The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='camoor'][This article is about Honey Boo Boo]



http://www.cracked.com/cracked-64-top-8-everything-of-2012/TV-Show_p2/#ixzz2GSBhmA5x

So I don't blame you egofed - it's a defense mechanism. Even moreso because you are one of those shallow, obese, low-education redneck fuckups, you just happened to win the job lottery and get a cush job with the state.

PS I don't know if you're obese. If you're really skinny then my bad :D[/QUOTE]

So how is honey boo boo any different then say:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6DlFehh0SQ


So I guess we can add "old dirty bastards" with "single mothers" to the list of who receive's welfare money.


If you got 20 million in the bank and somebody give you some money... cash that check
Click to expand...

I'ts not illegal... it's legal... it's legal money man... get that money
Click to expand...

I'd cash a wet food stamp if you give me one
Click to expand...
 
Hahhahhahaa...camoor, are you being serious? You don't know me, dude. I'm college educated, my dad was pretty high up in school administration after being a principal for many years. My mom was a teacher. I was going to be a teacher. I scored a 98 on my written firefighter's exam and smoked the timed physical agility test. I don't drive a pickup, own a gun, or chew tobacco. I have no credit card, car, or other debt except for my mortgage, which i could pay off if I needed to. I've never been on welfare and have enough saved up to weather a few years of unemployment. So what am I defending here? And what is there to blame me for? I'm a laid back surfer guy who just happens to have a job that provides insight into the real world abuses and intricacies of the urban welfare recipients of my city. Tell me about yourself so that hopefully we can connect and interact on a higher level.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']God forbid we have priorities and God forbid we try and regulate how welfare recipients spend the money they earrrrr....... were handed[/QUOTE]

Most all legislation aimed at expanding what you can buy with EBT was proposed by Republicans. It's a win-win politically.

- They get more money into the hands of big businesses. EBT to pay for a Whopper and fries? That's a sale Burger King wasn't making before, and one they're making now. WIN!

- The public at large gets bent out of shape because "MAH TACKS DOLLURS" are being spent on Burger King. The public then sympathizes with "get tough on welfare"/"slash government waste" Republicans - and that's easy because they public is too busy not paying attention to realize they're voting for the same people and the same party that expanded the bullshit you can buy with EBT. WIN!

I know that feeling, though - I watched as a CVS employee in Philadelphia bought gummy bears, pringles, and gatorade with her ACCESS Card. Which is a double sin - buying crap and also being employed and getting EBT. Is she scamming the system or is CVS paying so poorly that she legit qualifies for aid?

So I can get mad about that. But it's easy because it's in front of my face, and lazy because it ignores a lot of other frivolous government spending - spending money to subsidize corporations, to build sports stadiums and factories. I can be mad that someone bought gummy bears, or I can be mad that corporations have successfully duped voters and politicians into publicizing the costs of operating a business while keeping every last penny of profit to themselves.

It's a matter of perspective, really. I'm not okay with welfare fraud, but I am simply uninterested in pursuing people who buy Burger King or liquor, because that's not the real fraud.
 
[quote name='egofed']Hahhahhahaa...camoor, are you being serious? You don't know me, dude. I'm college educated, my dad was pretty high up in school administration after being a principal for many years. My mom was a teacher. I was going to be a teacher. I scored a 98 on my written firefighter's exam and smoked the timed physical agility test. I don't drive a pickup, own a gun, or chew tobacco. I have no credit card, car, or other debt except for my mortgage, which i could pay off if I needed to. I've never been on welfare and have enough saved up to weather a few years of unemployment. So what am I defending here? And what is there to blame me for? I'm a laid back surfer guy who just happens to have a job that provides insight into the real world abuses and intricacies of the urban welfare recipients of my city. Tell me about yourself so that hopefully we can connect and interact on a higher level.[/QUOTE]

So, in other words you started off in upper middle class and have stayed there. Great job! Hope nothing goes wrong for you that you'd ever need a social safety net...
 
Hahahhaahhaah.. good stuff, GBAstar. I didn't realize that perhaps camoor was making it a racial issue. Let me be clear, again, that ANY person, black, white, asian, ghetto rat, hillbilly, or one legged, VD infected, siamese twin midget, should have the same rules and regulations placed upon them to receive free tax payer money.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']So, in other words you started off in upper middle class and have stayed there. Great job! Hope nothing goes wrong for you that you'd ever need a social safety net...[/QUOTE]


Thanks for your concern. ;-) I was disputing camoor's unjustified description of my character. If I ever needed the social safety net, I would sure as hell fill out the forms properly and adhere to the rules. Ask questions if you are not sure how to fill it out. We do have a ton of stupid breeding stupid in this country. Idiocrosy, here we come.

I do agree with myke about the Republicans and corporate welfare. I've stated many times to do away with it, but can't we be upset about multiple abuses at the same time? A small leak in a ship that goes unrepaired brings it down eventually as effectively as a gaping hole.
 
[quote name='egofed']If I ever needed the social safety net, I would sure as hell fill out the forms properly and adhere to the rules.[/QUOTE]

Oh I know you would. I fucking know you would.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I know that feeling, though - I watched as a CVS employee in Philadelphia bought gummy bears, pringles, and gatorade with her ACCESS Card. Which is a double sin - buying crap and also being employed and getting EBT. Is she scamming the system or is CVS paying so poorly that she legit qualifies for aid?

So I can get mad about that. But it's easy because it's in front of my face, and lazy because it ignores a lot of other frivolous government spending - spending money to subsidize corporations, to build sports stadiums and factories. I can be mad that someone bought gummy bears, or I can be mad that corporations have successfully duped voters and politicians into publicizing the costs of operating a business while keeping every last penny of profit to themselves.

It's a matter of perspective, really. I'm not okay with welfare fraud, but I am simply uninterested in pursuing people who buy Burger King or liquor, because that's not the real fraud.[/QUOTE]

I loved that SNL about America's debt to China, where the Chinese ambassador asked to be kissed on the mouth because he likes being kissed when he's getting fucked.

Republican politicians are the same way. They don't really have a problem with the concept of welfare, they just like being kissed while they're getting fucked.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']So how is honey boo boo any different then say:

So I guess we can add "old dirty bastards" with "single mothers" to the list of who receive's welfare money.[/QUOTE]

It's not. It feeds right into your sense of moral outrage, and better then that, it's entertaining.

Noone wants to see a documentary about a poor unskilled family man who is laid off, desperate for a job, and unable to temporarily rely on welfare. That's depressing dude.

It's much more entertaining to watch ODB act like a fool and reaffirm that welfare is a sucker play.
 
[quote name='egofed']Hahhahhahaa...camoor, are you being serious? You don't know me, dude. I'm college educated, my dad was pretty high up in school administration after being a principal for many years. My mom was a teacher. I was going to be a teacher. I scored a 98 on my written firefighter's exam and smoked the timed physical agility test. I don't drive a pickup, own a gun, or chew tobacco. I have no credit card, car, or other debt except for my mortgage, which i could pay off if I needed to. I've never been on welfare and have enough saved up to weather a few years of unemployment. So what am I defending here? And what is there to blame me for? I'm a laid back surfer guy who just happens to have a job that provides insight into the real world abuses and intricacies of the urban welfare recipients of my city. Tell me about yourself so that hopefully we can connect and interact on a higher level.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...does this read like White Privilege Text or what? Dude is on third base and thinks he hit a triple when starting on second and walked to third.

This confirms what I've always suspected of mindset due to your work as well. Beyond likely living in some lily white suburb, which has something to do with your pathology, your job requires you to interact with the "urban populace" in a very limited fashion, often in times of extreme stress, which can bring out the worst in people. This creates a form of selection bias that constantly reinforces itself due to the nature of your employment. Cops tend to have the same problem as well, but only an unthinking fool would assume that their limited exposure is the baseline like you do.

Double irony points for being someone that not only relies on tax payer money to live a comfortable life, but being raised on it as well. Which brings up another point: if people are forced to work for welfare in a state job, shouldn't they be entitled to the same benefits, if not equal pay, as you, considering that they'd then be an employee of the state?

LOLZ...who am I kidding. fuck you; got mine, right?:rofl:
 
President Obama "I haven't met any American who would rather have an unemployment check then a meaningful job that lets you provide for your family"

baahahahahah....

how many times has that be regurgitated in this thread.

Keep dreaming.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']President Obama "I haven't met any American who would rather have an unemployment check then a meaningful job that lets you provide for your family"

baahahahahah....

how many times has that be regurgitated in this thread.

Keep dreaming.[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing you still didn't re-read my other post in the other thread because you didn't seem to understand this one either...or maybe you just prefer to strawman me because you can't keep up with my arguments. EL.OH.EL.:roll:
 
Doh, that was a great example of the bullcrap thought process that most liberals seem to possess. First of all, not all jobs demand the same pay rate and benefits. I know this is hard for a lefty to understand, but more production merits higher rewards. If I go to your house and save your property or resuscitate your wife, then that seems to require more training and effort than picking up trash or waiting tables. Most welfare recipients who also work have private industry jobs anyway. Are you truly comparing those who work for the state with those who receive free money from it? Your statement makes little sense. As far as "White privilege text", hehehehehe, excuse me, I was providing a description of myself to camoor who referred to me as "shallow, obese, low-education redneck fuckups, you just happened to win the job lottery and get a cush job with the state." I am very blessed and AM PROUD that I took the opportunities given to me by my parents and made wise decisions. The fire department is actively seeking to hire more minorities and women, actually discriminating against white males in the process. We had a battalion chief who was handling the hiring process be forced to retire for doctoring times and screwing the "privileged white". So yeah, I earned that job. I do like how you jump to huge conclusions and throw out derogatory comments. It shows me that most of the right leaning members of this forum are the more civil, tolerant, and mature people. I also think you should realize that selection bias is not the reason that I see abuse everyday. Going to government subsidized housing and seeing a 22 yo woman with 4 kids is. That's the norm where I work. I used to think you were halfway smart, lately you've been making me rethink that opinion. What did you think of the Stossel video I posted?
 
[quote name='egofed']I am very blessed and AM PROUD that I took the opportunities given to me by my parents and made wise decisions.[/QUOTE]

See, that's the thing. You started in a higher part of society so you've never been forced into those situations where you're forced into a gang to survive or have to sell drugs just to make it. You look down on those who have made "bad decisions" when in comparison your life decisions have been downright easy.

By the way, you don't happen to be in a firefighters union, do you? Before anyone calls strawman, the point I'm making is that no one succeeds in a vacuum. Your parents helped you start out in a good spot in life, the union (if you are in one, which you likely are) has helped your standard of living continue.
 
[quote name='camoor']Oh I know you would. I fucking know you would.[/QUOTE]

The article is pretty clear they make the forms over complicated and actively discourage people. It shouldn't have to be mentioned but most of these people are ashamed, the difference being people like him want people humiliated.

He is either being intentionally obtuse, skimmed the article or is just not able to absorb information he doesn't like.

Also, his theories on the value of labor are risible. EMT's make 10 dollars an hour in some parts of the country.

Someone with a government job is mocking people in one of the shittiest economies on record, maybe it is a combination of defects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='egofed']Doh, that was a great example of the bullcrap thought process that most liberals seem to possess. First of all, not all jobs demand the same pay rate and benefits. I know this is hard for a lefty to understand, but more production merits higher rewards. If I go to your house and save your property or resuscitate your wife, then that seems to require more training and effort than picking up trash or waiting tables. Most welfare recipients who also work have private industry jobs anyway. Are you truly comparing those who work for the state with those who receive free money from it? Your statement makes little sense. As far as "White privilege text", hehehehehe, excuse me, I was providing a description of myself to camoor who referred to me as "shallow, obese, low-education redneck fuckups, you just happened to win the job lottery and get a cush job with the state." I am very blessed and AM PROUD that I took the opportunities given to me by my parents and made wise decisions. The fire department is actively seeking to hire more minorities and women, actually discriminating against white males in the process. We had a battalion chief who was handling the hiring process be forced to retire for doctoring times and screwing the "privileged white". So yeah, I earned that job. I do like how you jump to huge conclusions and throw out derogatory comments. It shows me that most of the right leaning members of this forum are the more civil, tolerant, and mature people. I also think you should realize that selection bias is not the reason that I see abuse everyday. Going to government subsidized housing and seeing a 22 yo woman with 4 kids is. That's the norm where I work. I used to think you were halfway smart, lately you've been making me rethink that opinion. What did you think of the Stossel video I posted?[/QUOTE]
What is it with reading comprehension lately? Did it suddenly become illegal or something?

I said equal benefits, which shouldn't be an issue because you more than likely get the same health insurance choices as every other city employee along with discounts with certain companies because of group polices and being the official service providers to the city. "if not pay..." means that pay wouldn't be equal. Put those two statements together and you have context meaning "benefits should be equal since pay wouldn't be." And if they're working for money, shouldn't that make them official public employees? HTH

RvB covered the rest of what I had to say and no. I'm not watching that shit. At least Drudge and Breitbart have comedic value.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']See, that's the thing. You started in a higher part of society so you've never been forced into those situations where you're forced into a gang to survive or have to sell drugs just to make it. You look down on those who have made "bad decisions" when in comparison your life decisions have been downright easy.

By the way, you don't happen to be in a firefighters union, do you? Before anyone calls strawman, the point I'm making is that no one succeeds in a vacuum. Your parents helped you start out in a good spot in life, the union (if you are in one, which you likely are) has helped your standard of living continue.[/QUOTE]

Their are many people that grow up in urban poverty and make it out without joining a gang or selling drugs.... but keep feeding the sterotypes
 
I've never been in a union. Right to work state, baby! Doh, why are you here if you refuse to view some of the presented material?

And let me get this straight, you guys want everyone on welfare, who has a fictitious state job, to get the same benefits as people who have to compete in the hiring process for a police/fire job? I can't fight the non logic here.
 
[quote name='egofed']I've never been in a union. Right to work state, baby! Doh, why are you here if you refuse to view some of the presented material?[/quote]
Just because you're not in the union doesn't mean you don't benefit from the existence of one.

And watching a video with no context? With that libertarian troll Stossel? No thanks. Either make the argument yourself or don't bother making it at all.

And let me get this straight, you guys want everyone on welfare, who has a fictitious state job, to get the same benefits as people who have to compete in the hiring process for a police/fire job? I can't fight the non logic here.
Click to expand...
Weren't you the one that initially proposed that they should be working for those benefits without really thinking through the implications of it? Your problem isn't getting other people's arguments straight, but keeping your own arguments straight or even keeping track of them. Seriously, wtf?
 
I do want some sort of required work for public assistance. There is a big difference between someone who has to actually compete for a job position and someone who is given work to receive public assistance. I don't seem to have any problem keeping my arguments straight. Apologies if you can't understand them. I am for the total removal of a federally funded welfare state actually, but I'll take whatever concessions I can get towards personal responsibility. I also don't get how I am mocking anyone by stating that they should be required to fill out forms properly and accurately or attend required self help classes to receive public assistance. Follow the rules, most of society is based on this.
 
[quote name='egofed']I do want some sort of required work for public assistance. There is a big difference between someone who has to actually compete for a job position and someone who is given work to receive public assistance.[/quote]
If you're going to give someone work, a job, or whatever the fuck you want to call it, you've already eliminated the competitive aspect of job seeking. If you're going to insist that they do the jobs on the meager public funds that they get, then that disincentivizes employers to pay a higher wage when the state will subsidize their workers because eventually, it'll be cheaper to rent employees from the state instead of private employers hiring their own. There are only so many jobs you can do for the state that aren't already done by people at full wage and benefits. This scenario has played out over and over again in towns with prison labor.

I don't seem to have any problem keeping my arguments straight. Apologies if you can't understand them. I am for the total removal of a federally funded welfare state actually, but I'll take whatever concessions I can get towards personal responsibility. I also don't get how I am mocking anyone by stating that they should be required to fill out forms properly and accurately or attend required self help classes to receive public assistance. Follow the rules, most of society is based on this.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you actually do have a problem. All the financial and family planning classes won't mean shit if you have no money to begin with. Even worker training programs would be far more beneficial than what you're describing. But hey, I'm just some pie-in-the-sky liberal that can't follow arguments when wanting to discuss implications and consequences with someone that proclaims they're being pragmatic without being so.

If you think you're being picked on for mocking people that can't fill out forms, maybe you should address that with the person actually making that argument. Here's a hint, it wasn't me.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The article is pretty clear they make the forms over complicated and actively discourage people. It shouldn't have to be mentioned but most of these people are ashamed, the difference being people like him want people humiliated.

He is either being intentionally obtuse, skimmed the article or is just not able to absorb information he doesn't like.

Also, his theories on the value of labor are risible. EMT's make 10 dollars an hour in some parts of the country.

Someone with a government job is mocking people in one of the shittiest economies on record, maybe it is a combination of defects.[/QUOTE]

Add confirmation bias to the list. No matter how much welfare saves poor folks from sickness, suicide or starvation, egofed is always going to pick the laziest loudmouthed good-for-nothing to hold up as the posterboy for why it's OK for states to gut the federal welfare program.

egofed, I don't think much about Stossel or the makers and takers narrative. We are being massively ripped off by wall street fraud. Worrying about welfare fraud is arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Feel free to get worked up about it but don't wonder why everyone calls you a fool.
 
[quote name='egofed']I've never been in a union. Right to work state, baby! [/QUOTE]

The fire-fighters in your fire department aren't represented by a union? Or, they are represented by a union, and you just choose not to pay union dues?
 
Any American worker who thinks they haven't benefited from labor unions should have those benefits removed. Then they'll know what those benefits were. I'm not even going to go into specifics, because frankly those that care already know, and those that don't give a fuck, still won't.
 
When I was hourly, I would have been happy to work more than 40 hours in a week at my regular rate of pay. Instead, every hourly job I worked at capped me at 40 hours (although at few jobs, I could score overtime in special situations).

Thanks, unions.
 
Doh, I was replying to several different users' comments at once in my post. Sorry if it felt like I was dumping on you. My point about equal benefits was that there is a group that competed for a state position through the normal hiring process, and the "welfare" group would be given a job as a necessary part of qualifying for assistance. Lawn maintenance, trash pickup, maintenance of subsidized housing facilities, car wash/maintenance of city vehicles, etc. I guarantee I could find some type of useful activity for this group rather than sitting on the sofa watching TV all day and collecting a check. I swear I see this ALL THE TIME. Anyway, the group who actually competed, police/fire, etc, worked for that position and are OFFERED the benefits and pay. That is totally different than a handout program and in no way should the welfare group, who did nothing,receive the same benefits for requesting free money. I hear your comments about "renting employees", but shouldn't the tax payers get some work/production for their expenditures? My MAIN complaint is that those on public assistance KEEP having kids. Someone pointed out the "Wonderful Whites of West Virginia" documentary.(camoor?) Anyway, I watched this a couple of years ago and was blown away. They rip off the welfare system as soon as possible, and have made an art form out of it. That's why this is not a racial thing to me and that the history of slavery in the US as an excuse for 12% of the population making up 30% of those on welfare doesn't fly. Whites are also 30% of the welfare population along with 30% hispanic. Neither race was subjected to slavery in the US, yet plenty of them have their hands out. I propose that a % of the human race will take what is given freely and learn to exist, even produce offspring, without shame or regard for those that have given to them. I agree that it is a small cost compared to the other spending flaws in our system, but this article was about welfare. I have stated many, many times now that I would love to see defense cut to 1 times what all the other countries combined spend, cut all corporate welfare, and no bailouts.

We do have a union. I do benefit from anything they get passed, but they have little power here. I read the latest news letter and the accounting of our union is in shambles. Money is unaccounted for, and federal fines are being imposed for improper filing of forms. I would be truly pissed if they had gotten a dime of my cash. Look at "Waiting for Superman" and tell me how great the teacher's union is. Unfortunately, like the government, a powerful union is susceptible to powerful corruption.
 
[quote name='egofed']Lawn maintenance, trash pickup, maintenance of subsidized housing facilities, car wash/maintenance of city vehicles, etc. I guarantee I could find some type of useful activity for this group rather than sitting on the sofa watching TV all day and collecting a check.[/QUOTE]

Ah you mean something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Works_Administration

Desperate times call for desperate measures, but putting this policy into place without a depression-level crisis seems a little socialist to me.

Funny that the state employee is starting to show his socialist stripes. You like a strong state, eh comrade?
 
[quote name='egofed']
"What B.J. emphasized was that everybody who can work, should work," says Joseph Antolin, who was an Illinois state welfare official when Walker arrived on the scene."

She's right...
[/QUOTE]

Actually she isn't. I can work just fine but I have no medical training, shall I apply for the director of surgery position at my nearest hospital?
I can work just fine, shall I apply for a CFO position at Target?

I'm qualified to do X but there are few openings for X. I'm not qualified for Y so I'm not looking for Y. I'm overqualified for Z and there's no point in me doing Z.
The "everyone should work" theory basically states that all the X people should be doing Z work instead of finding X work that is better pay or going through the process of becoming qualified to do Y work.

It's like the workfare stuff that Guiliani thought was so great. Sure, you've got people on unemployment and welfare going out and cleaning up parks or whatever, but that takes up the time that they could be using to find better and more meaningful work or getting the training necessary to have better jobs. Better jobs that would of course bring in more income tax revenue (as well as giving those earners more spending power which would benefit the economy on the whole) but that isn't the point when the goal is to further push down the middle while giving the city cheap labor.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']When I was hourly, I would have been happy to work more than 40 hours in a week at my regular rate of pay. Instead, every hourly job I worked at capped me at 40 hours (although at few jobs, I could score overtime in special situations).

Thanks, unions.[/QUOTE]

false equivalence. Why not thank your employer for limiting your work?
 
[quote name='nasum']Actually she isn't. I can work just fine but I have no medical training, shall I apply for the director of surgery position at my nearest hospital?
I can work just fine, shall I apply for a CFO position at Target?

I'm qualified to do X but there are few openings for X. I'm not qualified for Y so I'm not looking for Y. I'm overqualified for Z and there's no point in me doing Z.
The "everyone should work" theory basically states that all the X people should be doing Z work instead of finding X work that is better pay or going through the process of becoming qualified to do Y work.

It's like the workfare stuff that Guiliani thought was so great. Sure, you've got people on unemployment and welfare going out and cleaning up parks or whatever, but that takes up the time that they could be using to find better and more meaningful work or getting the training necessary to have better jobs. Better jobs that would of course bring in more income tax revenue (as well as giving those earners more spending power which would benefit the economy on the whole) but that isn't the point when the goal is to further push down the middle while giving the city cheap labor.[/QUOTE]

This sounds like the people that say "I looked all week/month/year for a job in my field and couldn't find any"

Well guess what? Then work outside your fucking field! Just because you're currently employed doesn't mean you have to stop job searching...

I'm overqualified for Z and there's no point in me doing Z.
Click to expand...
^ Again part of the problem not the solution
 
[quote name='egofed']not all jobs demand the same pay rate and benefits[/QUOTE]

No one argues that. We all know that medical researcher trumps register jockey. Here's the funny thing, when the "lefties" say equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity, we mean equal pay for the work and equal opportunity.

Here's the best analogy:
We all should have the right to play baseball and enjoy baseball. That does not mean we all get paid like Jeter. It just means we have the chance to play baseball.

Does that clear it up at all for you?
 
Hoooooo....You got me, I'm a total socialist. Wanting people to actually contribute rather than sponge off of the producers..

" I'm overqualified for Z and there's no point in me doing Z." uhhh, not if you are trying to feed your kids and pay for all the stuff you charged while working X. Not taking a lower position is selfish, expecting the tax payer's to provide for you until X re-emerges is selfish and irresponsible. Is Z flipping burgers? If so, then there is a tangible "point". You provide a good or service and receive a wage. Is Z cleaning a park? Still a "point" is present. Watch the Stossel video I posted above. It refers to people staying on assistance and turning down job offers pretty consistently. The Danes graph of people finding work just as there benefits expire, even with changing deadlines, is pretty damning.

"...but that takes up the time that they could be using to find better and more meaningful work or getting the training necessary to have better jobs. Better jobs that would of course bring in more income tax revenue...". Problem is that I don't see this as the case very often. I see generational welfare with participants who are quite comfortable and content without ever attempting to better there position at all.

Sorry to Doh, for still quoting with the ol copy/paste method. It is just faster and more efficient for me.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']^ Again part of the problem not the solution[/QUOTE]

So instead of a small bit of unemployment to keep the rent paid and allowing the time to find a high paying job that has benefits for the state (income tax), you prefer that the individual waste their time picking up a park which prevents them from searching for better work let alone going to interviews and such? What's the benefit?

Here's another thing that your suggestion fails to address:
For every 1 middle income job posted, there are almost 50 qualified applicants. Those other 49 that don't get the job aren't lazy. There simply aren't enough jobs.

But hey, better that we call them lazy and force menial labor heavy tasks that serve no purpose when there's 400 low income applicants for every 1 available job.

"Well at least they're working" is pointless when the end result is further squeezing the low and middle class. It's petty and speaks of "revenge" on people that get a "vacation" while you have to go work hard every day. It isn't a vacation.
 
Employers love hiring people who supplement periods of unemployment by working positions they are overqualified for. Six months as a honey dipper? That's the sort of thing that'll get you right back into the world of finance.

...get fucking real.
 
Sorry to Doh, for still quoting with the ol copy/paste method. It is just faster and more efficient for me.
Click to expand...

^ I'm not an internet message board wizard like others but you can still "Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V" text and then put quotes around it in an attempt to not clutter posts by using the "Wrap
tags around selected text" feature. It is the little button that looks like "[q]".

[quote name='nasum']So instead of a small bit of unemployment to keep the rent paid and allowing the time to find a high paying job that has benefits for the state (income tax), you prefer that the individual waste their time picking up a park which prevents them from searching for better work let alone going to interviews and such? What's the benefit?

Here's another thing that your suggestion fails to address:
For every 1 middle income job posted, there are almost 50 qualified applicants. Those other 49 that don't get the job aren't lazy. There simply aren't enough jobs.

But hey, better that we call them lazy and force menial labor heavy tasks that serve no purpose when there's 400 low income applicants for every 1 available job.

"Well at least they're working" is pointless when the end result is further squeezing the low and middle class. It's petty and speaks of "revenge" on people that get a "vacation" while you have to go work hard every day. It isn't a vacation.
Click to expand...


So I guess people don't have enough time in their day to continue job searching if they take jobs that are "Beneath" them. Gotcha.


Employers love hiring people who supplement periods of unemployment by working positions they are overqualified for. Six months as a honey dipper? That's the sort of thing that'll get you right back into the world of finance.

...get ing real.
Click to expand...

Okay so a six month period of complete unemployment looks better at your next job interview then six months where you found part/full-time work while continuing to look for an ideal position?

You get fucking real.
 
[quote name='egofed']
" I'm overqualified for Z and there's no point in me doing Z." uhhh, not if you are trying to feed your kids and pay for all the stuff you charged while working X. Not taking a lower position is selfish, expecting the tax payer's to provide for you until X re-emerges is selfish and irresponsible. Is Z flipping burgers? If so, then there is a tangible "point". You provide a good or service and receive a wage. Is Z cleaning a park? Still a "point" is present. Watch the Stossel video I posted above. It refers to people staying on assistance and turning down job offers pretty consistently. The Danes graph of people finding work just as there benefits expire, even with changing deadlines, is pretty damning.
[/quote]
1. Unemployment for the first 26 weeks is paid by the employer
2. The subsequent 73 are paid from a federal fund signed in by great patriot bush
3. You're still failing to understand that the goal of workfare is to supress middle and low income wages
4. "paying for stuff that you charged" demonstrates your complete lack of simple economics. That charging provided income to companies that paid for workers within their company. It also creates debt that keeps the credit card company highly profitable, a company that hires more people. So on and so forth. Your understanding of the world is seemingly limited to "I have a job, I buy stuff. Other people don't have jobs, I pay for their life" which is indicitive of your simple mind.
"...but that takes up the time that they could be using to find better and more meaningful work or getting the training necessary to have better jobs. Better jobs that would of course bring in more income tax revenue...". Problem is that I don't see this as the case very often. I see generational welfare with participants who are quite comfortable and content without ever attempting to better there position at all.

Sorry to Doh, for still quoting with the ol copy/paste method. It is just faster and more efficient for me.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't see that as the case. Your view is excrutiatingly narrow. And I'll bet you don't see the enormous tax credits given to big box retailers for setting up shop in town as welfare either.

Further demonstrating #4 above, you imply that we should all live in constant fear of job loss and therefore only save and not spend. Not a single ramification on the economy there...
 
[QUOTE/]So I guess people don't have enough time in their day to continue job searching if they take jobs that are "Beneath" them. Gotcha.




Okay so a six month period of complete unemployment looks better at your next job interview then six months where you found part/full-time work while continuing to look for an ideal position?

You get fucking real.[/QUOTE]


I totally agree with GBAstar's logic here.
 
So I guess people don't have enough time in their day to continue job searching if they take jobs that are "Beneath" them. Gotcha. Okay so a six month period of complete unemployment looks better at your next job interview then six months where you found part/full-time work while continuing to look for an ideal position? You get fucking real.[/QUOTE said:
sigh...lets see if that quoted right.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Employers love hiring people who supplement periods of unemployment by working positions they are overqualified for. Six months as a honey dipper? That's the sort of thing that'll get you right back into the world of finance.

...get fucking real.[/QUOTE]

directed at me? If so, I think you may have missed something.
 
[quote name='egofed'][QUOTE/]So I guess people don't have enough time in their day to continue job searching if they take jobs that are "Beneath" them. Gotcha.




Okay so a six month period of complete unemployment looks better at your next job interview then six months where you found part/full-time work while continuing to look for an ideal position?

You get fucking real.[/QUOTE]


I totally agree with GBAstar's logic here.[/QUOTE]

Just another tip...

If you have a block of text you want to quote the correct tags are:


"QUOTE" Block of text "/QUOTE" where you replace " and " with [ and ]

You don't need a "/" in the first quote tag. Hope that helps
 
[quote name='nasum']So instead of a small bit of unemployment to keep the rent paid and allowing the time to find a high paying job that has benefits for the state (income tax), you prefer that the individual waste their time picking up a park which prevents them from searching for better work let alone going to interviews and such? What's the benefit?

Here's another thing that your suggestion fails to address:
For every 1 middle income job posted, there are almost 50 qualified applicants. Those other 49 that don't get the job aren't lazy. There simply aren't enough jobs.

But hey, better that we call them lazy and force menial labor heavy tasks that serve no purpose when there's 400 low income applicants for every 1 available job.

"Well at least they're working" is pointless when the end result is further squeezing the low and middle class. It's petty and speaks of "revenge" on people that get a "vacation" while you have to go work hard every day. It isn't a vacation.[/QUOTE]

As I pointed out, this is a regurgitation of some of the worst parts of FDR's "New Deal".

I cannot stress how fail egofed and GBAStar's thinking is - they are psuedo-libertarians advancing failed New Deal policies.
 
or just hit that handy quote button...

Having been a hiring manager I'll tell you what we like to see:
An employment gap that shows you're looking to use your skills.

We don't like to see:
A trail of jobs that says you're always looking for a step up and not exactly a loyal employee (you'll jump from my company the second "something better" comes along)

But feel free to keep engaging in your reality bubble.
 
Isn't loyalty all but gone from the work place anyway really? I mean people don't tend to stay in the same job as long as they used to. I know I'd jump ship from my current job in a heartbeat if I got offered more money somewhere else.

Yeah It's off topic, better than arguing with those knuckleheads.
 
[quote name='nasum']1. Unemployment for the first 26 weeks is paid by the employer
2. The subsequent 73 are paid from a federal fund signed in by great patriot bush
3. You're still failing to understand that the goal of workfare is to supress middle and low income wages
4. "paying for stuff that you charged" demonstrates your complete lack of simple economics. That charging provided income to companies that paid for workers within their company. It also creates debt that keeps the credit card company highly profitable, a company that hires more people. So on and so forth. Your understanding of the world is seemingly limited to "I have a job, I buy stuff. Other people don't have jobs, I pay for their life" which is indicitive of your simple mind.


Of course you don't see that as the case. Your view is excrutiatingly narrow. And I'll bet you don't see the enormous tax credits given to big box retailers for setting up shop in town as welfare either.

Further demonstrating #4 above, you imply that we should all live in constant fear of job loss and therefore only save and not spend. Not a single ramification on the economy there...[/QUOTE]

Unemployment versus welfare, which are we debating? I do think 99 weeks of unemployment is f'ing crazy. I am "simple". It's great! I've never had any credit card debt. If I want something, I save up for it and pay for it when I have the cash. (Actually I use my credit card on most everything, just pay it off every month. No fees and a little cash back). I detest corporate welfare. Examine my post history. I say do away with it almost as much as I decry personal welfare. I am not a fan of our current economic system. I think the Fed is corrupt and see almost everyone living outside of their means. I do have a mortgage that I could pay off if they remove the interest deduction. Am I a freaking genius who can run my life in such a responsible way? I would guess you would say "no";-). So how can such a simple concept as work and save be lost on so many? And sitting at home watching TV with heat and food provided by somebody else is a lot of people's idea of a vacation. I have stated before that I am basing my opinions on my personal observations and experiences in gov't subsidized areas in which I work. I tend to believe my own eyes over biased stats and figures. I know of 20 blocks of welfare recipients who are suffering from generational poverty and lack of self responsibility in my city alone. Call it narrow, I call it my experience....


Thanks to GBAstar and others for attempting to help my "non-quoting" ass.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Okay so a six month period of complete unemployment looks better at your next job interview then six months where you found part/full-time work while continuing to look for an ideal position?

You get fucking real.[/QUOTE]

An employer would rather hire the guy who has been sitting on his butt. If someone is hiring for a aeronautics engineer and you haven't been designing planes for the past six months then they're not going to be that interested in what you were doing - unless you were flipping burgers.

This is the real world kiddo - in a super tight job market employers can accept that a promising candidate couldn't land a skilled job for a short timeframe, but seeing a recent job history of low-skilled work is going to tarnish your image and set you back. Real talk
 
byproduct of moving pensions to defined contribution plans, stagnant wages and a lack of respect for employees
 
[quote name='camoor']An employer would rather hire the guy who has been sitting on his butt. If someone is hiring for a aeronautics engineer and you haven't been designing planes for the past six months then they're not going to be that interested in what you were doing - unless you were flipping burgers.

This is the real world kiddo - in a super tight job market employers can accept that a promising candidate couldn't land a skilled job for a short timeframe, but seeing a recent job history of low-skilled work is going to tarnish your image and set you back. Real talk[/QUOTE]


sigh...maybe I am out of touch. I would prefer the guy who demonstrated his work ethic and can do attitude by taking what job he could get at the time and providing for his family versus sucking at the gov't teat. If your right about working in any capacity "tarnishing" your image, then we are screwed as a country. Actually, someone told me that an inmate was given a sex change with tax payer money....we are dooooomed.;-)
 
[quote name='nasum']directed at me? If so, I think you may have missed something.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it was directed at you. Or at least, it wouldn't make sense since you're arguing the same thing albeit less sarcasticly.

[quote name='camoor']As I pointed out, this is a regurgitation of some of the worst parts of FDR's "New Deal".

I cannot stress how fail egofed and GBAStar's thinking is - they are psuedo-libertarians advancing failed New Deal policies.[/QUOTE]
Funny thing that people forget about that time was that social programs were created to not only lessen the effects of poverty, but also to keep people from being desperate enough to not storm the mansions and start lining people up against the wall. Those programs were a compromise between labor and capital to keep capitalism alive. FDR should be capitalism's greatest hero.

But goddamn it egofed, just hit the stupid "quote" button at the end of the post you want to respond to. It's far easier than what you're doing and it makes it easier for everyone to read and understand your posts.

edit: THANK YOU
 
[quote name='nasum']byproduct of moving pensions to defined contribution plans, stagnant wages and a lack of respect for employees[/QUOTE]
I was actually going to say about the same, nothing to really hold anyone to a particular company anymore. My grandfather retired as a machinist after working for the same company for almost 30 years, I can't imagine doing that today. It'd have to be a fucking dream job.

But to what you said originally, wouldn't that make it kind of hard to figure out a person's loyalty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top