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.

(Salon)   An open letter to Paul Ryan, whose slavish devotion to the cult of Ayn Rand has made him hate the poor who rely on government handouts, which ironically does not include his idol, who was also poor and relied on government handouts   (salon.com) divider line 260
    More: Interesting, Ayn Rand, Toys for Tots, empathy  
•       •       •

2297 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Mar 2014 at 9:37 AM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-11 08:50:14 AM
I thought that was a decent article, but I may be biased.

I have lived and worked with people like every day. Of course, I am one of those people. Funny thing that f**knuggets like Paul Ryan don't seem to grasp, having never lived among us, is that most of us actually abhor the very idea of asking for help. When we finally become so desperate to ask, we often are turned down and humiliated by the person we're forced to deal with. The evangelical strain of protestant Christianity practiced in America is as often hurtful and hateful as it is helpful, and IMHO is very complicit in the shaming of our most vulnerable. In spite of what people who blithely write off the needy as a moochers think, most of these people just want a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.

/p.s. you will also rarely find a group of people more willing to give you a hand if you need it
//anecdotal rant off
 
2014-03-11 09:20:56 AM
I'm really lucky to not be one of the people in the article.  I should be, I worked in hotels at the front desk for years, and without family help I wouldn't have been able to afford a car to drive to work in or the insurance that eventually saved my life.

I'm not in that situation now, though no real work of my own but falling in with a much more well off crowd.  And sometimes it's insanely frustrating trying to tell them what it is like for people waitressing or working at Subway or cleaning their hotel rooms.  They just don't understand, not because they don't want to, but because they can't.  It just doesn't fit in their minds.
 
2014-03-11 09:36:23 AM
which ironically does not include his idol, who was also poor and relied on government handouts

This argument again.  So easy to shoot this one down.

Yes, you can be dependent on government handouts while simultaneously be against government handouts and not be a hypocrite?  How?  Simple.

When government gives you no other choice.  When government is so huge and so powerful and designs economic, tax and regulatory incentives in such a way that it funnels people who ordinarily would not take government handouts into taking government handouts as the best option available.

For example, the Obamacare subsidies.  For people at specific income levels, for every extra dollar of income they earn, they lose a dollar in health care subsidies.  So, they hit a work-incentive ceiling.  For every extra hour they work above that ceiling they gain nothing, as every extra dollar they earn is negated by a dollar in lost health care subsidies.  Given the choice to work extra hours for nothing or stop working once they hit the ceiling and depend on government handouts (read: health care subsidies), they are heavily incentivized towards the latter.  That is how the system is designed.  It would be foolish to not take the handouts.  Lobbying the government to change the underlying system to not incentivize working less does not make them hypocrites.  But within the system that does currently exist, their best option is to take the handouts.  They would prefer a system where they were not so heavily incentivized to take the handouts.
 
2014-03-11 09:41:45 AM
Or himself, who received survivor benefits between the ages of 16 and 18 after his father passed away.
 
2014-03-11 09:45:33 AM
If Paul Ryan was a sandwich he would be two slices of retardation with a mayo made of shamelessness, a  cutlet of idiocy, deep fried of course, and a slice of dumbass topped with shavings of an aged turd, all packaged in a douchebag for freshness.
 
2014-03-11 09:45:34 AM
Ayn Rand would have hated Paul Ryan. Of course, she hated everyone, so it doesn't mean much, but she would have considered him a taker.
 
2014-03-11 09:48:05 AM
I wanted to say something snotty about Ryan's stupid old-man face. But the story about the woman trying to get dental care kinda made me cry. We should be able to fix this.
 
2014-03-11 09:49:00 AM
Hey, there's another person who's relied on government handouts his whole life...PAUL Freakin' RYAN!
 
2014-03-11 09:49:07 AM

SlothB77: which ironically does not include his idol, who was also poor and relied on government handouts

This argument again.  So easy to shoot this one down.

Yes, you can be dependent on government handouts while simultaneously be against government handouts and not be a hypocrite?  How?  Simple.

When government gives you no other choice.  When government is so huge and so powerful and designs economic, tax and regulatory incentives in such a way that it funnels people who ordinarily would not take government handouts into taking government handouts as the best option available.

For example, the Obamacare subsidies.  For people at specific income levels, for every extra dollar of income they earn, they lose a dollar in health care subsidies.  So, they hit a work-incentive ceiling.  For every extra hour they work above that ceiling they gain nothing, as every extra dollar they earn is negated by a dollar in lost health care subsidies.  Given the choice to work extra hours for nothing or stop working once they hit the ceiling and depend on government handouts (read: health care subsidies), they are heavily incentivized towards the latter.  That is how the system is designed.  It would be foolish to not take the handouts.  Lobbying the government to change the underlying system to not incentivize working less does not make them hypocrites.  But within the system that does currently exist, their best option is to take the handouts.  They would prefer a system where they were not so heavily incentivized to take the handouts.


This. Jesus Christ. Nobody was a hypocrite for cashing the $300 checks Bush foolishly mailed out as a political stunt, even though half of us were critical of them.

If the government is offering handouts that you have or will have to pay for via taxes, you'd be an idiot to turn it down on principle.
 
2014-03-11 09:49:28 AM

SlothB77: which ironically does not include his idol, who was also poor and relied on government handouts

This argument again.  So easy to shoot this one down.

Yes, you can be dependent on government handouts while simultaneously be against government handouts and not be a hypocrite?  How?  Simple.

When government gives you no other choice.  When government is so huge and so powerful and designs economic, tax and regulatory incentives in such a way that it funnels people who ordinarily would not take government handouts into taking government handouts as the best option available.

For example, the Obamacare subsidies.  For people at specific income levels, for every extra dollar of income they earn, they lose a dollar in health care subsidies.  So, they hit a work-incentive ceiling.  For every extra hour they work above that ceiling they gain nothing, as every extra dollar they earn is negated by a dollar in lost health care subsidies.  Given the choice to work extra hours for nothing or stop working once they hit the ceiling and depend on government handouts (read: health care subsidies), they are heavily incentivized towards the latter.  That is how the system is designed.  It would be foolish to not take the handouts.  Lobbying the government to change the underlying system to not incentivize working less does not make them hypocrites.  But within the system that does currently exist, their best option is to take the handouts.  They would prefer a system where they were not so heavily incentivized to take the handouts.


It could be all those bullsh*t mental gymnastics you went through to defend this, or these people are just hypocrites. It could be that.
 
2014-03-11 09:49:58 AM

Headso: If Paul Ryan was a sandwich he would be two slices of retardation with a mayo made of shamelessness, a  cutlet of idiocy, deep fried of course, and a slice of dumbass topped with shavings of an aged turd, all packaged in a douchebag for freshness.


If Paul Ryan was an ice cream flavor, he would be pralines and dick.
 
2014-03-11 09:50:27 AM
"If all McDonald's workers are in high school, why can I get Big Mac at lunch? Can't explain that!"
 
2014-03-11 09:55:38 AM
The government paid for that hat and those funny cigarettes? Sweet.

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-11 09:56:54 AM
now we get repeat headlines to different articles?
 
2014-03-11 09:56:57 AM

SlothB77: which ironically does not include his idol, who was also poor and relied on government handouts

This argument again.  So easy to shoot this one down.

Yes, you can be dependent on government handouts while simultaneously be against government handouts and not be a hypocrite?  How?  Simple.

When government gives you no other choice.  When government is so huge and so powerful and designs economic, tax and regulatory incentives in such a way that it funnels people who ordinarily would not take government handouts into taking government handouts as the best option available.

For example, the Obamacare subsidies.  For people at specific income levels, for every extra dollar of income they earn, they lose a dollar in health care subsidies.  So, they hit a work-incentive ceiling.  For every extra hour they work above that ceiling they gain nothing, as every extra dollar they earn is negated by a dollar in lost health care subsidies.  Given the choice to work extra hours for nothing or stop working once they hit the ceiling and depend on government handouts (read: health care subsidies), they are heavily incentivized towards the latter.  That is how the system is designed.  It would be foolish to not take the handouts.  Lobbying the government to change the underlying system to not incentivize working less does not make them hypocrites.  But within the system that does currently exist, their best option is to take the handouts.  They would prefer a system where they were not so heavily incentivized to take the handouts.


Is torture legal on Fark?  Because that argument is screaming for mercy.
 
2014-03-11 09:58:30 AM

BitwiseShift: The government paid for that hat and those funny cigarettes? Sweet.

[img.fark.net image 235x215]


the part of that picture that is cropped out shows her driving one of those little go carts in a parade.
 
2014-03-11 09:58:56 AM

SlothB77: which ironically does not include his idol, who was also poor and relied on government handouts

This argument again.  So easy to shoot this one down.

Yes, you can be dependent on government handouts while simultaneously be against government handouts and not be a hypocrite?  How?  Simple.

When government gives you no other choice.  When government is so huge and so powerful and designs economic, tax and regulatory incentives in such a way that it funnels people who ordinarily would not take government handouts into taking government handouts as the best option available.

For example, the Obamacare subsidies.  For people at specific income levels, for every extra dollar of income they earn, they lose a dollar in health care subsidies.  So, they hit a work-incentive ceiling.  For every extra hour they work above that ceiling they gain nothing, as every extra dollar they earn is negated by a dollar in lost health care subsidies.  Given the choice to work extra hours for nothing or stop working once they hit the ceiling and depend on government handouts (read: health care subsidies), they are heavily incentivized towards the latter.  That is how the system is designed.  It would be foolish to not take the handouts.  Lobbying the government to change the underlying system to not incentivize working less does not make them hypocrites.  But within the system that does currently exist, their best option is to take the handouts.  They would prefer a system where they were not so heavily incentivized to take the handouts.


s2.postimg.org

s27.postimg.org
 
2014-03-11 10:00:50 AM
I didnt know paul ryan was a dickhead dentist in his spare time.
 
2014-03-11 10:01:52 AM
Alas, this missive will fall upon deaf ears. If Paul Ryan could even be bothered to read it his response would be either "meh, so what?" Or "more tax cuts for the rich oughta fixer."

/good article, tho.
//it was repeatedly crashing Safari on my mobile. That's some great web developing there, Lou.
 
2014-03-11 10:03:40 AM

SlothB77: which ironically does not include his idol, who was also poor and relied on government handouts

This argument again.  So easy to shoot this one down.

Yes, you can be dependent on government handouts while simultaneously be against government handouts and not be a hypocrite?  How?  Simple.

When government gives you no other choice.  When government is so huge and so powerful and designs economic, tax and regulatory incentives in such a way that it funnels people who ordinarily would not take government handouts into taking government handouts as the best option available.

For example, the Obamacare subsidies.  For people at specific income levels, for every extra dollar of income they earn, they lose a dollar in health care subsidies.  So, they hit a work-incentive ceiling.  For every extra hour they work above that ceiling they gain nothing, as every extra dollar they earn is negated by a dollar in lost health care subsidies.  Given the choice to work extra hours for nothing or stop working once they hit the ceiling and depend on government handouts (read: health care subsidies), they are heavily incentivized towards the latter.  That is how the system is designed.  It would be foolish to not take the handouts.  Lobbying the government to change the underlying system to not incentivize working less does not make them hypocrites.  But within the system that does currently exist, their best option is to take the handouts.  They would prefer a system where they were not so heavily incentivized to take the handouts.


The hypocrisy is in claiming to be an island while ignoring the huge leg-up from external sources that you enjoyed to have your current position in our society.  The hypocrisy is not the mere fact that someone is lobbying the government, it's in the Ayn Rand "objectivist" mindset itself.

She was a crappy, two-bit philosopher in her time, and nothing has changed.  It's sad that a number of people nowadays (who are primarily men from relatively well-off, middle class or upper class white families) seem to find her "it's ok to be a selfish douchebag" philosophy so appealing.
 
2014-03-11 10:04:41 AM
I had forgotten till I saw the clips of his CPAC speech, but this Paul Ryan guy really gets on my farking nerves.  More so than Rand Paul, who is one of the smarmiest "I got mine" shiatbirds our there.  So he supposedly got his help when his Dad passed... but can he exhibit any kind of gratitude?  Nope, he grows up to believe it is wrong for the government to force individuals to participate in helping others through the evil of taxation.
 
2014-03-11 10:06:00 AM
It's about following the Idea of someone. Not the actual Ayn Rand, Reagan or Jesus, but the ideal idea and abstract personification of those people. The mythical, mythological, incorporeal beings that embody the ideals of free market corporatism, anti taxation and bootstrapping rather than helping.

Not the fallible, often hypocritical, and most importantly, criticize-able fleshy human things.
 
2014-03-11 10:07:28 AM
...And here come the Ayn Rand assholes to defend their hypocritical hero.
 
2014-03-11 10:08:01 AM
"Open Letter to Paul Ryan" is just a provocative title.  The article is no less worth reading for it, but with that title it will probably be avoided by the people who most need to see it.
 
2014-03-11 10:08:18 AM

SlothB77: But within the system that does currently exist, their best option is to take the handouts. They would prefer a system where they were not so heavily incentivized to take the handouts.


The ONLY thing that incentivizes reliance upon the social safety net is A MOTHERfarkING LACK OF LIVING WAGE JOBS you freaking morons!
 
2014-03-11 10:12:42 AM

tomcatadam: It's about following the Idea of someone. Not the actual Ayn Rand, Reagan or Jesus, but the ideal idea and abstract personification of those people. The mythical, mythological, incorporeal beings that embody the ideals of free market corporatism, anti taxation and bootstrapping rather than helping.

Not the fallible, often hypocritical, and most importantly, criticize-able fleshy human things.



Yes- "I got mine" libertarianism is all about following  ideas, regardless of the actual consequences that we  know will result.

So for example, social security bad because government bad.  Ok, if that's your view, fine.  But you can't ignore the objective reality that if we do away with social security, poverty rates among senior citizens will skyrocket.  There's a good reason why Libertarians always want to talk about abstract ideas, and always tend to avoid discussing the real world consequences of implementing libertarian policies.
 
2014-03-11 10:12:43 AM

colon_pow: I didnt know paul ryan was a dickhead dentist in his spare time.


No. At least one of his supporters is a dickhead dentist.
 
2014-03-11 10:13:13 AM

X-boxershorts: SlothB77: But within the system that does currently exist, their best option is to take the handouts. They would prefer a system where they were not so heavily incentivized to take the handouts.

The ONLY thing that incentivizes reliance upon the social safety net is A MOTHERfarkING LACK OF LIVING WAGE JOBS you freaking morons!


No there is a lack of living wage jobs because the safety net keeps people from putting upward pressure on wages.
 
2014-03-11 10:13:51 AM

Jaymark108: "Open Letter to Paul Ryan" is just a provocative title.  The article is no less worth reading for it, but with that title it will probably be avoided by the people who most need to see it.



Yeah but the people who most need to see it wouldn't be visiting Salon in the first place.
 
2014-03-11 10:15:50 AM

Chummer45: It's sad that a number of people nowadays (who are primarily men from relatively well-off, middle class or upper class white families) seem to find her "it's ok to be a selfish douchebag" philosophy so appealing.


It's because Democrats systematically "recruit" minorities to the "handout bandwagon" thus ensuring a stable voting bloc AND increasing support for the welfare state.

Or so says Chris Cantwell (asking "Why Aren't There More Minority Libertarians?" and then answering "Because Democrats lied to them about Libertarianism and also free money"), who doesn't care if his philosophy only attracts middle class and above white men.
 
2014-03-11 10:15:59 AM

X-boxershorts: The ONLY thing that incentivizes reliance upon the social safety net is A MOTHERfarkING LACK OF LIVING WAGE JOBS you freaking morons!


the objectivist opinion is that if government were smaller and got out of the way, there would be a ton of living wage jobs; and the only reason there aren't right now is because government is too big and is getting in the way.

You can agree or disagree with that part, but your guy has been in there for a term and a half - where are the jobs?  He isn't exactly showering the american people with lots of job prospects.  Instead he is bragging about freeing people from 'Job-Lock'.
 
2014-03-11 10:16:49 AM

X-boxershorts: SlothB77: But within the system that does currently exist, their best option is to take the handouts. They would prefer a system where they were not so heavily incentivized to take the handouts.

The ONLY thing that incentivizes reliance upon the social safety net is A MOTHERfarkING LACK OF LIVING WAGE JOBS you freaking morons!


In their minds, people can only be poor or dependent on Government aid because of their own moral failings or laziness. The world is a black and white place to morons who use a poorly written fiction novel as the basis for the political philosophies.

...And you can't forget the hypocrisy it takes to piss on everyone who receives aid while you also take advantage of said aid. I'm still reminded of the teabagging moron in Boston a few years back who was protesting against welfare while she was also receiving welfare for her litter of children. She realized there was a "dichotomy", but all her children were blessings, you see.
 
2014-03-11 10:18:09 AM

colon_pow: I didnt know paul ryan was a dickhead dentist in his spare time.


Rand Paul created his own dentistry certification board and licensed him.
 
2014-03-11 10:18:32 AM

Saiga410: X-boxershorts: SlothB77: But within the system that does currently exist, their best option is to take the handouts. They would prefer a system where they were not so heavily incentivized to take the handouts.

The ONLY thing that incentivizes reliance upon the social safety net is A MOTHERfarkING LACK OF LIVING WAGE JOBS you freaking morons!

No there is a lack of living wage jobs because the safety net keeps people from putting upward pressure on wages.



So you're saying that if we cut welfare and other social safety net programs, it will somehow force companies to agree to increase wages?   You're saying that because of the social safety net, people working menial jobs for minimum wage have no incentive to try and negotiate for better pay?

Your argument is completely farking stupid.  Typically, the only way for a person working at a minimum wage job to get a pay increase is by increasing their bargaining power (typically by unionizing - which conservatives hate), or by the government increasing the minimum wage. The idea that the only reason poor people are staying poor is because government handouts make them too lazy to negotiate a pay raise is completely absurd.
 
2014-03-11 10:19:20 AM

X-boxershorts: SlothB77: But within the system that does currently exist, their best option is to take the handouts. They would prefer a system where they were not so heavily incentivized to take the handouts.

The ONLY thing that incentivizes reliance upon the social safety net is A MOTHERfarkING LACK OF LIVING WAGE JOBS you freaking morons!


But if you stop being lazy, you can have a better paying job, you mooch!
/the typical derp answer
 
2014-03-11 10:19:27 AM

karmaceutical: I had forgotten till I saw the clips of his CPAC speech, but this Paul Ryan guy really gets on my farking nerves.  More so than Rand Paul, who is one of the smarmiest "I got mine" shiatbirds our there.  So he supposedly got his help when his Dad passed... but can he exhibit any kind of gratitude?  Nope, he grows up to believe it is wrong for the government to force individuals to participate in helping others through the evil of taxation.


I have to ask why the GOP is still bothering with this guy.  He's not going to wind up in the executive, and his performance to date has indicated that he's unfit for House or Senate leadership.

First, he's got zero charisma or public speaking ability.  Secondly, he's supposed to be their whiz kid policy and numbers guy, yet Uncle Joe Biden eviscerates him in a debate without even breaking a sweat.  Third, that farking workout photoshoot.

Judging by the Randian lunacy of his CPAC speech, I'm starting to wonder if maybe the GOP is using him as a smokescreen so that they don't have to trot out the tortured ideology of real contenders for '16?
 
2014-03-11 10:20:07 AM

Dr Dreidel: Chummer45: It's sad that a number of people nowadays (who are primarily men from relatively well-off, middle class or upper class white families) seem to find her "it's ok to be a selfish douchebag" philosophy so appealing.

It's because Democrats systematically "recruit" minorities to the "handout bandwagon" thus ensuring a stable voting bloc AND increasing support for the welfare state.

Or so says Chris Cantwell (asking "Why Aren't There More Minority Libertarians?" and then answering "Because Democrats lied to them about Libertarianism and also free money"), who doesn't care if his philosophy only attracts middle class and above white men.



Those arguments are always great - that the only reason why poor people and minorities don't vote republican (or aren't libertarian) is because they're too dumb to realize what's really in their best interests.
 
2014-03-11 10:20:40 AM

keylock71: I'm still reminded of the teabagging moron in Boston a few years back who was protesting against welfare while she was also receiving welfare for her litter of children.


This piece spoke quite a bit about sthe haming recipients of assistance, like you just did.
 
2014-03-11 10:20:49 AM

Saiga410: No there is a lack of living wage jobs because the safety net keeps people from putting upward pressure on wages.


Yup it's a global problem.  Look at the standard of living in countries that have a social safety net...

Ooops, nope, you're full of shiat again.  Sorry.
 
2014-03-11 10:21:17 AM

s2s2s2: Ayn Rand would have hated Paul Ryan. Of course, she hated everyone, so it doesn't mean much, but she would have considered him a taker.


She would probably have still boinked him, and dared her husband to say anything about it.
 
2014-03-11 10:21:31 AM

SlothB77: X-boxershorts: The ONLY thing that incentivizes reliance upon the social safety net is A MOTHERfarkING LACK OF LIVING WAGE JOBS you freaking morons!

the objectivist opinion is that if government were smaller and got out of the way, there would be a ton of living wage jobs; and the only reason there aren't right now is because government is too big and is getting in the way.

You can agree or disagree with that part, but your guy has been in there for a term and a half - where are the jobs?  He isn't exactly showering the american people with lots of job prospects.  Instead he is bragging about freeing people from 'Job-Lock'.


Because a certain subset of moran bought the big Freedumbassworks lie in 2009 and by 2010 they voted the Koch Brothers into control of Congress

Gee, and all this time I thought the prez was a dick tater

I would ask the morans you shill for to make up their farking minds but it's pretty clear, they don't use them
 
2014-03-11 10:21:32 AM

Cletus C.: keylock71: I'm still reminded of the teabagging moron in Boston a few years back who was protesting against welfare while she was also receiving welfare for her litter of children.

This piece spoke quite a bit about sthe haming recipients of assistance, like you just did.


The shaming of recipients. Though haming sounds tasty.
 
2014-03-11 10:22:21 AM

SlothB77: X-boxershorts: The ONLY thing that incentivizes reliance upon the social safety net is A MOTHERfarkING LACK OF LIVING WAGE JOBS you freaking morons!

the objectivist opinion is that if government were smaller and got out of the way, there would be a ton of living wage jobs; and the only reason there aren't right now is because government is too big and is getting in the way.

You can agree or disagree with that part, but your guy has been in there for a term and a half - where are the jobs?  He isn't exactly showering the american people with lots of job prospects.  Instead he is bragging about freeing people from 'Job-Lock'.



The objectivist premise is completely farking stupid.  Do you really think that the free market prioritizes creating high paying jobs for everyone over increasing the profits of investors?  My guess is that you're just being willfully stupid to justify to yourself why you still vote for Republicans.
 
2014-03-11 10:23:46 AM

SlothB77: the objectivist opinion is that if government were smaller and got out of the way, there would be a ton of living wage jobs; and the only reason there aren't right now is because government is too big and is getting in the way.


There's a reason why that's an "Objectivist opinion" and not  theory posited by respected econimists.

/Pro-tip:  Because it's fantastical class war bullshiat.
 
2014-03-11 10:23:53 AM

Saiga410: No there is a lack of living wage jobs because the safety net keeps people from putting upward pressure on wages.


"Upward pressure on wages"? Like perhaps mandating a minimum wage that can actually lift a person (or, god forbid, a whole family) out of poverty? Like allowing unions - even public ones - to lobby for better pay and benefits in addition to better working conditions and even (Debs forbid) a consistent share of the profits? Like mandating employers fill in the gendered wage gap (whether it's 27 cents or 2.7 cents, higher wages is higher wages)?

Funny how every time people try to collectively press wages upward, there is an unequal and dominant reaction by...interested parties to demonize and defeat any such attempts. And if you think individuals are going to press wages upward through gumption and pluck, I have all of human history on the line to tell you that's not a smart plan.

And then the moralizing can return: "So why DON'T you have money, hippie? OBVIOUSLY you're just not working hard enough."
 
2014-03-11 10:23:53 AM

Chummer45: So you're saying that if we cut welfare and other social safety net programs, it will somehow force companies to agree to increase wages?


Which they will totally do because reasons.
 
2014-03-11 10:25:15 AM

Bareefer Obonghit: It could be all those bullsh*t mental gymnastics you went through to defend this, or these people are just hypocrites. It could be that.


Pragmatically speaking, you might disagree with the current system in place.  But people are still gonna try to squeeze every inch and every penny out of whatever the current system is in place to get it over/ keep up with the other guy.

The country might be a bankrupt, unsustainable welfare state.  And people may disagree with that and prefer it wasn't.  But people are gonna still try to get every handout and subsidy coming to them, funded by the taxes they paid, even if it accelerates the crumbling of the welfare state, rather than stand on principle and watch as their neighbors collect them instead.

Sometimes I feel that the faster the welfare state crumbles, the faster people learn/ realize/ wake up to the inherit failures of such a system.  Let it fail so people learn their lesson, the faster it fails, the sooner people learn it doesn't work.  All the while explaining to them exactly why it is failing and why it isn't working.
 
2014-03-11 10:26:36 AM
It's almost as if the idea that social programs are so comforting that there is no incentive to work is total and utter bullshiat. Who'da thunk it?
 
2014-03-11 10:27:15 AM

ox45tallboy: She would probably have still boinked him, and dared her husband to say anything about it.


I wonder what she would have charged.
 
2014-03-11 10:27:25 AM
I'm wondering how many Americans would have to die in poverty or suffer from treatable diseases because they lack health care, before this "upward pressure on wages" would kick in. And what exactly would that pressure look like?
 
Displayed 50 of 260 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report