Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(My Fox Phoenix)   Phoenix mayor lives off food stamp budget for a week, finds out his actions have consequences to people other than him. "Occasionally I'd have a cup of coffee and skip a meal in order to make it through"   (myfoxphoenix.com) divider line 227
    More: Obvious, Arizona Attorney General, food stamps, Reference Daily Intake, Navajo Nation, photo showing  
•       •       •

3794 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Sep 2012 at 1:39 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



227 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-25 06:03:11 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: hasty ambush: Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them

And the only thing the right can argue is that we should get rid of them. So, which is worse, keeping broken programs that could be improved but still manage to help some people, or tossing them out altogether and giving a big "fark you" to the people that use those programs? It's like having a special needs child. The left is the parent who says, "I just don't know what to do!" The right is the parent who says "Child? I don't have a child" moves out of the house and files for divorce.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with the group that is somewhat (or even mostly) ineffectual at helping than the group that treats helping people as if it were the worst possible thing a human being could do with their time.


Nonsense, we had this same debate in the mid 1990s. The left does not want any change that undermines their ability to buy votes withe welfare checks.
The GOP wanted to go with block grant system to the states instead of this inefficent one size fits all stupidty we have now that basicaly funds a huge bureacracy with only 30 cents of every welfare dollar reaching a recipient

Compare that to private charity

Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org), the
newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by
various criteria and supply that information to the public on their
web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated
spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services
they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent
.
The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample
was only 10.3 percent.


But no lets just keep doing things he way we are now and keep throwing money at these government programs.
 
2012-09-25 06:04:57 PM  

Whatthefark: They should have made him use the old paper food stamps. I know, no one accepts them anymore and haven't for years.
The times that I did use them were some of the most humbling moments of my life. It made me want to get off food stamps.


In AZ in the 70's, they were actual stamps that you pasted on to sheets from a little booklet, then you handed the filled out sheets to the cashier. When I was a kid (maybe 5 or 6) I had no clue what they were...just that they were little green stamps that mom put into a little booklet. So, I took some of the stamps and used them in an 'art project'. I thought my parents were going to kill me when I brought them the neat picture I made with a week's worth of food stamps plastered all over it.
 
2012-09-25 06:06:36 PM  

hasty ambush: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: hasty ambush: Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them

And the only thing the right can argue is that we should get rid of them. So, which is worse, keeping broken programs that could be improved but still manage to help some people, or tossing them out altogether and giving a big "fark you" to the people that use those programs? It's like having a special needs child. The left is the parent who says, "I just don't know what to do!" The right is the parent who says "Child? I don't have a child" moves out of the house and files for divorce.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with the group that is somewhat (or even mostly) ineffectual at helping than the group that treats helping people as if it were the worst possible thing a human being could do with their time.

Nonsense, we had this same debate in the mid 1990s. The left does not want any change that undermines their ability to buy votes withe welfare checks.
The GOP wanted to go with block grant system to the states instead of this inefficent one size fits all stupidty we have now that basicaly funds a huge bureacracy with only 30 cents of every welfare dollar reaching a recipient

Compare that to private charity

Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org), the
newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by
various criteria and supply that information to the public on their
web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated
spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services
they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent.
The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample
was only 10.3 percent.

But no lets just keep doing things he way we are now and keep throwing money at these government programs.


So tell, us , before these awful government programs existed, were those private charities adequately addressing the needs of the poor? Were all poor children fed clothed and housed?
 
2012-09-25 06:07:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?

I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.

Oh, so when you are forced to pay for the food assistance, you are paying for the program to be therer when you need it?


That silly argument doesn't hold water. The analogy you're looking for is the fire department going around to houses that aren't on fire and putting water on them at the expense of everyone else...or something like that.

1. The people who pay for public services are the least likely to use them.
2. People don't really take advantage of the services of the fire department.
 
2012-09-25 06:08:29 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: hasty ambush: Because the programs are not working but the left is against reforming them even trying new ones. The only thing the left can argue is that we need to throw more money at them

And the only thing the right can argue is that we should get rid of them. So, which is worse, keeping broken programs that could be improved but still manage to help some people, or tossing them out altogether and giving a big "fark you" to the people that use those programs? It's like having a special needs child. The left is the parent who says, "I just don't know what to do!" The right is the parent who says "Child? I don't have a child" moves out of the house and files for divorce.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with the group that is somewhat (or even mostly) ineffectual at helping than the group that treats helping people as if it were the worst possible thing a human being could do with their time.

Nonsense, we had this same debate in the mid 1990s. The left does not want any change that undermines their ability to buy votes withe welfare checks.
The GOP wanted to go with block grant system to the states instead of this inefficent one size fits all stupidty we have now that basicaly funds a huge bureacracy with only 30 cents of every welfare dollar reaching a recipient

Compare that to private charity

Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org), the
newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by
various criteria and supply that information to the public on their
web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated
spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services
they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent.
The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample
was only 10.3 percent.

But no lets just keep doing things he way we are now and keep throwing money at these government programs.

So tell, us , before ...


Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?
 
2012-09-25 06:11:55 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?

I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.

Oh, so when you are forced to pay for the food assistance, you are paying for the program to be therer when you need it?

That silly argument doesn't hold water. The analogy you're looking for is the fire department going around to houses that aren't on fire and putting water on them at the expense of everyone else...or something like that.

1. The people who pay for public services are the least likely to use them.
2. People don't really take advantage of the services of the fire department.


Well then if the people who pay for public services like the Fire Department are least likely to need them, why are we forcing them to pay for it? If you need rescue, pay cash up front. Don't force others to be concerned about your w well being if they aren't likely to need it. Quit being a parasite, pay for the EMT yourself.
 
2012-09-25 06:12:44 PM  

Silly Jesus: Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?


Aaandd we're back to the "not being able to help everyone is worse than helping no one" stupidity.
 
2012-09-25 06:13:03 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?

I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.

Oh, so when you are forced to pay for the food assistance, you are paying for the program to be therer when you need it?

That silly argument doesn't hold water. The analogy you're looking for is the fire department going around to houses that aren't on fire and putting water on them at the expense of everyone else...or something like that.

1. The people who pay for public services are the least likely to use them.
2. People don't really take advantage of the services of the fire department.

Well then if the people who pay for public services like the Fire Department are least likely to need them, why are we forcing them to pay for it? If you need rescue, pay cash up front. Don't force others to be concerned about your w well being if they aren't likely to need it. Quit being a parasite, pay for the EMT yourself.


OK. When it comes up for a vote I'll vote for that option. It's not like I really have an option currently.
 
2012-09-25 06:14:13 PM  

Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?

Aaandd we're back to the "not being able to help everyone is worse than helping no one" stupidity.


No. He was implying that government forced charity is better because private voluntary charity didn't help everyone. I was simply pointing out that that statement is meaningless because forced government charity doesn't help everyone either.
 
2012-09-25 06:17:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?


Better than they were before the Federal social service programs were put into effect.
 
2012-09-25 06:19:40 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?

I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.

Oh, so when you are forced to pay for the food assistance, you are paying for the program to be therer when you need it?

That silly argument doesn't hold water. The analogy you're looking for is the fire department going around to houses that aren't on fire and putting water on them at the expense of everyone else...or something like that.

1. The people who pay for public services are the least likely to use them.
2. People don't really take advantage of the services of the fire department.

Well then if the people who pay for public services like the Fire Department are least likely to need them, why are we forcing them to pay for it? If you need rescue, pay cash up front. Don't force others to be concerned about your w well being if they aren't likely to need it. Quit being a parasite, pay for the EMT yourself.

OK. When it comes up for a vote I'll vote for that option. It's not like I really have an option currently.


Moochers like you will never give up their safety net.
 
2012-09-25 06:28:39 PM  

Silly Jesus: Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?

Aaandd we're back to the "not being able to help everyone is worse than helping no one" stupidity.

No. He was implying that government forced charity is better because private voluntary charity didn't help everyone. I was simply pointing out that that statement is meaningless because forced government charity doesn't help everyone either.


And private voluntary charity is not capable of helping as many people as government charity, forced or otherwise, so it's still a stupid argument to suggest that privatizing charitable assistance is inherently superior to the government enforcing it.

Here's the thing, you're approaching this from a "what about ME?" standpoint, when the very nature of a government is that it isn't about the individual. An effective government is about maximizing the common good, and that frequently happens at the expense of the individual. If you're unhappy with that, well too farking bad, since there's pretty much nowhere on Earth you can go where you won't find it to be the case to some degree or another.
 
2012-09-25 06:36:33 PM  

Silly Jesus: From what I've seen, most of the moochers and parasites could stand to lose a few pounds anyway.

 


too large to post

/ironically
 
2012-09-25 06:38:04 PM  

highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!


Must be nice.

I've applied for nearly 30 jobs in the past month, and got exactly two interviews and no call backs. Does CSB-er have any advice for me, or am I just not doing it "right"?
 
2012-09-25 06:40:04 PM  

xria: Pud: Now if we could only convince a few Congress Critters to live off of Social Security and Medicaid alone for a year we might actually get somewhere.

Maybe make it so that once you join congress you can only live on social security and other safety net payments for the rest of your life - all other income/non-fixed assets are sent to general taxation and you are audited on a regular basis to ensure you aren't living above your means due to gifts or payments in kind from corporations or whatever. Should weed out the ones in it for the money/bribes anyway.


This probably tops the list for really stupid ideas on the month. Being in congress or in any elected office is a JOB, and in a job you expect to be paid. This isn't some religious calling, like being a priest or a monk. Why in the holy fark would anyone in half their right mind take a job under those conditions? What job would you do for what amounts to basically "free"?

Of course you're in it for the money, idiot. IT'S A JOB.
 
2012-09-25 06:46:44 PM  

Gyrfalcon: highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!

Must be nice.

I've applied for nearly 30 jobs in the past month, and got exactly two interviews and no call backs. Does CSB-er have any advice for me, or am I just not doing it "right"?


You aren't bootstrappy enough?
 
2012-09-25 07:01:05 PM  

I alone am best:
People think the only way you can eat is to go to the store and buy it. Food from the store usually sucks anyway.


Yeh... I can just see the legions of poor people with their fishing poles in the east river in new york... or off the Jersey shore... or maybe off the piers in LA or the cliffs in Oceanside in San Diego after the 100th toxic sewage spill of the year... ever see that three-eyed fish on the Simpsons that lives in the river by the nuke plant? There's worse stuff out there, if there's any of it that's still alive. And you do NOT want to eat it

What is it with these morans and their "I do it, so everyone can do it!" spew?
Here's a hint - everyone doesn't live where you live. Everyone can't do what you do. Everyone isn't you.
 
2012-09-25 07:03:29 PM  

rewind2846: xria: Pud: Now if we could only convince a few Congress Critters to live off of Social Security and Medicaid alone for a year we might actually get somewhere.

Maybe make it so that once you join congress you can only live on social security and other safety net payments for the rest of your life - all other income/non-fixed assets are sent to general taxation and you are audited on a regular basis to ensure you aren't living above your means due to gifts or payments in kind from corporations or whatever. Should weed out the ones in it for the money/bribes anyway.

This probably tops the list for really stupid ideas on the month. Being in congress or in any elected office is a JOB, and in a job you expect to be paid. This isn't some religious calling, like being a priest or a monk. Why in the holy fark would anyone in half their right mind take a job under those conditions? What job would you do for what amounts to basically "free"?

Of course you're in it for the money, idiot. IT'S A JOB.


We'd probably get a much better class of people as our elected officials if it didn't pay. Then you'd only get people who actually WANT to do the job instead of wanting the perks of the job and crazy zealots, and we already have the latter. We really need more of the former.
 
2012-09-25 07:14:30 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?

Better than they were before the Federal social service programs were put into effect.


Citation needed.
 
2012-09-25 07:16:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Voluntary concern is fine...being forced by the government to be concerned is another thing completely.

So let's disband the Fire Department so that you aren't forced to be concerned about the well being of others.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm agreeing that it's terrible that you are so cruelly forced to show concern for others by paying for emergency services. Why should you be force to pay for your neighbor to be saved in an emergency any more than you should be forced to pay for others to get food assistance?

I'm not paying for my neighbor to be saved in an emergency. I'm paying for ME to be saved in an emergency.

Oh, so when you are forced to pay for the food assistance, you are paying for the program to be therer when you need it?

That silly argument doesn't hold water. The analogy you're looking for is the fire department going around to houses that aren't on fire and putting water on them at the expense of everyone else...or something like that.

1. The people who pay for public services are the least likely to use them.
2. People don't really take advantage of the services of the fire department.

Well then if the people who pay for public services like the Fire Department are least likely to need them, why are we forcing them to pay for it? If you need rescue, pay cash up front. Don't force others to be concerned about your w well being if they aren't likely to need it. Quit being a parasite, pay for the EMT yourself.

OK. When it comes up for a vote I'll vote for that option. It's not like I really have an option currently.

Moochers like you will never give up their safety net.


I'm talking about paying for a service. That makes me a moocher with a safety net?

Several communities around the country already have this in place. There's usually a butthurt Fark thread when someone's house burns down because they didn't pay their fire service fee for the year.

Pay the fee and the fire department comes to your house if it's on fire. Don't pay it and they just come and watch to make sure that it doesn't spread to any of your paying neighbors.
 
2012-09-25 07:18:33 PM  

midigod: doloresonthedottedline: can't afford bus fare for trips like that (definitely not cab fare).

When shopping at the local supermarket, the wife and I saw an obviously low-income woman get out of a cab and make them wait while she shopped. When we walked out after doing our shopping, the cab was still there, meter running.

It's hard to know whether people are just godawful stupid, or they simply have no other way. I'm sure it's both at one time or another.


You have a car? Break out a calculator and figure how much it costs you to keep that car... insurance, registration, payments, gas, repairs, that kind of thing. Now you can reduce the gas costs because you only get to use that car twice a month, just to go grocery shopping. All other costs stay constant.

Now consider that woman in the cab. She obviously doesn't have a car. If she lives within a mile of the store, even with the meter running she may not spend more than $30 - $40 on that trip.every two weeks. That $60 - $80 may get her a month of cheap car insurance, if she had a good driving record and drove a beater with liability only on the policy. Of course that beater will cost her more in maintenance, so any insurance savings will probably be cancelled out.

Depending on how long she keeps the cab driver waiting, she may actually come out ahead on the deal.
 
2012-09-25 07:19:31 PM  

Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: Are all poor children fed, clothed and housed now?

Aaandd we're back to the "not being able to help everyone is worse than helping no one" stupidity.

No. He was implying that government forced charity is better because private voluntary charity didn't help everyone. I was simply pointing out that that statement is meaningless because forced government charity doesn't help everyone either.

And private voluntary charity is not capable of helping as many people as government charity, forced or otherwise, so it's still a stupid argument to suggest that privatizing charitable assistance is inherently superior to the government enforcing it.

Here's the thing, you're approaching this from a "what about ME?" standpoint, when the very nature of a government is that it isn't about the individual. An effective government is about maximizing the common good, and that frequently happens at the expense of the individual. If you're unhappy with that, well too farking bad, since there's pretty much nowhere on Earth you can go where you won't find it to be the case to some degree or another.


This is where we differ. Of course government is necessary and provides things that otherwise can't be provided, but to what extent do we keep extending the reach of government? That's where we differ. I think that it's been extended too far already while you would probably like to see it extended more.
 
2012-09-25 07:21:20 PM  

Teufelaffe: We'd probably get a much better class of people as our elected officials if it didn't pay. Then you'd only get people who actually WANT to do the job instead of wanting the perks of the job and crazy zealots, and we already have the latter. We really need more of the former.


But this would ensure that only independently wealthy people ran and served.
 
2012-09-25 07:23:34 PM  

Gyrfalcon: highendmighty: Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB

That was my first snarky thought, too (see my comment above). However, there are some people in this country who legitimately cannot work, or work enough, for whatever reason. What would your [final] solution be for them? Yes; the lazy can starve for all I care, but circumstances, man!

Must be nice.

I've applied for nearly 30 jobs in the past month, and got exactly two interviews and no call backs. Does CSB-er have any advice for me, or am I just not doing it "right"?


Advice? Not really. Maybe you just have no marketable skills. 0-30 seems pretty bad. Maybe obtain a skill of some sort. My part time job is a delivery job for a small company. The only skill needed is being able to drive. Have you tried Domino's etc? Just in a 5 mile radius of me I have seen "Now Hiring" signs at Domino's, Papa John's, McDonalds, Publix and the local Parks and Recreation Department.
 
2012-09-25 07:26:22 PM  

rewind2846: I alone am best:
People think the only way you can eat is to go to the store and buy it. Food from the store usually sucks anyway.

Yeh... I can just see the legions of poor people with their fishing poles in the east river in new york... or off the Jersey shore... or maybe off the piers in LA or the cliffs in Oceanside in San Diego after the 100th toxic sewage spill of the year... ever see that three-eyed fish on the Simpsons that lives in the river by the nuke plant? There's worse stuff out there, if there's any of it that's still alive. And you do NOT want to eat it

What is it with these morans and their "I do it, so everyone can do it!" spew?
Here's a hint - everyone doesn't live where you live. Everyone can't do what you do. Everyone isn't you.


www.uhaul.com
 
2012-09-25 07:32:58 PM  

Teufelaffe: rewind2846: xria: Pud: Now if we could only convince a few Congress Critters to live off of Social Security and Medicaid alone for a year we might actually get somewhere.

Maybe make it so that once you join congress you can only live on social security and other safety net payments for the rest of your life - all other income/non-fixed assets are sent to general taxation and you are audited on a regular basis to ensure you aren't living above your means due to gifts or payments in kind from corporations or whatever. Should weed out the ones in it for the money/bribes anyway.

This probably tops the list for really stupid ideas on the month. Being in congress or in any elected office is a JOB, and in a job you expect to be paid. This isn't some religious calling, like being a priest or a monk. Why in the holy fark would anyone in half their right mind take a job under those conditions? What job would you do for what amounts to basically "free"?

Of course you're in it for the money, idiot. IT'S A JOB.

We'd probably get a much better class of people as our elected officials if it didn't pay. Then you'd only get people who actually WANT to do the job instead of wanting the perks of the job and crazy zealots, and we already have the latter. We really need more of the former.


Yeah... with that logic, only people who really WANT to be lawyers would go to law school, and work for free... only people who really WANT to handle sh*t would be honeywagon drivers, and come home smelling like sun-ripened foulness every day for free... only people who WANT to be truck drivers would train to drive big rigs, and risk road hazards most people never see driving for days at a time for free... in fact, maybe ALL jobs should pay nothing... maybe then only the people who really WANT to do them will want them.

Let's start with YOUR job. Would you show up tomorrow if you weren't going to be paid?

What is with you people? IT IS A JOB. It's called a job because people get paid for doing it.
You won't get ANYONE as our elected officials EXCEPT the nutcases and zealots who see this as some sort of holy calling. You think someone like Michelle Bachmann is nuts? At least she's sane enough to realize that if she doesn't do what her constituents want, or at least her donors, she won't get paid.

Put down the bong, dood.
 
2012-09-25 07:36:02 PM  

Silly Jesus:

[www.uhaul.com image 404x228]


If they could afford to move, they wouldn't be "poor" genius.
 
2012-09-25 07:45:55 PM  

rewind2846: Silly Jesus:

[www.uhaul.com image 404x228]

If they could afford to move, they wouldn't be "poor" genius.


LULZ
 
2012-09-25 07:56:13 PM  

NotARocketScientist:
Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.


THIS. MANY BEARS. AGAIN AND AGAIN.
 
2012-09-25 07:59:55 PM  

rewind2846: NotARocketScientist:
Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.

THIS. MANY BEARS. AGAIN AND AGAIN.


So people should be paid more than their work is worth just to meet some arbitrary "living wage" number?
 
2012-09-25 08:13:06 PM  

rewind2846: Teufelaffe: rewind2846: xria: Pud: Now if we could only convince a few Congress Critters to live off of Social Security and Medicaid alone for a year we might actually get somewhere.

Maybe make it so that once you join congress you can only live on social security and other safety net payments for the rest of your life - all other income/non-fixed assets are sent to general taxation and you are audited on a regular basis to ensure you aren't living above your means due to gifts or payments in kind from corporations or whatever. Should weed out the ones in it for the money/bribes anyway.

This probably tops the list for really stupid ideas on the month. Being in congress or in any elected office is a JOB, and in a job you expect to be paid. This isn't some religious calling, like being a priest or a monk. Why in the holy fark would anyone in half their right mind take a job under those conditions? What job would you do for what amounts to basically "free"?

Of course you're in it for the money, idiot. IT'S A JOB.

We'd probably get a much better class of people as our elected officials if it didn't pay. Then you'd only get people who actually WANT to do the job instead of wanting the perks of the job and crazy zealots, and we already have the latter. We really need more of the former.

Yeah... with that logic, only people who really WANT to be lawyers would go to law school, and work for free... only people who really WANT to handle sh*t would be honeywagon drivers, and come home smelling like sun-ripened foulness every day for free... only people who WANT to be truck drivers would train to drive big rigs, and risk road hazards most people never see driving for days at a time for free... in fact, maybe ALL jobs should pay nothing... maybe then only the people who really WANT to do them will want them.

Let's start with YOUR job. Would you show up tomorrow if you weren't going to be paid?

What is with you people? IT IS A JOB. It's called a job because people get p ...


Actually, I think that once you become a public servant, your assets should be frozen, you should be moved into government housing, and have your room and board provided by the government. You should be prohibited from receiving payments or gifts from any party outside of the government while you are in office. For a period of ten years after you leave office, you should be prohibited from receiving payments, gifts, or employment from any industry whose lobbyist you interacted with while in office. The only real difference there should be between going to prison and being an elected official should be less butt-rape for the elected officials.
 
2012-09-25 08:16:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: rewind2846: NotARocketScientist:
Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.

THIS. MANY BEARS. AGAIN AND AGAIN.

So people should be paid more than their work is worth just to meet some arbitrary "living wage" number?


It's either that or expand our social safety net to be larger than it already is in order to ensure all citizens' basic needs are met. It's what most of the rest of the developed world likes to call "being a civilized society."
 
2012-09-25 08:18:12 PM  

Teufelaffe: rewind2846: Teufelaffe: rewind2846: xria: Pud: Now if we could only convince a few Congress Critters to live off of Social Security and Medicaid alone for a year we might actually get somewhere.

Maybe make it so that once you join congress you can only live on social security and other safety net payments for the rest of your life - all other income/non-fixed assets are sent to general taxation and you are audited on a regular basis to ensure you aren't living above your means due to gifts or payments in kind from corporations or whatever. Should weed out the ones in it for the money/bribes anyway.

This probably tops the list for really stupid ideas on the month. Being in congress or in any elected office is a JOB, and in a job you expect to be paid. This isn't some religious calling, like being a priest or a monk. Why in the holy fark would anyone in half their right mind take a job under those conditions? What job would you do for what amounts to basically "free"?

Of course you're in it for the money, idiot. IT'S A JOB.

We'd probably get a much better class of people as our elected officials if it didn't pay. Then you'd only get people who actually WANT to do the job instead of wanting the perks of the job and crazy zealots, and we already have the latter. We really need more of the former.

Yeah... with that logic, only people who really WANT to be lawyers would go to law school, and work for free... only people who really WANT to handle sh*t would be honeywagon drivers, and come home smelling like sun-ripened foulness every day for free... only people who WANT to be truck drivers would train to drive big rigs, and risk road hazards most people never see driving for days at a time for free... in fact, maybe ALL jobs should pay nothing... maybe then only the people who really WANT to do them will want them.

Let's start with YOUR job. Would you show up tomorrow if you weren't going to be paid?

What is with you people? IT IS A JOB. It's called a job because ...


Should they also ride unicorns and fart sprinkles?

Not really sure if you're serious...but if you are, who the hell would you find to sign up for such an assignment?
 
2012-09-25 08:21:10 PM  

Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: rewind2846: NotARocketScientist:
Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.

THIS. MANY BEARS. AGAIN AND AGAIN.

So people should be paid more than their work is worth just to meet some arbitrary "living wage" number?

It's either that or expand our social safety net to be larger than it already is in order to ensure all citizens' basic needs are met. It's what most of the rest of the developed world likes to call "being a civilized society."


Paying people more than they are worth is being a civilized society? Interesting.
 
2012-09-25 08:33:46 PM  

Silly Jesus: Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: rewind2846: NotARocketScientist:
Since national defense spending is 1/3 of the total national budget, and medicare/medicaid/social security makes up another 1/3, I stopped reading your tirade here as it is not possible for it to be that high. In addition, it is well known that corporate welfare dwarfs that of individuals.

People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.
People wouldn't be this poor and in need if they were paid a living wage.

THIS. MANY BEARS. AGAIN AND AGAIN.

So people should be paid more than their work is worth just to meet some arbitrary "living wage" number?

It's either that or expand our social safety net to be larger than it already is in order to ensure all citizens' basic needs are met. It's what most of the rest of the developed world likes to call "being a civilized society."

Paying people more than they are worth is being a civilized society? Interesting.


A person's worth is determined by what they're paid? Interesting.

Silly Jesus: Not really sure if you're serious...but if you are, who the hell would you find to sign up for such an assignment?


People who want to do the job for the sake of the job, not for the benefits. That's my entire point. As it stands now, a lot of people get into politics as a way to get money and power and they don't give a flying rat's arse about serving their constituents. As the last few decades have shown, this results in most of the country getting farked over as the people in power continue with their ongoing campaign to get more and more money and power. So, you take away the money, and limit the power. Then you'd be left with the bat-shiat loonies, which we already have, and the people who are there to serve the people. Al Franken and Bernie Sanders are a couple of examples of that on the left side of the isle. Honestly, the right's whackjobs take center stage so much that I don't know of such people on the right, but I'm sure there are some Republican elected officials who are there to represent the people.

Now, I know that my idea would never happen. It's just one of those "wouldn't it be nice?" type of things.
 
2012-09-25 08:54:28 PM  
I suspect actions like this is the best way to reach that top 15% or so of wealth in the country. A lot of the wealthy are wealthy from birth and have no real concept of "struggling".
 
2012-09-25 08:59:15 PM  

Teufelaffe: Actually, I think that once you become a public servant,....


Okay, I've been trolled. Good job.
/it was the "servant" that tipped me off
 
2012-09-25 09:21:20 PM  

wee: I used to live on $35/week for food. It sucks, but it can be done. You'll wind up hating beans and rice, though. And you'll also discover every possible way to cheaply cook potatoes. I think the only "dish" I still eat from those days is peas tossed in some hot mustard. Add in a half a bacon strip crumbled up, it's pretty a good snack.

I didn't eat cheese for like three years. And forget things like beef (except for a pot roast once in a while) or potato chips. A $5 deli chicken can really go a long way if you're creative. If you do it right, all you have left over is a pile of boiled bones...


Beef heart & liver is well under $2.00/lb but I gotta admit that pork liver is ghastly.
 
2012-09-25 09:22:13 PM  
rewind2846
You won't get ANYONE as our elected officials EXCEPT the nutcases and zealots who see this as some sort of holy calling.

They apparently think that the perks of the job are the pay and benefits, and not.. you know.. being a legislator. What they propose is that the only people fit to be legislators are the people who are wealthy enough that they don't need to work. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me either.

rewind2846
What is it with these morans and their "I do it, so everyone can do it!" spew?

Sadly, it's inherent in conservative thought. It is naturalistic and primitive. It's only recently that liberal thought has led to a distinction between "success" and "moral goodness". It's the same reason why utter crap such as "The Secret" has such popularity. It's the same reason why "Might makes right" is still regarded as true (though they won't admit it, because they recognize the negative connotation and tend to be more concerned with how words make people feel than what the words actually mean). It's the same reason that, when presented with the problem of, say, "starving poor people", conservative thinkers deny that it is even a problem. Heck, it's the same reason why they engage in hero worship, because they do not distinguish between the morality of an action and the morality of the person doing the act.

If asked, they'll deny this.. because it sounds bad. The religious tend to be the worst of these, so I'll pick on them. They are perfectly fine with genocide (as long as God commands it). They are perfectly fine with annexation (as long as God commands it). Their theodicies go to extreme lengths to be able to claim that everything is just (as the perfection of their God demands it). There is a natural social desire for justice, and extremely conservative people have trouble distinguishing between mental constructs and reality. Again, they'll deny this, yet every Sunday you have people raising their hands and shouting as the holy spirit possesses them. Heck, just look at the usage of "liberal" and "socialism" in media. They use the same strategies that I use on my freaking dog. My dog doesn't know what my commands mean, he merely recognizes them as cues that entail some consequence.

And to the people who will respond "That's not conservatism at all". Yes, it is. It is conservative by definition. Conservatism is about the way things used to be. There is nothing more conservative than this naturalistic crap. It's the way our earliest ancestors thought. The problem is that you define "Conservative" as "Your group" and "Liberal" as "Their group", with your group's ideology being some combination of ancient conservatism and liberalism-from-300-years-ago.

Also, I'm not saying that conservatism is always bad or that liberalism is always good. If you are defining the terms in this way, then you are categorizing things based on moral judgements and not based on any objective standard. That is, if you think that conservatism is always right, then you are merely assembling things that you approve of and then applying the label "conservative" to it. You don't care about what people mean when they use the word, you only care that you can claim the magical words of power for yourself.

That said, whether a liberal or conservative approach is correct at the moment, conservatism will always be, by definition, on the wrong side of history. If it was on the right side of history, it'd be called liberalism. The question is not "Should we progress" but, instead, "How fast should we progress".
 
wee
2012-09-25 09:33:15 PM  

CptnSpldng: Beef heart & liver is well under $2.00/lb but I gotta admit that pork liver is ghastly.


Chicken thighs are pretty cheap, and actually taste like something. Though I ate a lot of game meat back then...
 
2012-09-25 09:34:00 PM  

Teufelaffe: A person's worth is determined by what they're paid? Interesting.


Ummm...not sure if serious...

I meant worth in the context of a business. If I am paying you to produce a widget for me that I can sell for $10 then you're not worth $15 to make each one. I'd be losing money.

As for your politicians riding unicorns idea...I agree, it would be nice, but it's not even remotely realistic.
 
2012-09-25 09:43:52 PM  

Gyrfalcon: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Both are true. The agency I worked for had lots of people on SSA/SSI and they had $30-40 a week for food. You can stretch it a long way buying bulk items, sale items and stuff like day-old bread.

The problem is that you need toiletries, dish soap, paper products, cleaning supplies...those can really eat up your grocery budget.


A couple of other issues would be not being able to buy in bulk because 1) You don't have the necessary fridge/freezer/cupboard space to store all these foodstuffs and 2) Getting all that home from the store. Especially difficult if you don't live near a large chain supermarket that tends to be cheaper than the corner grocery/bodega. If you don't have a car, getting all that stuff home on public transportation can be very difficult.
 
2012-09-25 09:47:34 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: Gyrfalcon: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Both are true. The agency I worked for had lots of people on SSA/SSI and they had $30-40 a week for food. You can stretch it a long way buying bulk items, sale items and stuff like day-old bread.

The problem is that you need toiletries, dish soap, paper products, cleaning supplies...those can really eat up your grocery budget.

A couple of other issues would be not being able to buy in bulk because 1) You don't have the necessary fridge/freezer/cupboard space to store all these foodstuffs and 2) Getting all that home from the store. Especially difficult if you don't live near a large chain supermarket that tends to be cheaper than the corner grocery/bodega. If you don't have a car, getting all that stuff home on public transportation can be very difficult.


www.whoisbolaji.com
 
2012-09-25 09:54:00 PM  

rewind2846: I alone am best:
People think the only way you can eat is to go to the store and buy it. Food from the store usually sucks anyway.

Yeh... I can just see the legions of poor people with their fishing poles in the east river in new york... or off the Jersey shore... or maybe off the piers in LA or the cliffs in Oceanside in San Diego after the 100th toxic sewage spill of the year... ever see that three-eyed fish on the Simpsons that lives in the river by the nuke plant? There's worse stuff out there, if there's any of it that's still alive. And you do NOT want to eat it

What is it with these morans and their "I do it, so everyone can do it!" spew?
Here's a hint - everyone doesn't live where you live. Everyone can't do what you do. Everyone isn't you.


Hey! 2nd largest (in income) of all Eastern seaboard ports. Rag on North Jersey all ya want, but STFU about the shore.
Link
 
2012-09-25 10:58:10 PM  

Silly Jesus: Bathia_Mapes: Gyrfalcon: unlikely: Baby Face Fister: I was on food stamps and was getting $200 a month and unless you do a lot of shopping at the Dollar Store you wont make it for a month.

$200 a month is extremely possible. It's just not luxury.

A 50 pound bag of rice costs $44 at the asian food market here. A 12 ounce bag of frozen vegetables is $1 at the grocery store. 60 bags of veggies and a bag of rice per month and you've cracked $110 plus tax. And I seriously doubt you can eat 50 lbs of rice in a month.

Add in a couple cartons of milk, a pound of butter, and you're at $125. Get cereal to go with the milk @$4 a box, figure six boxes for a month, you're at $150. That should cover basic sustenance for a month. Add in $3/lb ground beef or a few chicken breasts for protein and you're still well below your $200 mark.

Both are true. The agency I worked for had lots of people on SSA/SSI and they had $30-40 a week for food. You can stretch it a long way buying bulk items, sale items and stuff like day-old bread.

The problem is that you need toiletries, dish soap, paper products, cleaning supplies...those can really eat up your grocery budget.

A couple of other issues would be not being able to buy in bulk because 1) You don't have the necessary fridge/freezer/cupboard space to store all these foodstuffs and 2) Getting all that home from the store. Especially difficult if you don't live near a large chain supermarket that tends to be cheaper than the corner grocery/bodega. If you don't have a car, getting all that stuff home on public transportation can be very difficult.

[www.whoisbolaji.com image 300x300]


So you're one of those "empathy is for the weak" kind of people....

I bet you think you've never been helped in your life.
 
2012-09-25 11:37:32 PM  
How did he get to the store? Drive?
He should have shopped in a shaity little downtown "grocer" and see how far his money goes for those "quality" products.
 
2012-09-26 12:01:53 AM  

Nadie_AZ: Godscrack: Yeah, nice clothes mayor. I bet he drove to to Basha's in his SUV.

He should try taking a bus, or walking to the store.

What? No Basha's near your house?

Now go to the stores that are closest to you, and take what you get.

Aww, they don;t have 'organic' or healthier versions of the food you like. Tough shiat.

What? who will watch the kids? Take them with you.

What? It's a bad neighborhood?

What? you're disabled and can't get to a store?

What? What? What?

I agree with your points. All of them. But so many politicians are so out of touch with 'just getting by' means that it is nice to see one try. Even if it is just enough to 'get it'.


Stanton is a good guy. He lives in my neighborhood and it is certainly not affluent nor exclusive here.
 
2012-09-26 12:50:40 AM  

Silly Jesus: CSB

I applied for 7 jobs over the course of the previous three months. I interviewed for 5 of them and was offered 4 of them. Get a farking job. You can eat much better with more money. Quit biatching about how little you are able to mooch off of others. If the food is free, you SHOULD'NT be getting a huge amount...maybe that way you'll be encouraged to get a damn job. I'm going to take a second job (part-time) soon solely in order to fully fund my Roth IRA and throw a little in a Money Market account. You can biatch and moan about your rice and beans or you can go out and do something about it. I have no pity for parasites.

CSB


Perhaps you are exceptionally motivated and good at interviews. You're not so much boot strappy as you are lucky. You are lucky to have the talent to enable you to perform well in interviews. You are lucky not to be suffering any depression or anxiety that saps your ability to compete. You are lucky not to suffer from social phobia which makes it damn near impossible to sell yourself in an interview. You seriously don't know how lucky you are compared to many of those you piss on from above.

I applied for at least 10 jobs every 2 weeks for over a year before I found a job. This is despite having a lot of experience as a computer programmer in .NET and SQL Server. I suffer from social phobia and atypical depression. These conditions make it hard to apply for jobs and a nightmare to attend an interview.

It was only once I was put on medication to treat these illnesses that I had a chance in the job market - I was employed in an $80K per year job within 4 weeks of starting on Parnate.

The only reason I could get any treatment when I was unemployed and destitute was because I live in a country that has a government subsidized health care system. Otherwise I'm not sure I would even be alive now.

So think about that next time you heap shiat on someone for not being as talented or just plain lucky as you are. I am of course assuming you are capable of empathy.
 
2012-09-26 12:52:49 AM  

TippySheraton: Stanton is a good guy. He lives in my neighborhood and it is certainly not affluent nor exclusive here.


That explains it. Too bad his point will be lost on those who really need to understand it.
 
2012-09-26 01:09:00 AM  

Frederick: I bet you think you've never been helped in your life.


Also has never been helped in his life:
cache.gawker.com
 
Displayed 50 of 227 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report