Papa John's Appreciation Day

[quote name='camoor']No stupider then the people who profess the wish to be poor so they can start pulling down all those sweet govt benefits. Most dumb people are conservative.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='yourlefthand']I've never seen anyone make that claim - do you have any links?

Before you start, stating that there are too many government benefits is not the same as wishing to be poor to get them.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='camoor']I'll be nice - JS Mill was a philosopher and political theorist. Wiki is your friend[/QUOTE]

OK, sorry, I know who John Stuart Mill was, but my issue was with your claim that there are "people who profess the wish to be poor so they can start pulling down all those sweet govt benefits". I thought that was clear from the second sentence, but I guess I'll have to spoonfeed a little more in the future.

Just to make sure that this makes sense to you, do you have a link that shows that a guy said that he wants to be poor to get more stuff from the feds?

See all one syllable! Does that work for you! BTW, let's leave slidecage out of it. He falls under the "bitches about people getting handouts but doesn't actually want to be that poor" umbrella, also, he rants a lot and seems to fall into your "stupid people are generally conservative" bucket.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Not much worse than ours sadly... You also left out Canada, Australia, China, and a multitude of other 1st world countries with universal healthcare and currently strong economies. Basically, you can't lay all of the blame of a weak economy on providing health care to citizens.

Furthermore, 60% of bankruptcies are based on medical bills so how helpful are bankruptcies to strengthening an economy?
[/QUOTE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wWkUaJId7pM#!
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']OK, sorry, I know who John Stuart Mill was, but my issue was with your claim that there are "people who profess the wish to be poor so they can start pulling down all those sweet govt benefits". I thought that was clear from the second sentence, but I guess I'll have to spoonfeed a little more in the future.

Just to make sure that this makes sense to you, do you have a link that shows that a guy said that he wants to be poor to get more stuff from the feds?

See all one syllable! Does that work for you! BTW, let's leave slidecage out of it. He falls under the "bitches about people getting handouts but doesn't actually want to be that poor" umbrella, also, he rants a lot and seems to fall into your "stupid people are generally conservative" bucket.[/QUOTE]

lol don't get all butthurt, that was sarcasm. Noone really wants to be poor, it's just something stupid that libertarians and other conservatives of their ilk like to say.
 
[quote name='camoor']lol don't get all butthurt, that was sarcasm. Noone really wants to be poor, it's just something stupid that libertarians and other conservatives of their ilk like to say.[/QUOTE]

I'm not "all butthurt". Why would I be when you made a claim that you can't substantiate? It's rather funny, actually.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']I'm not "all butthurt". Why would I be when you made a claim that you can't substantiate? It's rather funny, actually.[/QUOTE]

That's because it was meant to be funny. I was using sarcasm. Only an idiot would actually believe that, it's just something that bitter conservatives say.

Are you really this dense?
 
While I can't be arsed to find someone who says they wish for *themselves* to be poor so they can take advantage of government aid, the very notion of disdain for government aid is that it creates the "entitlement culture" (a branded and approved political phrase used by the right) and "dependency" - that is, that government aid makes people lethargic, comfortable, and unmotivated to do anything but continue to access more government aid - there's no way you would dare deny that this is a favorite argument of the right. You shouldn't demand proof of something so self-evident, unless you also demand proof of, say, a Republican seeking to propose tax cuts. That's the threshold for how obvious what you're demanding is.

1:20 on in this video, darlin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnTQ8b6byY

"poverty trap, a creater and reinforcer of dependency." That's the argument camoor is making. Welfare makes people lazy, comfortable, and unwilling to work.

See also: Mitt Romney's "free gifts" rationale from this past week's conference call as to how Obama won the presidential election two weeks ago. Such "man, the poor are indeed so comfortable" rhetoric among the right is more prominent in the Republican party than being white is at this point.
 
Welfare certainly distorts incentives and the kinds of reforms made under Bill Clinton to adjust the incentives were a net positive for the country. While the EITC isn't perfect, it garnered the support of Reagan, Bush I and Clinton and its expansions were a step in the right direction. Unlike many social programs, the EITC's effect have been surprisingly positive.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

"poverty trap, a creater and reinforcer of dependency." That's the argument camoor is making. Welfare makes people lazy, comfortable, and unwilling to work.[/QUOTE]

That may be the argument camoor is TRYING to make, but it's not what he said. He clearly stated that there were people who wish they were poor so that they could get free stuff from the government. Now he's trying to walk that back and call it sarcasm.

Do you really believe that there are not people who are indeed to lazy to try to make things better than what they can get on welfare/WIC/whatever?
 
[quote name='camoor']That's because it was meant to be funny. I was using sarcasm. Only an idiot would actually believe that, it's just something that bitter conservatives say.

Are you really this dense?[/QUOTE]

Not dense at all, I guess you've just shown yourself to be enough of an idiot that you would believe that.

I have to ask, if it was sarcasm, why didn't you clarify that from the beginning?
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Do you really believe that there are not people who are indeed to lazy to try to make things better than what they can get on welfare/WIC/whatever?[/QUOTE]

I believe there are people who tried to shoot President Reagan in order to impress the actress from "Taxi Driver." I believe there are people who killed themselves in white Nike sneakers (or were they Reeboks) in order to get onto a comet. I believe there are people who think NFL is watchable.

So if your question is "do you believe exists?" spare me. Because they do. You're wasting my time and yours.

The more reasoned, curious, intellectual question is whether or not the welfare state as we provide it creates those conditions on enough people so as to deflate the job market. The only metric we would genuinely have of that is the growing strength of workers in the job market, and a perpetual unemployment rate of near 0% based on BLS measures of unemployment. Since we've never seen anything like that, or, rather, the past several decades' worth of economic trends have been the precise *opposite* of that, we have zero economic evidence and zero empirical indicators of this kind of "dependency culture." You have your gut instinct.

So this is the part where I ask you for proof. You ask me if I think it exists under the premise that, clearly, you think it exists.

So put your food stamps where your mouth is and provide evidence.

I'll be waiting. Looking forward to it.

[quote name='Spokker']Welfare certainly distorts incentives[/QUOTE]

Ugh, no. Society distorts incentives. Government is the arm that acts on it via policy. EITC distorts incentives. Mortgage deductions distorts incentives. The Bush tax cuts distort incentives. EVERYTHING the government does distorts incentives.

The idea that welfare, and only welfare, upsets the otherwise "natural order" of events in our world is so fucking astonishingly inane that I can't believe adults fall for it.

One day we will realize that the world of the right-wing is based upon a tautological fraud - that the outcomes of the free market are sacrosanct, and are such because they are the outcomes of the free market. fucking absurdity. One day we will be beyond that.
 
I wish conservatives would just be honest and admit that they're really anarchists, that they'd love nothing more than have a nation where everyone's survival is up to them and it's basically survival of the fittest. Guns, ammo, and stay the fuck off mah property!!!

Here we thought that the nation would end up like it did in Idiocracy, when it's Mad Max we're really looking at.
 
[quote name='Clak']I wish conservatives would just be honest and admit that they're really anarchists, that they'd love nothing more than have a nation where everyone's survival is up to them and it's basically survival of the fittest. Guns, ammo, and stay the fuck off mah property!!!

Here we thought that the nation would end up like it did in Idiocracy, when it's Mad Max we're really looking at.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I think "Tank Girl" is more likely.
 
[quote name='Clak']The constitution, the only thing more infallible than the founders themselves.[/QUOTE]

The founders would shit themselves if they saw the world today. While the Constitution is a great framework for our government to pretend like it answers all our problems today is simplistic. In fact, I think the founders would wonder why we have expanded our military into the vast imperialistic entity it is today. The founders would also wonder why blacks were free and women could vote.
 
It's amazing how people cherry pick sections of the Constitution for their own political gain. Blatantly deny obvious constitutional support for something like gay marriage, but never, EVER let your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment be debated...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']While I can't be arsed to find someone who says they wish for *themselves* to be poor so they can take advantage of government aid, the very notion of disdain for government aid is that it creates the "entitlement culture" (a branded and approved political phrase used by the right) and "dependency" - that is, that government aid makes people lethargic, comfortable, and unmotivated to do anything but continue to access more government aid - there's no way you would dare deny that this is a favorite argument of the right. You shouldn't demand proof of something so self-evident, unless you also demand proof of, say, a Republican seeking to propose tax cuts. That's the threshold for how obvious what you're demanding is.

1:20 on in this video, darlin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnTQ8b6byY

"poverty trap, a creater and reinforcer of dependency." That's the argument camoor is making. Welfare makes people lazy, comfortable, and unwilling to work.

See also: Mitt Romney's "free gifts" rationale from this past week's conference call as to how Obama won the presidential election two weeks ago. Such "man, the poor are indeed so comfortable" rhetoric among the right is more prominent in the Republican party than being white is at this point.[/QUOTE]

Thanks Myke. I was getting exasperated and losing what little cool I have.

I loved the "free gifts" quote. Poor Republicans are the only constituency stupid enough to not understand when they are being openly insulted by their representatives.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']The founders would shit themselves if they saw the world today. While the Constitution is a great framework for our government to pretend like it answers all our problems today is simplistic. In fact, I think the founders would wonder why we have expanded our military into the vast imperialistic entity it is today. The founders would also wonder why blacks were free and women could vote.[/QUOTE]

Meh, I don't think they would be all that surprised. They made the constitution into a living document, with amendments right off the bat, for a reason.

Besides they were educated men, and hence were more progressive them ppl give them credit for.

As for the military, checkout what happened during the First Barbary War. The founders weren't babes in the woods when it came to foreign policy.
 
[quote name='Clak']I wish conservatives would just be honest and admit that they're really anarchists, that they'd love nothing more than have a nation where everyone's survival is up to them and it's basically survival of the fittest. Guns, ammo, and stay the fuck off mah property!!!

Here we thought that the nation would end up like it did in Idiocracy, when it's Mad Max we're really looking at.[/QUOTE]

Not anarchists - most of them are theocratic corporatists. It's only the conservative libertarians of America that are more accurately described as anarcho-capitalists.
 
Right. They want to be rich, they want to be worshiped by the Plebians, and they want the government to make sure conditions are ripe for that to happen.
 
Well, I guess I'm out then. If that is really what you guys think then I'm sure there's no room for discussion.

Now if only there were a way to make tapatalk ignore Vs completely...
 
Don't let the door hit you.

I wrote a coherent and lengthy reply to your "derp, don't you think there are people who are too lazy to get off welfare, derp" post, and you didn't have shit to say in response.

Now that I call you out as being a plutocrat bootlicker, you want to cry and leave? Be my guest, it was evident you duck and hide any discussion of substance in the first place.
 
[quote name='camoor']Not anarchists - most of them are theocratic corporatists. It's only the conservative libertarians of America that are more accurately described as anarcho-capitalists.[/QUOTE]
I see it as this, those with power and wealth within the conservative movement, they're the corporatists, many of them either working for the corporations or owning them themselves. Then you have the what I'll call the redneck conservatives. The guys who are buying ammo by the case and clearing out gun stores of anything that fires a projectile. These are the anarchists, these are the folks who would prefer the nation to be some sort of chaotic, live by the gun type world. Where those in power are the ones who have the most land and weaponry, and the only currency is gold and silver. It'd be like a nation run by a bunch of hillbilly gangsters.
 
Yeah, it's basically the fiscal/social conservative divide you're talking about. With the redneck conservative branch just being the extreme end of the social conservative segment.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Well, I guess I'm out then. If that is really what you guys think then I'm sure there's no room for discussion.

Now if only there were a way to make tapatalk ignore Vs completely...[/QUOTE]
We'll be waiting for round 3.
 
[quote name='dohdough']We'll be waiting for round 3.[/QUOTE]

haha, I was thinking the same thing when I read that, "haven't we heard this before from him?"
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']So do you think they should eat the extra cost or raise prices?[/QUOTE]
PPP had a question in their polling about raising prices (I think Papa John's said it would be thirty cents or so a pizza) and the response was overwhelmingly in favor of just adding the cost to the pizza.

Edit: Whoops, it was thirteen not thirty. Here's one response from their VA poll:

Q10 Would you pay 11 to 14 cents extra for a Papa
John's pizza to ensure that the company’s
employees have health care, or not?
Would pay more.............................................. 59%
Would not........................................................ 22%
Not sure .......................................................... 19%
 
[quote name='Syntax Error']PPP had a question in their polling about raising prices (I think Papa John's said it would be thirty cents or so a pizza) and the response was overwhelmingly in favor of just adding the cost to the pizza.[/QUOTE]
He said it was 13 to 14 cents, but someone crunched the numbers and it was actually closer to 4.5 cents.;)
 
Sometimes I think it's a principal thing, they don't want to do it out of principal, has nothing to do with money.
 
I'd 100% support prices on everything I buy going up if its due to offering workers more access to health insurance and other benefits, better wages etc.

I already do so by buying toiletries etc at Target rather than Walmart, supporting local shops when possible etc.
 
[quote name='Clak']Sometimes I think it's a principal thing, they don't want to do it out of principal, has nothing to do with money.[/QUOTE]

No it's a money thing. 5 cents or 15 cents per pizza, whatever it is adds up to alot of money. It's let them eat pie - the head of Papa Johns would rather live in a storybook castle then pay for his worker's healthcare, it's that simple.
 
I guess that's why I'd be horrible at business then, I just can't have that attitude. I couldn't weigh a few cents lost on a pizza vs my employees having access to good health care, to me that's a no-brainer.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd 100% support prices on everything I buy going up if its due to offering workers more access to health insurance and other benefits, better wages etc.

I already do so by buying toiletries etc at Target rather than Walmart, supporting local shops when possible etc.[/QUOTE]

Target is no better than Walmart. Same anti-union, crap wages and non-benefits product in a red wrapper, instead of a blue one. The only thing Target has going for it is it has much less instances of destroying small town economies by bullying their way in (which is likely more a result of their smaller size rather than altruism).
 
[quote name='camoor']No it's a money thing. 5 cents or 15 cents per pizza, whatever it is adds up to alot of money. It's let them eat pie - the head of Papa Johns would rather live in a storybook castle then pay for his worker's healthcare, it's that simple.[/QUOTE]

dont like it then dont work for them... NOONE OWES ANYONE HEATHCARE

just like the little sob at walmart saying we STRIKE Unless you pay us 13 bucks per hour ... LOL your lucky you make 7.50 an hour standing around walmart doing nothing


why should GM make a profit they should give everyone FREE NEW CARS EVERY YEAR


obamacare is the reason the insurance is skyrocking but noone will blame him for the crap he caused


Can put this to reason..

Hey if you want to pay 15 cents more for your pizza so we get health insurance then you can pay 50 cents to a buck more per pizza so we make 12 bucks per hour .... hell then you can pay 50 cents more for a pizza so kids working at papa johns can go to college for free... HELL LETS PAY 10 bucks more per pizza so everyone can get their house payments paid for them from people buying pizzas
 
Oh for fuck's sake, does this indicate another month long bender of slidecage in VS. forums? There goes the neighborhood (again).
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Oh for fuck's sake, does this indicate another month long bender of slidecage in VS. forums? There goes the neighborhood (again).[/QUOTE]

saying if you want to pay

xxxx more for a pizza to pay for their health insurance


then why not

xxxx more for a pay raise
xxxxx more for free college
xxxx more for free cars for the drivers

ect ect ect
 
[quote name='slidecage']saying if you want to pay

xxxx more for a pizza to pay for their health insurance


then why not

xxxx more for a pay raise
xxxxx more for free college
xxxx more for free cars for the drivers

ect ect ect[/QUOTE]
You really

have

no

idea what

you are

saying

do you
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Target is no better than Walmart. Same anti-union, crap wages and non-benefits product in a red wrapper, instead of a blue one. The only thing Target has going for it is it has much less instances of destroying small town economies by bullying their way in (which is likely more a result of their smaller size rather than altruism).[/QUOTE]

They're not a great company, but far better than Wal-mart. Have known people who worked for both, got better pay and treatment form Target. Though still shitty like all retailers.

But just not much option for things like pet food, toiletries etc. Pretty much big box stores like Target or pay more at the grocery stores (that also treat their employees pretty crummy most of the time).

So just a matter of picking the lesser evil for those types of things. And also factoring in shopping experience. Targets around here (and the other couple places I've lived) are much cleaner, better organized, have better quality products and better service.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='slidecage']dont like it then dont work for them... NOONE OWES ANYONE HEATHCARE

just like the little sob at walmart saying we STRIKE Unless you pay us 13 bucks per hour ... LOL your lucky you make 7.50 an hour standing around walmart doing nothing


why should GM make a profit they should give everyone FREE NEW CARS EVERY YEAR


obamacare is the reason the insurance is skyrocking but noone will blame him for the crap he caused


Can put this to reason..

Hey if you want to pay 15 cents more for your pizza so we get health insurance then you can pay 50 cents to a buck more per pizza so we make 12 bucks per hour .... hell then you can pay 50 cents more for a pizza so kids working at papa johns can go to college for free... HELL LETS PAY 10 bucks more per pizza so everyone can get their house payments paid for them from people buying pizzas[/QUOTE]

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/09/22/2361661/nc-nonprofit-hospitals-make-big.html

Hospitals are a big part of the reason that insurance costs are skyrocketing.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']They're not a great company, but far better than Wal-mart. Have known people who worked for both, got better pay and treatment form Target. Though still shitty like all retailers.

But just not much option for things like pet food, toiletries etc. Pretty much big box stores like Target or pay more at the grocery stores (that also treat their employees pretty crummy most of the time).

So just a matter of picking the lesser evil for those types of things. And also factoring in shopping experience. Targets around here (and the other couple places I've lived) are much cleaner, better organized, have better quality products and better service.[/QUOTE]
They are ridiculously anti-union. Look up the Valley Stream, NY store some time. Basically, the store tried to unionize, Target fought it hard and ended up winning the vote. The Union brought a complaint to the NLRB for unfair practices and the day before the ruling was issued (which ended up going against Target requiring a new vote) Target closed the store for "remodeling." Over 6 months later the store is still boarded up. Essentially, they took a play right out of Walmart's book. Before this went down I was just unhappy with Target after working for them for 5 years, now they just plain disgust me.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/09/22/2361661/nc-nonprofit-hospitals-make-big.html

Hospitals are a big part of the reason that insurance costs are skyrocketing.[/QUOTE]
I have a hard time blaming non-profit hospitals when it sounds like UNC is a bit of an outlier. That kind of profit is insane and the article seems to be more of a hit piece on them rather than an examination of the healthcare system as a whole and how it affects prices. Not to say that the extra $60+ million in charitable care wouldn't have helped of course because if that $125 million was net profit, there's a big problem. They should be funneling that money towards care AND research since it's a teaching hospital.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']They are ridiculously anti-union. Look up the Valley Stream, NY store some time. Basically, the store tried to unionize, Target fought it hard and ended up winning the vote. The Union brought a complaint to the NLRB for unfair practices and the day before the ruling was issued (which ended up going against Target requiring a new vote) Target closed the store for "remodeling." Over 6 months later the store is still boarded up. Essentially, they took a play right out of Walmart's book. Before this went down I was just unhappy with Target after working for them for 5 years, now they just plain disgust me.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Target is a shitty company too, but still slightly shittier than Walmart. Only because they don't have the muscle to beat them in the race to the bottom though and that's not for want of trying.
 
[quote name='dohdough']He said it was 13 to 14 cents, but someone crunched the numbers and it was actually closer to 4.5 cents.;)[/QUOTE]

And he's planning on raising it 50 cents... while simultaneously cutting employees' hours. And I've read he also recently increased the delivery fee.

Oh, and he recently gave away two million pizzas for free as part of a promotion whose costs would've otherwise covered the amount he cited he'd need for Obamacare a few times over.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']And he's planning on raising it 50 cents... while simultaneously cutting employees' hours. And I've read he also recently increased the delivery fee.[/QUOTE]
Lemme see if I got this motherfucker right: he's going to raise prices to cover the employees that he reduced the hours of so that he wouldn't have to cover them?:rofl:

I don't know if he's a genius or if people that support him are just dumb as fuck. I'm kidding...I know it's the latter.:cry:

edit: Just saw your edit. I guess he'd rather throw money away just to spite the government and deny the people that made his fortune better access to healthcare. What a fucking asshole.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']Oh, and he recently gave away two million pizzas for free as part of a promotion whose costs would've otherwise covered the amount he cited he'd need for Obamacare a few times over.[/QUOTE]

Wanna bet he'll claim a deduction on those pies, too - in a dark bit of irony, putting taxpayers on the hook for paying for his pizza?
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Yeah, Target is a shitty company too, but still slightly shittier than Walmart. Only because they don't have the muscle to beat them in the race to the bottom though and that's not for want of trying.[/QUOTE]

Yep. But they at least tend to be a little better on pay, benefits etc than wal-mart and provide a much nicer shopping experience.

Just really no better options for things like toiletries etc. the grocery stores, CVS etc are no better to their employees and charge more for those things.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I have a hard time blaming non-profit hospitals when it sounds like UNC is a bit of an outlier. That kind of profit is insane and the article seems to be more of a hit piece on them rather than an examination of the healthcare system as a whole and how it affects prices. Not to say that the extra $60+ million in charitable care wouldn't have helped of course because if that $125 million was net profit, there's a big problem. They should be funneling that money towards care AND research since it's a teaching hospital.


Yeah, Target is a shitty company too, but still slightly shittier than Walmart. Only because they don't have the muscle to beat them in the race to the bottom though and that's not for want of trying.[/QUOTE]

That article is part if a whole series discussing just how fucked up the health care system is. I just pointed that piece out because of how insane it is. Utterly disgusting.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']And he's planning on raising it 50 cents... while simultaneously cutting employees' hours. And I've read he also recently increased the delivery fee.

Oh, and he recently gave away two million pizzas for free as part of a promotion whose costs would've otherwise covered the amount he cited he'd need for Obamacare a few times over.[/QUOTE]

maybe everyone who is bitching about this should got out and try to make their own company and then they will see how hard it is to make a company stay in business .


if you say a company should not make a profit then why should anyone who plays sports be paid at all .. They are playing a game they should not make a profit (yes im pissed cause of the nhl lock out LOL)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top