@ianhh6: it says that the two percent figure is false, the FBI says 8% an the only peer reviewed study said 41%.
Still_Vicious' forum posts
@Wickerman777 said:
If she wasn't Hillary Clinton she would have been arrested months ago. But she is so she won't be.
This. At this point she could murder without consequence.
@hillelslovak said:
@still_vicious said:
@hillelslovak said:
@still_vicious said:
You keep changing the subject. You do seem to have a weird habit of going off on tangents rather than addresseing the original subject, even indirectly. I'll repeat it again, you can make 50k by not working in many states because the system is so broken.
You are being over immature, and you are making statements about "teh evil corporations" as you've said. You say My argument is simple, but you've literally blamed every problem brought up on corporations. Even in this quote you rant about loohoes and greed while adding nothing to the original topic; I get it you don't like the businesses that drive the economy, blaiming everything on an outside evil, rather than saying that maybe it's a matter of the value of the individual or personal responsibility.
I'm aware that bad programs and ideologies that produce laziness and selfishness over practicality will bankrupt this country. Ironically, that's you "help the populace" ideology. In order to help some people you have to stop helping and let them do it for themselves, otherwise you create a system where people can make 50k a year not working. Also, again with the corporations.....
Some people are worth more than others, you'd have to be incredibly dumb to believe all people are equal. But please explain to me how somebody with 20 years of engineering experience is equal in value to somebody just entering the job market. I'll wait for you to call my ayn rand again.
Im not changing the subject. Abuse is not nearly as widespread as you think. Once again, if wages dont raise, and we aren't going to just get rid of social programs, how is this problem solved? And for the third time, corporations are not evil, but their interests are typically not that of the general well being of the public. That does not make them evil. Stop watching Fox News, and being so incredibly dualistic in your thinking.
And unlike you, I dont place value judgements on human beings based upon their effectiveness within a specific market.
I suppose the problem is solved by people being responsible with their money and not using goverment assistance when they don't need it. Like when you're on minimum wage.
A corporations purpose is to produce money for those working within the company; that's pretty much it. It's not a malevolent force.
I don't watch fox news.
Yes you did change the subject. https://www.yahoo.com/news/welfare-pays-more-entry-level-shocking-number-states-144812704.html?ref=gs I originally showed that you can make more than 50k by not working. Obviously that shows that this system does not work.
A person's value is not determined entirely by how much they make, but that is a big part of it. A person's value is determined by what they produce, and no, that's not just income. I am curious though, do you honestly believe all people are equal?
Once again, I was not saying corporation are malevolent forces, but their interests might not match up with the greater populace or economy.
I will not put myself in a situation where I am determining who is better than others, unless it is people who presume to judge others, or tell others what to do.
teh evil corporations seem to be all you've blamed in this thread....A corperations purpose is to serve those involved with it; owners, workers, stock holders, and its core purpose is to make money for those people. Beyond that there really is no specific agenda.
This is just nonsense meant to dodge my question, yes, some people are worth more than others, acting self righteous doesn't change that. If you can't see that some people have more value than others, as in a mechanic will always have more value than somebody living off the government.
Obama is worth more than you for instance, if he were to die, it would have a major inpact on U.S. politics and it's economy, but if you did, you would have far less inpact as you produce much less than he does.
If you want to put a real number on how many rapes are falsified. It's about 40%.
Facts do seem to counter feminist beliefs don't they?
@toast_burner said:
@still_vicious said:
@toast_burner said:
Having the right skills for a job doesn't guarantee a job.
Do you have enough money saved to last you a 6 months or a year? How about enough to also house and feed a family as well? I get the impression that you're still in school. I'm fortunate enough to have a job that pays decently. I really feel sorry for those that have to live on minimum wage, at that amount of pay you won't be able to save up for an emergency, rent alone would take most of what you get a week, and in America minimum wage is even smaller than it is here. Absolutely outrageous.
It doesn't but that's why you save money, and honestly if you're between jobs, it's ok to use these social programs a little, that's what they're there for. The problem is when they're abused; as I've mentioned, in some states these social programs are so generous that you can make 50k a year by not working.
Yes. Probably, but I don't have a family to save up for. No, I'm in the professional world as a programmer. Minimum wage isn't meant to live on forever, it's meant for people just starting out/college kids/HS kids. It's not a real career path. I don't expect people to raise families and save up for emergencies. This are just stepping stones on the way to better jobs. If you're well into your career and you're making minimum wage, then you fucked up, and should face the consequences of your actions.
The thing you're ignoring is that the abuse is actually very uncommon, you focus a lot on special cases where someone is getting "50k a year" but you ignore the people who barely get enough to survive on. Benefit fraud makes up less than 1% of the the total expenditure of benefits, more money is wasted due to errors than people intentionally cheating the system. So why punish the majority for the actions of the very small minority? (I'm basing most of this on my understanding of the UK's benefit system, but I can't imagine it being too different in America)
There's a bit of irony in the fact that you're a programmer, seeing how programmers are actually quite likely to end up unemployed since there's so many of them. Computer Science for example is one of the least likely degrees to get you a job, with around 11% of graduates remaining unemployed 6 months after graduation.
What about people who have to drop out of school for factors beyond their control, such as becoming a carer of a sick/disabled relative?
I haven't ignored those at all, If you read back through my posts, I actually advocate some form of safety net. I just have issue with it being so easily abused. Such as many states not even having laws that you must be looking for a job while on benefits. Just because they make up a minority of cases, doesn't mean abuse happens a lot. That's why many states are moving to ban buying things like stake or even alcohol with such benefits.
Those statistics are really good compared to average. Granted I'm responsible enough to save my money up so I'd be fine while I look for another job. If more people did that rather than play the victim card they'd be doing better in life.
Those are in the minority as you put it, as it does work both ways...and yes they will still have a safety net. You just assume because I say reduce or have better control over the system that I mean get rid of all safety nets period. I don't.
I've seen more violence from his opponents.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gays-for-trump-crowd-gathers-at-costa-mesa-rally-20160428-story.html
@comp_atkins said:
@still_vicious said:
@toast_burner said:
@still_vicious said:
@toast_burner said:
So if you have a well paid job and then have some kids, but you then lose your job, you should what? Kill your children?
lol, if you have developed skills to get a new job, and saved money as you should, there should be no problem.
See what happens when people take responsibility for their actions?
Having the right skills for a job doesn't guarantee a job.
Do you have enough money saved to last you a 6 months or a year? How about enough to also house and feed a family as well? I get the impression that you're still in school. I'm fortunate enough to have a job that pays decently. I really feel sorry for those that have to live on minimum wage, at that amount of pay you won't be able to save up for an emergency, rent alone would take most of what you get a week, and in America minimum wage is even smaller than it is here. Absolutely outrageous.
It doesn't but that's why you save money, and honestly if you're between jobs, it's ok to use these social programs a little, that's what they're there for. The problem is when they're abused; as I've mentioned, in some states these social programs are so generous that you can make 50k a year by not working.
Yes. Probably, but I don't have a family to save up for. No, I'm in the professional world as a programmer. Minimum wage isn't meant to live on forever, it's meant for people just starting out/college kids/HS kids. It's not a real career path. I don't expect people to raise families and save up for emergencies. This are just stepping stones on the way to better jobs. If you're well into your career and you're making minimum wage, then you fucked up, and should face the consequences of your actions.
i hear a lot of people saying this. however, what minimum wage worker is mircowaving my mcnuggests at lunch time on a wednesday afternoon? it's not a hs kid or a college student, they're at school. it's generally a person with expenses beyond beer and gas.
Beyond somebody starting out in the work world, it's generally somebody who hasn't made the best decisions.
@hillelslovak said:
@still_vicious said:
@hillelslovak said:
@still_vicious said:
@hillelslovak said:
How am I being dishonest, I did not change any subject. God damn you are crass as hell.
How does supply and demand and market value per employee dictate wages? That makes no sense. Profits rise and fall, inflation increases and decreases, and wages stagnate. Supply and demand dictates profits.
Do you not realize that people can have kids, and maybe lose a higher paying job, then have to take low wage jobs? Low minimum wages are not th eproblem at root, they are a symptom. Lack of oversight and regulation in business results in the centralization of wealth. This is an obvious and natural course. Your dismissal of this point is to paint an entirely simplistic red herring of evil corporations out to get you.
And once again, damn are you callous. You sound like a real Ayn Rand type, f everyone else, they are weak.
If government gives out too much money in assistance, lets take the course you seem to want and lower it off to nothing. We get a homeless epidemic, and the ideal of our very country is thrown away. You might be tempted to just say screw them, they deserve to live like animals. Or maybe you take the view that they can all pull themselves up by their bootstraps. How do they get jobs? We are talking millions of new minimum wage jobs that need to be opened up. Where are these jobs? We spent 2008-2010 in a huge recession, and since our financial sector is still extremely shaky at best, how does our insanely overburdened economy compensate for all the demand for workers?
I was being a smart ass since you misused the word dishonest. U did change the subject though, I started talking about how social programs are too generous, and in some states you can make more than 50k a year by doing nothing.
If somebody is in demand, say an engineer, they get paid more, since there are fewer engineers out there than average people, they get paid more. High demad, low supply, very simple. Let's look at mcdonalds workers, it's very easy to find them as anybody can do the job, and it. Therefore high supply decreases the demand. Lower wagess.
Teh evil corporations. You keep revisiting that. There's more to the economy than teh evil corperations. If he had a higher paying job, than he should have been able to save up money, he should have gained skills that would get him another well paying job. It's very simple, if he was responsible, saved money and invested in himself time to learn new skills, than there would be an issue.
Reality is harsh, but it's reality, you aren't doing youself favors by pretending that it's not true. The world does not care about you, it only cares what it can get from you, and what it can get from you determines your value. It doesn't have to be money, but it does have to benefit people. Some people are worth more than others, get over it.
I never said lower it off to nothing. You're making assumptions. However, maybe if social programs weren't bogging down businesses and the government, than both could create jobs when needed lmao.
To be honest, you sound like you view things in an overly simplistic, cut and dry fashion that does not take variables into account. I dont see your simplicity as being indicative of sophistication. Ayn Rand like.
Again, I was not relying on evil corporations as a debate tactic. I merely stated that you attempt to discredit an argument made against your position by throwing a red herring into the mix, as if I am being overly immature, making statements about evil corporations out to get the common man. I articulated it in my previous post, and there, again. You dont seem to take into account the fact that their are indeed factor of greed that cause wages to stagnate. If a corporation can get away with paying you less, why would they not? A corporation is not a person, it is an amoral construct. It;s not evil or good, per se. Corporations lobby to keep wages lower, along with keeping regulations lax, using loopholes to escape taxes and receive subsidies, etc etc etc. That is the nature of business. That doesnt mean wages should be as low as they are. Wealth continues to be concentrated more and more, each and every year. Supply and demand is not at all the only factor in determining wages. Specialization will cause someone to be more in demand, of course, but you are painting an extremely simplistic picture.
So you have any idea how many hundreds of billions go into government subsidies? Damn dude, if our country is going to go bankrupt, would you not want to be part of a society that went bankrupt trying to help it's citizens, and world citizenry as an extension, or be the country that gave the majority of it's money to literally a few thousand people while pursuing war after war in order to ensure the stability of these interests?
Some people are worth more than others. That clinches it, Ayn Rand philosophy.
You keep changing the subject. You do seem to have a weird habit of going off on tangents rather than addresseing the original subject, even indirectly. I'll repeat it again, you can make 50k by not working in many states because the system is so broken.
You are being over immature, and you are making statements about "teh evil corporations" as you've said. You say My argument is simple, but you've literally blamed every problem brought up on corporations. Even in this quote you rant about loohoes and greed while adding nothing to the original topic; I get it you don't like the businesses that drive the economy, blaiming everything on an outside evil, rather than saying that maybe it's a matter of the value of the individual or personal responsibility.
I'm aware that bad programs and ideologies that produce laziness and selfishness over practicality will bankrupt this country. Ironically, that's you "help the populace" ideology. In order to help some people you have to stop helping and let them do it for themselves, otherwise you create a system where people can make 50k a year not working. Also, again with the corporations.....
Some people are worth more than others, you'd have to be incredibly dumb to believe all people are equal. But please explain to me how somebody with 20 years of engineering experience is equal in value to somebody just entering the job market. I'll wait for you to call my ayn rand again.
Im not changing the subject. Abuse is not nearly as widespread as you think. Once again, if wages dont raise, and we aren't going to just get rid of social programs, how is this problem solved? And for the third time, corporations are not evil, but their interests are typically not that of the general well being of the public. That does not make them evil. Stop watching Fox News, and being so incredibly dualistic in your thinking.
And unlike you, I dont place value judgements on human beings based upon their effectiveness within a specific market.
I suppose the problem is solved by people being responsible with their money and not using goverment assistance when they don't need it. Like when you're on minimum wage.
A corporations purpose is to produce money for those working within the company; that's pretty much it. It's not a malevolent force.
I don't watch fox news.
Yes you did change the subject. https://www.yahoo.com/news/welfare-pays-more-entry-level-shocking-number-states-144812704.html?ref=gs I originally showed that you can make more than 50k by not working. Obviously that shows that this system does not work.
A person's value is not determined entirely by how much they make, but that is a big part of it. A person's value is determined by what they produce, and no, that's not just income. I am curious though, do you honestly believe all people are equal?
@sSubZerOo said:
@still_vicious said:
Food stamp benefits are abused in this country and need to be reduced.
Yes because having people starve in the supposed greatest country in the world is a good solution to attack the people supposedly abusing the system.. Maybe you can come up with a better solution that doesn't result in people suffering (including children) or are you just a morally bankrupt turd? If the Republicans saw the US for the supposed Christian nation they think it is, you would think our safety nets would be much greater.. Afterall it was Jesus that preached helping the poor and ill, and that very same bible they beat across their chests demonizes materialism and wealth.
Always found this fucking ironic.. The party that preaches "self reliance" and "responsibility" is the party that controls the deep south.. The poorest states in the Union that receives the greatest amounts of welfare..
I didn't say get rid of all of them. I was just saying its wrong to be able to get 50k a year for not working. https://www.yahoo.com/news/welfare-pays-more-entry-level-shocking-number-states-144812704.html?ref=gs
Why do you just assume because I say reduce it means none?
@bmanva: that's what sjw want
Log in to comment