an equal platform, and voting is one of those platforms. 35.6% of the population is on some government assistance program, however only 5% of the population is unemployed. Let's assume we also remove the 19% who are on disability, even if sone are not counted in the original 35% figure. That means there are still 10% of people who HAVE JOBS and work very hard but still can't make ends meet. That is still twice as many as who are unemployed. To classify those people as lazy is to assume that everyone has the opportunity make a living wage in this country and that is simply not the case. Maybe if you raise the minimum wage, but then you run into the problem of stifling business growth. It's not an easy problem to solve. It is a fatal flaw to assume that the American economy can support everyone in the workforce at a living wage. There aren't enough jobs to go around. This has always been a problem in nearly every economy, it's the reason why Charles dickens stories are so sad. We have a lot of these programs so we don't end up having to pay to house and lodge a large population of orphans and overtax our prison systems. Governments like the one you suggest have existed, and you know what? The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, they die in the streets, and eventually there is an armed revolution. Now if you wanted to talk about limiting voting...there is always the starship troopers suggestion of limiting it only to those with military service...if you want to discuss that theory... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiek2000 Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Trump 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wagner Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 So, like how tall should the Wall be? 100ft into the ground, 100ft up? Can I get a list of CR members that will be moving to Canada when Pres. Trump is elected? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk The people of Canada are laughing at us right now, that's how you know things are bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngryBMW Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 ...only 5% of the population is unemployed... And I still cannot believe this is a number you believe in. What about that pesky labor force participation rate that you always love to ignore? You know, the one that includes people that are currently unemployed but ACTIVELY seeking employment...that is at its lowest point in 38 years? What does that mean to you? Please break it down for me. Arguing with you hurts my head. Truly, you may be the most one-sided, close minded individual I have ever 'met'. -Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spankis Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Arguing with you hurts my head. -Marc Honestly, I get the impression that he may consider that response a victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 I think the sad thing is that people don't live in reality anymore. This life is about you, get what you can from it. So what, I'm greedy. I also create jobs (higher paying for 99% of the people we hire internally and externally). That makes me a bad guy?? Sorry for being smart/strategic to become (someday) rich?!!?! Where do you get this idea that you are a "bad guy" for wanting money? nobody is saying that. At all. It's when you start to complain that you have to pay a share into society so that the money can be used to build roads and infrastructure, pay for the defense force, and pay for social programs like disability and unemployment that things start to get a little more critical. You are a member of society, you can't escape that, and you have to pay into that share. If you make more money you have to pay more into society - that's just the economic cost of this opportunities this society has provided to you. Don't like it? there are plenty of other countries and societies to choose from, I am sure you can find one you like better. As a point, the 26 year old kid that makes 125k was making 35k four years ago when I met him. Shame on me for developing him into what he is today, right? Where's the Superbad "fuck me, right" meme? I don't know why you think you are under attack for this? If you are criticized for anything it is not taking the time to understand the nature of poverty and it's interference with the rights of other racial groups in this country and the interaction of social programs in easing that situation. Thinking everybody has the same opportunity as you is a fiction, there are some people in this country that society has disadvantaged from the day they are born and it's complex as to how it happens and there is no simple solution for it. Choosing to ignore it and then say "the poor are lazy" and acting like there is no such thing as institutional racism is going to draw critics, because again inaction is still action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 And I still cannot believe this is a number you believe in. What about that pesky labor force participation rate that you always love to ignore? You know, the one that includes people that are currently unemployed but ACTIVELY seeking employment... I think you meant to say "Not ACTIVELY seeking employment because the actively seeking employment is the number that the BOL measures (the 5%). The "discouraged worker" is something harder to measure and while I am happy to see that it is at a low point, you do realize it kind of supports my earlier point don't you think? that is at its lowest point in 38 years? What does that mean to you? Please break it down for me. We have talked before about the flaws in the BOL's system, which is why the Dept of Labor tracks discouraged workers, but then again there is some controversy as to how to count a discouraged worker, particularly whether to include the homeless or not (the Dept of Labor does not). But all this further illustrates my point that even accounting for it is complex and there is no such thing as a simple solution as people on here seem to say. We can't even account for it easily. Arguing with you hurts my head. Truly, you may be the most one-sided, close minded individual I have ever 'met'. So in your rage you actually agreed with me twice. Maybe that's why your head hurts. And yes I consider that a victory coming from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeesammy Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 I think the sad thing is that people don't live in reality anymore. This life is about you, get what you can from it. So what, I'm greedy. I also create jobs (higher paying for 99% of the people we hire internally and externally). That makes me a bad guy?? Sorry for being smart/strategic to become (someday) rich?!!?! As a point, the 26 year old kid that makes 125k was making 35k four years ago when I met him. Shame on me for developing him into what he is today, right? Where's the Superbad "fuck me, right" meme? Where do I sign up for this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Fucking LOL @ 'discouraged workers'. WTF are those? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngryBMW Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 I think you meant to say "Not ACTIVELY seeking employment because the actively seeking employment is the number that the BOL measures (the 5%). The "discouraged worker" is something harder to measure and while I am happy to see that it is at a low point, you do realize it kind of supports my earlier point don't you think? We have talked before about the flaws in the BOL's system, which is why the Dept of Labor tracks discouraged workers, but then again there is some controversy as to how to count a discouraged worker, particularly whether to include the homeless or not (the Dept of Labor does not). But all this further illustrates my point that even accounting for it is complex and there is no such thing as a simple solution as people on here seem to say. We can't even account for it easily. So in your rage you actually agreed with me twice. Maybe that's why your head hurts. And yes I consider that a victory coming from you. No...I typed that correctly. The point is that the number of unemployed people that are actively looking for work is at the lowest it has been in 4 decades...but is NOT counted in the unemployment number. So what I am saying is that the labor force participation number is at a LOW...which is not good...because so many unemployed people have hit the 'fuck it' button and are no longer looking for work and are not counted in the unemployment number and are just fine collecting their government subsidies/benefits. Following me here? kthnx. -Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Fucking LOL @ 'discouraged workers'. WTF are those? It's the government's term for unemployed people who aren't actively seeking employment, excluding the chronic homeless. And is tracked by the Department of Labor. It is meant to be a supplemental figure to the unemployment rate which tracks individuals who are unemployed and actively looking for work to give a true look at the unemployment picture. Unfortunately it is not super accurate, but it is data and does have some value to looking at the picture as a whole. Or to put it in other words: it is what conservatives think all of the unemployed look like when they think of the unemployed. LOL.:dumb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discouraged_worker#cite_note-bls6-18 http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf/opbils74.pdf According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top five reasons for discouragement are the following: The worker thinks no work is available. The worker could not find work. The worker lacks schooling or training. The worker is viewed as too young or too old by the prospective employer. The worker is the target of various types of discrimination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectragod Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Fucking LOL @ 'discouraged workers'. WTF are those? It's the people that fill out a job app like it's a text message, those are awesome, I wonder why they are still working a minimum wage job? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk while street racing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) No...I typed that correctly. The point is that the number of unemployed people that are actively looking for work is at the lowest it has been in 4 decades... The unemployment rate just went back up slightly to 5 percent but it is low. I don't know where you have gotten this "four decades" part because it was lower around 2000 and was right about the same amount (4-5%) from 1997 to 2007. It's the lowest it has been since the financial crisis. but is NOT counted in the unemployment number. So what I am saying is that the labor force participation number is at a LOW...which is not good...because so many unemployed people have hit the 'fuck it' button and are no longer looking for work and are not counted in the unemployment number and are just fine collecting their government subsidies/benefits. Following me here? The Labor Force Participation number is again low, but it's usually low in this time of year because it also counts kids returning to school. If you look at 2014 the number is similarly low. The discourage worker number (which doesn't count school children) hasn't really changed much. If you look at it by the numbers a 5% unemployment is 7.9 million people, but discouraged workers are 553,000, and the 62.9% participation rate indicates about 94 million people. So what does it tell me? it tells me that there are people exiting the workforce to do things like return to school, or become housewives, and the baby boomers are retiring, that are having an effect on the rate. And yes some are also becoming homeless but we don't actually have a breakdown on how much of each is happening. But we do have a number on the "fuck it" group - that's the discouraged workers number and it is no where near the same number as the participation rate. What you are highlighting is some of the problems with the data, is that it is not always translatable across metrics and often requires further research and more work to understand it's true nature. Honestly, low participation in the job market is not great, but there have been a lot of discussions about how the retirement of the baby boomers were going to have an effect on this since there is so damn many of them. Edited November 2, 2016 by Geeto67 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farkas Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c8/eightsixgts/ignore.png Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littleguy Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Honestly, low participation in the job market is not great, but there have been a lot of discussions about how the retirement of the baby boomers were going to have an effect on this since there is so damn many of them. What these people don't understand is that the labor participation rate is only going to get lower and lower due, mainly, to technology. Ownership of capital is going to be more and more important and small or micro investments in capital should be more encouraged for lower income/wealth households if they want to make it in the coming decades. The fallacy is that it is being made political. The right wingers won't see the truth, mainly because they have become experts at lying to themselves, and because they would rather blame Obama, or China, or the elite, or now Hillary. https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/1491591617 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Lazyness, finger pointing, and selfishness . In order for us to get ahead everyone has to contribute... But this will never happen because people are too busy being lazy, pointing fingers, and being selfish. Welcome to the American hamster wheel.... My 2 cents... Carry on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirks5oh Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 This isn't a serious question right? You are just saying this to start a conversation on the theory of democracy right? To have a government that is representative of society every one must be given an equal platform, and voting is one of those platforms. 35.6% of the population is on some government assistance program, however only 5% of the population is unemployed. Let's assume we also remove the 19% who are on disability, even if sone are not counted in the original 35% figure. That means there are still 10% of people who HAVE JOBS and work very hard but still can't make ends... So what you're saying is that over 1/3 of the population depends on government assistance to survive, and doesn't pay a red cent into running this country?? And you think they should have a say in how things are done? I'm not saying get rid of government assistance. There are those who need it to survive. I just don't agree with them having a vote in how things are done, and yes, I'm 1000% serious. The truth is, people are not equal. Some are dumb as fuck. Some are lazy. Some continually make horrible decisions. Some are just plain unlucky, if you believe in that. some people were born with disabilities, some developed them during life, and some scam the system to be disabled. The laws of nature and Darwinism would weed these unfit organisms out of the breeeding pool. But we as humans are compassionate, and somewhat obligated to support this group. Unfortunately, through a series of circumstances which I can't explain, this group has flourished, and constitutes 1/3 of our population. You don't see a fucking problem with this???? I see people all day everyday which make up this group. Taking away voting privileges, and other incentives could go a long way to motivating this group. Sure, it might not be completely fair. But life isn't fair either, and then you die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceGhost Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 So stay at home Mothers and Fathers and retirees shouldn't have a voice? Plenty of those reside in those statistics also. Considering Baby Boomers are now of retirement age. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furloaf Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 So what you're saying is that over 1/3 of the population depends on government assistance to survive, and doesn't pay a red cent into running this country?? And you think they should have a say in how things are done? Snipped that long post, but I've thought along this before. It might be more fair to have two sets of voting. Everyone can vote on representatives and social issues, but when it comes to taxes, levies, and expenditures, etc., only those that pay taxes get to vote. If you wanted to make it really fair, give weighted votes based on taxes paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectragod Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 So stay at home Mothers and Fathers and retirees shouldn't have a voice? Plenty of those reside in those statistics also. Considering Baby Boomers are now of retirement age. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro At least retirees had a job once, there is no reason for 4th and 5th generation welfare recipients, perfectly healthy, they just don't want to work. It's easier to collect welfare and have a side hustle to scam the system. Stay at home mom and dads, by that I am assuming one of the two work? I have no issue with that, I have issues with girls that decide to be baby factories and get a raise every time they have a kid. Too bad it doesn't work like that for those that work, eh? In reality, if your working a minimum wage job, and you and your significant other can barely get by, what makes you think having a kid is a) a good idea, b)constitutes a reason to get on welfare, c) means you'll get sympathy from anyone because of your bad life decisions. If you can't afford children, don't have them, or plan on working your ass off because all you can do are minimum wage jobs because you didn't finish school, spent time in prison, had a bad childhood, have a zillion excuses why society owes you.... whatever. Personally I'm getting tired of my property tax continually going up because a bunch of unemployed renters keep voting for bullshit levies and taxes. Oh.....back on track.....Go Trump, not my first choice, but better than the alternative. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk while street racing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceGhost Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Snipped that long post, but I've thought along this before. It might be more fair to have two sets of voting. Everyone can vote on representatives and social issues, but when it comes to taxes, levies, and expenditures, etc., only those that pay taxes get to vote. If you wanted to make it really fair, give weighted votes based on taxes paid. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furloaf Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Was just a quick thought. No where near being perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirks5oh Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 So stay at home Mothers and Fathers and retirees shouldn't have a voice? Plenty of those reside in those statistics also. Considering Baby Boomers are now of retirement age. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro This group you're referring to. Are they on govt assistance? That will answer your question. The new voting system would include college students who haven't entered the workforce, retirees, and stay at home moms (but not stay at home dads--lulz), and selected other groups. If it sounds like a difficult system to set up, I agree. Remember, we've landed men on the moon, it's doable. Think about the first man to land on the moon and realize his vote is equal to the crackwhore who steals your phone to buy drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furloaf Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 At least retirees had a job once, there is no reason for 4th and 5th generation welfare recipients, perfectly healthy, they just don't want to work. It's easier to collect welfare and have a side hustle to scam the system. Stay at home mom and dads, by that I am assuming one of the two work? I have no issue with that, I have issues with girls that decide to be baby factories and get a raise every time they have a kid. Too bad it doesn't work like that for those that work, eh? In reality, if your working a minimum wage job, and you and your significant other can barely get by, what makes you think having a kid is a) a good idea, b)constitutes a reason to get on welfare, c) means you'll get sympathy from anyone because of your bad life decisions. If you can't afford children, don't have them, or plan on working your ass off because all you can do are minimum wage jobs because you didn't finish school, spent time in prison, had a bad childhood, have a zillion excuses why society owes you.... whatever. Personally I'm getting tired of my property tax continually going up because a bunch of unemployed renters keep voting for bullshit levies and taxes. Oh.....back on track.....Go Trump, not my first choice, but better than the alternative. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk while street racing Another idea I've had was taking the child tax credit and flipping it around. Those with low income don't get shit, whereas those that pay more income tax get a proportionally increasing tax credit. Would incentive educated and well-off people into having more children (many just make maintenance birth rates), instead of idiots, dipshits, lowlifes and general trash people from pumping out more and more burdens that will never contribute and only be a drain on society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.