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.

(Slate)   Monopoly comes out with a new "Entitlements Edition". Just hope you don't land on "Go to work"   (slate.com) divider line 170
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

20021 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Dec 2012 at 1:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-19 02:32:25 PM

mittromneysdog: aerojockey: I meant entitlements by number, not by dollar. There are hundreds of entitlement programs in agriculture and other industries like construction. At least to me, these are the bad entitlements because they are subject to so much abuse. The fewer but bigger entitlements in social services aren't as bad.

I see. Well, for what it's worth, sometimes those subsidies serve legitimate social purposes. Conservatives are fond of the old "why are we paying farmers to leave their fields fallow" saw. But that program exists or did exist (I don't know if it's still around) to serve real economic and ecological purposes. Not all government subsidies are bad.



Here's what's bad about them:
 
www.optimist123.com 
 
That's a map of people receiving farm subsidies.  Story:
 
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/11/farm-subsidies-.html 
 
I don't trust the government to be able to prevent this kind of abuse, really, so I'd say better off without these kinds of subsidies.
 
2012-12-19 02:35:43 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.
 
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 705x471]
/damn Freeloaders


Yea just look at how much they are costing us! (2000-2009) I wonder what those numbers look like now as more troops come home from the desert.
 
2012-12-19 02:35:43 PM

Billygoat Gruff: Citrate1007: Conservative logic:

If it doesn't directly affect them it is an entitlement by a moocher.
If it affects them then it is their god given right and the government should be giving more to them more efficiently.

/what a wonderful way to indoctrinate your children into your world of derp.

So teaching my kids to work and not to depend on government for every little thing in their life, making them take responsibilty for their actions and not blaming someone else for it is, or be a victim is derp?

Teaching your kids that they are owed something by simply exisiting and that the government will provide it is a lot more derpy.


The first part was a blanket statement about the contemporary conservatives views. They hate government programs (the ones they don't directly receive benefits from). The 2nd part was that I disagree with teaching a child that poor people are less than human - this was before I realized it was satire.
 
2012-12-19 02:35:55 PM

Onkel Buck: HindiDiscoMonster: WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.
 
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 705x471]
/damn Freeloaders

 
I never thought he meant veterans or retirees with that statement. Then again I dont go around looking to be offended either
 
 
That's the danger and trouble you get into when you throw generalizations around too freely.
 
2012-12-19 02:37:16 PM

Tenatra: HindiDiscoMonster: WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.
 
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 705x471]
/damn Freeloaders

Yea just look at how much they are costing us! (2000-2009) I wonder what those numbers look like now as more troops come home from the desert.


Damnit! unfetchable image -_-

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-19 02:40:45 PM

aerojockey: mittromneysdog: aerojockey: I meant entitlements by number, not by dollar. There are hundreds of entitlement programs in agriculture and other industries like construction. At least to me, these are the bad entitlements because they are subject to so much abuse. The fewer but bigger entitlements in social services aren't as bad.

I see. Well, for what it's worth, sometimes those subsidies serve legitimate social purposes. Conservatives are fond of the old "why are we paying farmers to leave their fields fallow" saw. But that program exists or did exist (I don't know if it's still around) to serve real economic and ecological purposes. Not all government subsidies are bad.


Here's what's bad about them:
 
[www.optimist123.com image 347x574] 
 
That's a map of people receiving farm subsidies.  Story:
 
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/11/farm-subsidies-.html 
 
I don't trust the government to be able to prevent this kind of abuse, really, so I'd say better off without these kinds of subsidies.


What makes you so sure this map indicates abuse? It's perfectly possible that people who live in New York own farms outside of town.

And to be clear, the particular subsidy I'm talking about isn't just about "helping poor farmers." Rather, it is helping solve the "commons" problem that fields need to be kept fallow sometimes to preserve and restore soil nutrients, but that short term economic pressures cause individual farms to plant year after year, which over the long haul yields ecological disaster.

To me the question isn't "where do the farm owners live." It is "is this subsidy fulfilling a valuable social purpose?" If it is solving the problem, then candidly, I do not care if the beneficiary is an individual "poor" farmer, an agribusiness, or some snooty Manhattanite who draws income from some farm he owns out in the boondocks.
 
2012-12-19 02:40:51 PM

Onkel Buck: HindiDiscoMonster: WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.
 
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 705x471]
/damn Freeloaders

I never thought he meant veterans or retirees with that statement. Then again I dont go around looking to be offended either



me either.... then again i tend to note how some users post snarky comments and make sure my batteries are good on my own snark meter too... go figure.
 
2012-12-19 02:41:44 PM

MajorTubeSteak: Onkel Buck: HindiDiscoMonster: WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.
 
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 705x471]
/damn Freeloaders
 
I never thought he meant veterans or retirees with that statement. Then again I dont go around looking to be offended either
 
 
That's the danger and trouble you get into when you throw generalizations around too freely.



a whole lotta THIS  :)
 
2012-12-19 02:44:24 PM

mytdawg: [i174.photobucket.com image 600x600]



I get the jist, but I don't think 1m in assets is all that much... in Manhattan, that's a 1br apartment... maybe have a higher limit... I don't think people should need to sell the family farm if they've been paying into SS and Medicare their whole lives.
 
2012-12-19 02:45:24 PM
WhoopAssWayne
if you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society
 
to that  Scubamage said
we'll let you tell all those disabled veterans that
HindiDiscoMonster and
MajorTubeSteak
apparently agree
 
honestly kids, when the fark does serving your country in the military and getting injured NOT count as contributing?
 
2012-12-19 02:45:55 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Onkel Buck: HindiDiscoMonster: WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.
 
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 705x471]
/damn Freeloaders

I never thought he meant veterans or retirees with that statement. Then again I dont go around looking to be offended either


me either.... then again i tend to note how some users post snarky comments and make sure my batteries are good on my own snark meter too... go figure.


Retirees are a significant portion of that 47%, so who else would he be talking about?
 
2012-12-19 02:47:08 PM

LemSkroob: scubamage: I want to be a Rothschild. So basically I'll sit in the background and laugh as everyone else plays, never knowing that I actually own everything on the board already, including the chance cards, the pieces, and the table that the board is sitting on.

 
I don't need all their money and power. I'll just take Château Lafite off their hands and be happy, thank you.
 
 
I prefer Château Mouton, though the '82 Lafite was outstanding.
 
2012-12-19 02:47:47 PM

stevetherobot: HindiDiscoMonster: Onkel Buck: HindiDiscoMonster: WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.
 
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 705x471]
/damn Freeloaders

I never thought he meant veterans or retirees with that statement. Then again I dont go around looking to be offended either


me either.... then again i tend to note how some users post snarky comments and make sure my batteries are good on my own snark meter too... go figure.

Retirees are a significant portion of that 47%, so who else would he be talking about?



oh who knows.... I think he needs the Monopoly game from the other thread.
 
2012-12-19 02:48:16 PM
upload.wikimedia.org 

This couldn't be more true...

/RAGEQUIT
 
2012-12-19 02:50:24 PM
this is now so full of stupid, and strawmen
I'm out
 
2012-12-19 02:55:59 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
I got a monopoly on not having any Jews! I win!
 
2012-12-19 02:56:25 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: oh who knows.... I think he needs the Monopoly game from the other thread.



Did you forget where you are, again?
 
2012-12-19 02:56:33 PM

natas6.0: WhoopAssWayne
if you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society
 
to that  Scubamage said
we'll let you tell all those disabled veterans that
HindiDiscoMonster and
MajorTubeSteak
apparently agree
 
honestly kids, when the fark does serving your country in the military and getting injured NOT count as contributing?

 
 
The problem comes in with the disconnect of WhoopAssWayne's comment.  Stating that 47% of the country does not contribute is just disingenuous silliness to provoke a childish response.  So he got what he wanted.
 
2012-12-19 02:57:19 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: You said "entitlements" when what you meant was "people who actually have to work (and do a good job) for a living instead of farking everything up royally and then waiting to collect their hefty bonus."
 
But if it makes you feel better to think that I might be jealous of the fact that you'll be one of the first up against the wall, go with it.


You keep saying that like it's ever going to happen. It sounds the same as when Christians stamp their feet and feel better, thinking that someone who screwed them over is going to go to hell when they die. There is no karmic justice in the world. The rich will have it good, and then die. The good news is that life really isn't that bad for the rest of us either. Even the poor can spend their entire lives consuming media made to distract them.
 
2012-12-19 03:01:59 PM
Reminded me of this from when my kid was a tot.
Link
Use at your own risk. The Bank of Hasbro no longer allows consumers to manipulate the money supply.
 
2012-12-19 03:04:09 PM

CygnusDarius: Can I be a Romney in Monopoly?.

/Also, I want to use the car



If that's the case, the dog piece automatically loses.
 
2012-12-19 03:05:38 PM
This thread is getting weird even for Fark. Slate was just having a bit of fun, folks. Take the cue.
 
2012-12-19 03:06:44 PM

WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.


When I was growing up, kids watched this repeatedly on Saturday mornings. You might do well to check it out.
Preamble
 
2012-12-19 03:12:26 PM
www.zerohedge.com
 
2012-12-19 03:13:50 PM

aerojockey: mittromneysdog: aerojockey: I meant entitlements by number, not by dollar. There are hundreds of entitlement programs in agriculture and other industries like construction. At least to me, these are the bad entitlements because they are subject to so much abuse. The fewer but bigger entitlements in social services aren't as bad.

I see. Well, for what it's worth, sometimes those subsidies serve legitimate social purposes. Conservatives are fond of the old "why are we paying farmers to leave their fields fallow" saw. But that program exists or did exist (I don't know if it's still around) to serve real economic and ecological purposes. Not all government subsidies are bad.


Here's what's bad about them:
 
[www.optimist123.com image 347x574] 
 
That's a map of people receiving farm subsidies.  Story:
 
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/11/farm-subsidies-.html 
 
I don't trust the government to be able to prevent this kind of abuse, really, so I'd say better off without these kinds of subsidies.


New Yorkers and other liberal city residents are notorious thieves.
 
2012-12-19 03:22:11 PM

WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.


memecrunch.com
 
2012-12-19 03:23:00 PM
Reminds me of a Monopoly story I wrote for a friend's faux-news site back in 2006. Link is now dead, so spamming below. ;)

Just in time for the holiday season, the Parker Brothers company is announcing a major revamping of its flagship board game in a new release it is calling, "Subprime Monopoly".

Whereas players in the original Monopoly earned money to buy and develop properties at fixed prices, in "Subprime Monopoly" players borrow obscene amounts of money to purchase overvalued properties with skyrocketing prices and borrowing costs.

"With the advent of the ongoing housing bubble and mortgage loan crisis, we thought the time was right to make some major changes to the rules of the game", says Parker Bros. creative director Mitt Mason. Originally invented by Charles Darrow in 1935, Monopoly first became a huge hit in the middle of the great depression, and has since been played by over 750 million people. "It seemed somehow fitting that we change the rules now that property prices are falling nationwide, given that the game was first popularized the last time this happened in the 1930's. And the way Americans buy and sell property has changed a lot since then. Who in America buys anything these days with money they have actually saved up, and who today buys property at a stable and reasonable price?"

While the goal of the original version was to end the game with the most money, in the revamped version all players finish the game broke or highly in debt, competing to finish with the least total debt and lowest number of foreclosures.

Rules updated

"We tried to model Subprime Monopoly's rules closely to the reality of the modern-day housing bubble, although the basic gameplay is still the same as the original", says Mason, who spearheaded the rule revisions. Subprime lending refers to the practice of making loans to borrowers who cannot qualify for regular loans because chances are high that they cannot hope to possibly pay the money back. And just to make sure subprime borrowers cannot pay the loan back, these loans charge much higher interest rates than is charged to regular people with actual, bonafide credit.
The subprime lending practice in the United States has resulted in the growth over the last several years of a large property investment bubble, or "housing bubble". This bubble is now starting to pop, and by 2009 an estimated two million U.S. borrowers who cannot afford to make mortgage payments are predicted to go into foreclosure.

Players still move around the same classic Monopoly board buying properties and collecting rent, but with a few key differences. In Subprime Monopoly, the game is split into two phases. The game begins in the "Irrational Realty Whore" phase, during which every player must buy any unowned property that his/her piece lands on, regardless of price, and develop houses and hotels on every owned property to the maximum potential. Every time a player passes 'GO' during this phase of play, all property, development, and borrowing costs in the game double for everyone, while rent fees always stay absolutely the same. Players undoubtedly end up borrowing large sums from the Monopoly bank to finance these purchases.

After all players have navigated the entire board three times, the "Reality Sets In" phase kicks in, and the rules dictate that the bank stop lending money to players. At this point, it is not long before all the players can no longer finance their debts, and so property investments are foreclosed for pennies on the dollar. Finally, one lone player not quite yet in solvency emerges the winner of the game with a mountain-load of debt and a pile of properties that nobody else is left to buy.

"I don't think I'm exagerrating when I say it really is fun for the whole family", beams Mason. "There's nothing that says 21st century America quite like a night of living beyond one's means, destroying your credit, and happily following an investment ponzi scheme that is doomed to failure". Indeed, Mason planned to call the game, "Housing Doom Monopoly", but changed the name at the last minute in order to not be confused with a popular U.S. housing bubble commentary website (www.housingdoom.com).

[Editor - story can end here]

Gameboard mostly unchanged

Unlike other recent versions of the game, Subprime Monopoly has left most of the game board design the same as the original. "We figured that the gimmick of changing the gameboard's property names to a given city's landmarks, or breeds of cats and dogs, just isn't as invigorating as it used to be."

One thing that has changed, however, is the game cards. Previously, a "Community Chest" or "Chance" card may have read, "Congratulations! You have won $15 in a beauty contest". In the new game, these have been replaced by "Fat Chance" and "Mainstream Media Drivel" cards that say things like, "Congratulations! Your local newspaper has published yet another article validating that house prices will only ever keep going up, forever and ever, and that your mundane town is a 'World Class' city that everybody and their dog wants to live in! Pay $35,000 for renovations on every property you own."

Disapproval from Realtors

Not everyone is excited about the new game, however. "This is disgusting. It makes a mockery of some very real and pressing issues surrounding American society today", says National Association of Realtors guru-in-training Sammy 'Slick' Schmillers, ", issues like why aren't people still out there buying up more homes? For crying out loud, stop wasting your time playing these stupid games, and get back to the business of borrowing more real money and buying more homes for your family! If we've told you once we've told you a million times, prices ain't ever coming down, so what have you got to lose? Get out there and buy, buy, buy!"

But even Schmillers could see a possible silver lining in the release of the game. "After citing journalists, bloggers, and even the weather as reasons for recent housing downturns, we're running a little low on new ideas. I suppose at the very least this game gives us a new outlet for blame."

[Editor - story can also end here]

More Educational Gameplay

Parker Brothers is also keen to point out the educational value attached to the new rules. "The original was always meant to teach children and families about the value of saving money to buy real estate, but how useful is that today? Now, children playing will be forced to learn about concepts much more applicable to modern American life, like escalating interest rates, frenzied investing, liar loans, and how to file for chapter 11. And if we're really lucky, maybe the kids will teach mom and dad what that's all about, too."

A more subtle change from the original gameplay is the concept of who owns what. Just like Americans today, players in Subprime Monopoly don't end the game as property owners. Whereas in the original game, players owned properties with homes, players of the new version only own massive debt backed by overvalued assets, and so in fact the Monopoly bank owns the players.
 
2012-12-19 03:26:42 PM
This is a spoof.

There is however a real board game that does actually exist and uses this exact idea. It was released in the 80s but was released again... "Obozo's America".
 
2012-12-19 03:32:11 PM

randomjsa: This is a spoof.

There is however a real board game that does actually exist and uses this exact idea. It was released in the 80s but was released again... "Obozo's America".


Weird that they'd release something with a derivative of Obama's name in the 80's.
/Oh wait you're lying again.
//Or just fail at sentence construction.
 
2012-12-19 03:46:05 PM
Does a free phone come with the game and can I use my Link card to pay for it?

If so, these things will sell like hot cakes
 
2012-12-19 03:54:16 PM

CapeFearCadaver: HindiDiscoMonster: oh who knows.... I think he needs the Monopoly game from the other thread.


Did you forget where you are, again?



i think i did... wait... what was the question?
 
2012-12-19 03:55:35 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: You said "entitlements" when what you meant was "people who actually have to work (and do a good job) for a living instead of farking everything up royally and then waiting to collect their hefty bonus."
 
But if it makes you feel better to think that I might be jealous of the fact that you'll be one of the first up against the wall, go with it.


No, he had it right the first time. Mad?
 
2012-12-19 03:59:18 PM

vpb: I can't see the video.  Do they mean entitlements as in Social Security or as in a sense of entitlement from being born rich and well connected?
 
And how about a vulture capitalist edition?  There aren't any bad squares on that one "IRS informant turned you in for your Swiss account, so you have to go for the amnesty" is as bad as it gets.


Monopoly version of Lucky Ducky's life
 
2012-12-19 04:01:55 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.

You have fundamentally misunderstood both the practical roots of democracy, its philosophical justifications, and the sorts of actions it implies. Try again.


But shouldn't "no taxation without representation" work the other way as well? Ugh, who am I kidding. This is Fark. Haven for butthurt, pompous liberals.
 
2012-12-19 04:04:23 PM

TerminalEchoes: Holocaust Agnostic: WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.

 
You have fundamentally misunderstood both the practical roots of democracy, its philosophical justifications, and the sorts of actions it implies. Try again.
 
But shouldn't "no taxation without representation" work the other way as well? Ugh, who am I kidding. This is Fark. Haven for butthurt, pompous liberals, Republinazis.
 
 
/FTFY... you're welcome.
 
2012-12-19 04:06:22 PM
Why yes, I guess I do feel "entitled" to get the benefits I paid for. Sort of like the bank feels "entitled" to their mortgage payments.
 
2012-12-19 04:11:28 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.
 
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 705x471]
/damn Freeloaders


They got shot at in defense of freedom, not shot at because they insist on living too close to the local crackhouse so they don't have to walk so far. They earned to right to sit on their ass. Have you?
 
2012-12-19 04:13:57 PM

hdhale: HindiDiscoMonster: WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.
 
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 705x471]
/damn Freeloaders

They got shot at in defense of freedom, not shot at because they insist on living too close to the local crackhouse so they don't have to walk so far. They earned to right to sit on their ass. Have you?



wow, another person with a broken snark-o-meter... guess i am gonna have to start buying them by the case...
 
/yes, yes i have btw
 
2012-12-19 04:15:51 PM

ghare: Why yes, I guess I do feel "entitled" to get the benefits I paid for. Sort of like the bank feels "entitled" to their mortgage payments.

 
 
hotdogprofits.com
 
2012-12-19 04:20:26 PM

randomjsa: This is a spoof.

 
There is however a real board game that does actually exist and uses this exact idea. It was released in the 80s but was released again... "Obozo's America".
 
 
Ahhh.  That would explain the dude's 80's mullet.  
 
/ they called, want it back
 
2012-12-19 04:21:23 PM

hdhale: HindiDiscoMonster: WhoopAssWayne: The idea that the Freeloading 47% get an equal vote in this country is just beyond ridiculous. If you make a choice not to contribute to society, then you don't get a vote in that society.
 
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 705x471]
/damn Freeloaders

They got shot at in defense of freedom, not shot at because they insist on living too close to the local crackhouse so they don't have to walk so far. They earned to right to sit on their ass. Have you?


You realize that a lot of the so-called 47% that don't pay income taxes aren't just 'sitting on their ass', even if they aren't Veterans, right?

For instance, I don't pay income tax. I'm going to go check soon if I qualify for food stamps. Guess what I do?

I'm a grad student in physics. Clearly this is a worthless thing for me to do that will in no way benefit the country, and I'm just a worthless moocher since I only make ~1600 a month and don't pay income taxes. Nevermind the fact that I am effectively a nigh-free research drone for the country (as are all grad students), working way more than our supposed '20 hours' a week for pay that is arguably below the poverty line in some areas (since we *must* live close to a campus to be able to, well, be graduate students)

No, we're all just worthless moochers.

/In short, fark off.
 
2012-12-19 04:32:28 PM

mittromneysdog: To me the question isn't "where do the farm owners live." It is "is this subsidy fulfilling a valuable social purpose?" If it is solving the problem, then candidly, I do not care if the beneficiary is an individual "poor" farmer, an agribusiness, or some snooty Manhattanite who draws income from some farm he owns out in the boondocks.


Why should someone wealthy enough to live in Manhattan be receiving a farm subsidy?

When you suggest that the subsidy solves a social problem you should be considerate enough to ensure your solution doesn't cause just as many problems. The subsidies you are so fine with are leading to the destruction of small farms all over the american midwest. This disconnects people from their ownership of the land they farm. Some twat in NY now owns huge tracts of land and can use his "farm subsidies" to make his mega farm so competitive he runs keeps the remaining locals from being able to run their business.

The subsidy that was supposed to help the small farmer keep his farm sustainable isn't helping him nearly as much as it helps the guy who he is competing with who absolutely doesn't need the subsidy.
 
2012-12-19 04:44:23 PM

Tenatra: TheWhoppah: What does the little girl say when she is "just visiting" her father at work?

"Make that cheddar" - slang for cash money


Thanks. I must be old now.
 
2012-12-19 04:58:16 PM

DerpHerder: So being born rich is different then being born with a defect? Like why are football players born with athletic abilities that's not fair!


remember to vote for Handicapper General.
 
2012-12-19 05:01:23 PM

TheWhoppah: Tenatra: TheWhoppah: What does the little girl say when she is "just visiting" her father at work?

"Make that cheddar" - slang for cash money

Thanks. I must be old now.


It seems to have came from the hip hop scene in the 90's, they were probably just trying to portray here as a inner city underprivileged kid when she said that.
 
2012-12-19 05:02:44 PM
here
 
2012-12-19 05:09:23 PM

mittromneysdog: Remember when Florida decided to drug test all their welfare recipients, and the testing program ended up costing more than the little money saved by kicking the tiny fraction of people off of welfare who tested positive?


Um...

"Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them"

Assuming those 40 people who cancelled tests did so because they knew they'd be positive (as opposed to canceling them out of principle), that's 148 out of 4086 applicants who were on drugs, or 3.6%. With a welfare budget of "$13,659.2 million" (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/statelocal_spending_2010FLmn), that means 3.6% = $49,291,200

$50 million isn't chump change.
 
2012-12-19 05:23:40 PM

fredklein: mittromneysdog: Remember when Florida decided to drug test all their welfare recipients, and the testing program ended up costing more than the little money saved by kicking the tiny fraction of people off of welfare who tested positive?

Um...

"Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them"

Assuming those 40 people who cancelled tests did so because they knew they'd be positive (as opposed to canceling them out of principle), that's 148 out of 4086 applicants who were on drugs, or 3.6%. With a welfare budget of "$13,659.2 million" (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/statelocal_spending_2010FLmn), that means 3.6% = $49,291,200

$50 million isn't chump change.


Now if only they could find the ones that sell their food stamps to other people for money.
 
2012-12-19 05:41:10 PM

fredklein: mittromneysdog: Remember when Florida decided to drug test all their welfare recipients, and the testing program ended up costing more than the little money saved by kicking the tiny fraction of people off of welfare who tested positive?

Um...

"Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them"

Assuming those 40 people who cancelled tests did so because they knew they'd be positive (as opposed to canceling them out of principle), that's 148 out of 4086 applicants who were on drugs, or 3.6%. With a welfare budget of "$13,659.2 million" (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/statelocal_spending_2010FLmn), that means 3.6% = $49,291,200

$50 million isn't chump change.


It is when the tests cost you $49,765,394.75 to administer.
 
2012-12-19 05:49:47 PM

SlothB77: This video appears to make fun of the people making fun of the 47%.
 
"$0.90 a day.  Ch-ching!"
 
"Now you get to roll around [in a wheelchair] for the rest of your life.  Lucky."



Poor children in my area are eligible for $37,000 per year in benefits paid for by the public. A single woman with 4 children who works and earns 27,000 per year has a total household annual value of $211,000 by the time you total up the cost of all benefits available. That is NOT to say she has $211,000 in cash to spend, but that much in terms of cash resources are spent on her behalf. Her actual cash in hand would be her income plus about $3500 a month from SSID and SNAP and TANF. Remember this is based on the kids being eligible for all available assistance including education. 
 
Going from broke to a millionaire in a wheelchair is actually a pretty good retirement plan if you have kids. Sign me up. 
 
Displayed 50 of 170 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report