$168 Per Day

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby Symmetry on Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:42 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:Problem is that governments are the least efficient method of doing things, other than becoming larger. You get twice as much bang for your buck by just leaving it on the road than you do for any government redistribution.


Yes, but if no one is doing anything about the problem, an inefficient solution is better than no solution. That is the main problem with the consistently anti-government responses. Sure, it's fine to champion "efficient" methods of problem solving, but that's only relevant if you're actually out there pushing for those things to happen in the private sector. None of these people do.


I do, but I guess that's beside the point.


Ok, well then I applaud your efforts, but there's a disturbing conflict among many small government advocates. I understand why one might rail against constant big government expansion, but if we all agree on what the goals are, then it's better to have a solution than not have one. For example, let's say we can all agree that poverty is a bad thing. If we think that we have some obligation to stop bad things from happening (and I think that we do), then we are all obligated to pitch in, to the extent that we can. If private charity could get the job done, and prevent it from recurring, then I would be for that solution (but it would require a nationwide effort). But of course, doing so requires a significant time investment by those involved, because you have to set up an entire infrastructure for monitoring conditions to ensure that poverty is not still happening. We already have an entity that does this monitoring -- the government -- and it's no surprise that there's only a limited amount of resources in the private sector for doing this, because private sector work in this area can only run on donations since there is not a whole of money to be made in ending poverty (actually, this is not so true if a legitimate loan system is established, and this can be seen in the microloan systems used in developing nations). But there's not enough private donations to end poverty. So if you are a small-government conservative, you are stuck between a rock and a hard place; you can either admit that poverty is bad but recognize that nothing is going to change it because people don't donate enough, or you can advocate the one reasonable solution we have (let the government infrastructure that already exists, help solve this problem), at the expense of threatening a government expansion that you do not want. I sympathize with the position that such people are in, as I am not really someone that has a stance on how much influence the government should have. I am a consequentialist and I think that it is more important to actually solve the problem, rather than not solve the problem and have a more ideal (limited) system of government. The best society is one where bad things do not happen, and we are foolish to avoid using any tools we can to stop bad things from happening.

I should point out again that this conclusion rests on the assumption that we have a moral obligation to prevent things like poverty. If you agree with that, then you should be willing to contribute what you can to solve such problems, but if you don't, then obviously you might feel something akin to being stolen from if you are taxed to solve this problem. But I think that anyone who doesn't think poverty is bad enough to compel action would be a rather unpleasant sort of person.


Agreed, but there is a well-established way of avoiding that moral obligation for people who really don't want to deal with the problem of poverty. Make poverty itself a moral crime. Call the poor feckless, lazy, ignorant and inherently criminal. It's one of those pervasive 19th century ideas that equates poverty with mental illness and criminality.

It's an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:45 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:
patches70 wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:You attack anything specific about what I say and I will destroy your arguments with the wrath of an angry god and make you appear to be a drooling retard barely capable of clickety-clicking your keyboard into sentences that have structural form.




I don't care about your class warfare rhetoric. All you are doing is attempting to throw down one set of elites and replace them with another set of elites. And you don't even identify the right problem. The CEO pay is but a consequence of the debt based currency.

""If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered".- Jefferson

Considering what you are railing against, you might want to reread that Jefferson quote a few more times until it finally sinks in.

You're like a doctor giving the flu patient a tissue instead of fighting the very virus that is causing the sickness.


These analogies are old, son.
Jefferson is the most two-faced president we had until the mid 1800s.
Philosophically, he was also wrong quite a bit of the time. In fact, so far, that quotation has been wrong. Let that sink in. But! If I were you, I'd let the wisdom of John Adams sink in a little bit deeper than Jefferson's. If Jefferson had his way, America would have been a French puppet State. True Fact. I'd be stupid to listen to just Jefferson on any subject.


Funkyterrance wrote:Ok, let's look at it from this perspective:
Do you personally buy any products/services from corporate owned companies? Isn't it really consumer buying habits then that are to blame? If nobody bought products/services from corporate owned enterprises there would be no big fat CEO's grubbing all the profits. The low prices gained by the corporate structure are what's attractive to people but then they don't like the consequences of their support. Why is it so easily forgotten that the two things are connected?


Or I could take a knife and go kill the sons-of-bitches like Mary Harris Jones said?! Just because it's an option doesn't make it a good one.
There's no question of who to support anymore. People who make $19K a year don't have any options for where to shop. And in my community, we have Wal*mart, JCP, Walgrens, CVS, F&F, Shop*Ko, Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Cub Foods, Sullivan's Grocery, and Menard's. That's it for 45 miles. All big-chain stores. Our beloved Kmart will be closed by January.

The low prices argument is bullshit. Just because a company has low prices does not mean they get low prices by ripping off their employees and giving the money to the CEO. Like Hostess did. The two things were 'not connected' until recently. That's what's so easily forgotten. Union power peaked in 1970, and this out-of-control CEO pay sh*t didn't start until around '78. And that's not a coincidence. The system didn't work like this until now, and these assholes don't have to continue making more money than God for our country to function. They don't earn this, the workers are the ones who create the wealth.

Example:
Image
this is how it should work.


James Sinegal recent campaign donations (he's given $108,000 of soft money and $162,900 of contributions, mostly to Democrats):

August 16, 2012 - $100,000 to Priorities USA Action PAC (PAC for Obama)
December 31, 2010 - $2,400 to Maria Cantwell (Democrat)
October 26, 2011 - $2,400 t Maria Cantwell (Democrat)
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:48 pm

Symmetry wrote:Agreed, but there is a well-established way of avoiding that moral obligation for people who really don't want to deal with the problem of poverty. Make poverty itself a moral crime. Call the poor feckless, lazy, ignorant and inherently criminal. It's one of those pervasive 19th century ideas that equates poverty with mental illness and criminality.

It's an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard.


The 20th and 21st century view is that the government can take care of those people, which is also an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard or actually solve the inherent problems.

Does your public school suck? Let's just throw another $2 million at it like we did every year for the past 30 years.
Out of work? Let's just keep you on unemployment for a year or more.
Underemployed? Let's just make sure you get enough food stamps and welfare checks to keep you there.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:05 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Agreed, but there is a well-established way of avoiding that moral obligation for people who really don't want to deal with the problem of poverty. Make poverty itself a moral crime. Call the poor feckless, lazy, ignorant and inherently criminal. It's one of those pervasive 19th century ideas that equates poverty with mental illness and criminality.

It's an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard.


The 20th and 21st century view is that the government can take care of those people, which is also an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard or actually solve the inherent problems.

Does your public school suck? Let's just throw another $2 million at it like we did every year for the past 30 years.
Out of work? Let's just keep you on unemployment for a year or more.
Underemployed? Let's just make sure you get enough food stamps and welfare checks to keep you there.

I see, becuase its now the government's job to create jobs, not just to provide a safety net.

What ever happened to your lauded free market that was to solve everything completely on its own.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby Funkyterrance on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:18 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:Ok, let's look at it from this perspective:
Do you personally buy any products/services from corporate owned companies? Isn't it really consumer buying habits then that are to blame? If nobody bought products/services from corporate owned enterprises there would be no big fat CEO's grubbing all the profits. The low prices gained by the corporate structure are what's attractive to people but then they don't like the consequences of their support. Why is it so easily forgotten that the two things are connected?


Or I could take a knife and go kill the sons-of-bitches like Mary Harris Jones said?! Just because it's an option doesn't make it a good one.
There's no question of who to support anymore. People who make $19K a year don't have any options for where to shop. And in my community, we have Wal*mart, JCP, Walgrens, CVS, F&F, Shop*Ko, Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Cub Foods, Sullivan's Grocery, and Menard's. That's it for 45 miles. All big-chain stores. Our beloved Kmart will be closed by January.

The low prices argument is bullshit. Just because a company has low prices does not mean they get low prices by ripping off their employees and giving the money to the CEO. Like Hostess did. The two things were 'not connected' until recently. That's what's so easily forgotten. Union power peaked in 1970, and this out-of-control CEO pay sh*t didn't start until around '78. And that's not a coincidence. The system didn't work like this until now, and these assholes don't have to continue making more money than God for our country to function. They don't earn this, the workers are the ones who create the wealth.


I'm not disagreeing that the workers create the wealth, that's pretty obvious.
So let's take your example of your options within 50 miles: Do you happen to know which of these corporate owned chains are better to their employees? Does this affect where you shop or do you generally go where it's most convenient at the time/slightly cheaper? Everyone has options in an open market, it's just "too hard" to make an effort one way or another. So you save $5 choosing one place over another, even on a $20k salary this doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
My point is that we Americans are very good at pointing out what's wrong but terrible at adjusting our habits in an effort to make things better. Armchair politicians can spout all they want but until they actually reflect their beliefs in their own consumer choices they can keep it to themselves as far as I am concerned.
Last edited by Funkyterrance on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 1973
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (1)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby Symmetry on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:18 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Agreed, but there is a well-established way of avoiding that moral obligation for people who really don't want to deal with the problem of poverty. Make poverty itself a moral crime. Call the poor feckless, lazy, ignorant and inherently criminal. It's one of those pervasive 19th century ideas that equates poverty with mental illness and criminality.

It's an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard.


The 20th and 21st century view is that the government can take care of those people, which is also an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard or actually solve the inherent problems.

Does your public school suck? Let's just throw another $2 million at it like we did every year for the past 30 years.
Out of work? Let's just keep you on unemployment for a year or more.
Underemployed? Let's just make sure you get enough food stamps and welfare checks to keep you there.


Ah, all those magic jobs out there in a recession. What a shame that people are just too lazy to work. I'm totally with you on this. The Great Depression too. Just a load of bums who didn't want to get a job. Dust bowl? Try paying your water bills.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:39 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Agreed, but there is a well-established way of avoiding that moral obligation for people who really don't want to deal with the problem of poverty. Make poverty itself a moral crime. Call the poor feckless, lazy, ignorant and inherently criminal. It's one of those pervasive 19th century ideas that equates poverty with mental illness and criminality.

It's an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard.


The 20th and 21st century view is that the government can take care of those people, which is also an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard or actually solve the inherent problems.

Does your public school suck? Let's just throw another $2 million at it like we did every year for the past 30 years.
Out of work? Let's just keep you on unemployment for a year or more.
Underemployed? Let's just make sure you get enough food stamps and welfare checks to keep you there.

I see, becuase its now the government's job to create jobs, not just to provide a safety net.

What ever happened to your lauded free market that was to solve everything completely on its own.


What? No seriously, what are you saying?

The government's job is not to create jobs. The government can provide a safety net. But there is providing a safety net, and then there's what the government does now, which is perpetuate the state that people find themselves in. It seems clear, at least to me, if we just take public schools, as an example. Public schools in the United States get more money per student, by far, than any other public school system in the world, yet we have very poor schools for the most part. I certainly don't have a solution to that problem, but I do know that the solution should not be making the per student amount higher when throwing more money at the problem has not worked the 2,000 other times we've done it. But I don't see anyone proposing anything other than throwing more money at the problem. Why?

I'm also not a 100% free market person, as you well know. What I am in favor of is limiting the government's control over things, especially when the things it does are abject failures in nearly every way.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:42 pm

Symmetry wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Agreed, but there is a well-established way of avoiding that moral obligation for people who really don't want to deal with the problem of poverty. Make poverty itself a moral crime. Call the poor feckless, lazy, ignorant and inherently criminal. It's one of those pervasive 19th century ideas that equates poverty with mental illness and criminality.

It's an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard.


The 20th and 21st century view is that the government can take care of those people, which is also an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard or actually solve the inherent problems.

Does your public school suck? Let's just throw another $2 million at it like we did every year for the past 30 years.
Out of work? Let's just keep you on unemployment for a year or more.
Underemployed? Let's just make sure you get enough food stamps and welfare checks to keep you there.


Ah, all those magic jobs out there in a recession. What a shame that people are just too lazy to work. I'm totally with you on this. The Great Depression too. Just a load of bums who didn't want to get a job. Dust bowl? Try paying your water bills.


Woah there killer. Jumping the gun aren't we?

I guess my question to you would be this:

(1) How much more money, incrementally, has been spent on public education from 1960 to 2012? How much have the US public schools improved?

(2) How much money is spent on unemployment benefits? How many people have gotten jobs at the end or towards the end of their unemployment run?

(3) How much money is spent on welfare? How many people who have been on welfare have been able to get themselves out of welfare?

And throw in this one as well - What leads you to believe that the people who write and administer these laws are interested in anything other than their own self-preservation, power, and wealth? And who do you think ensure that those people will continue to enjoy power and wealth?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby Lootifer on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:46 pm

thegreekdog wrote:The 20th and 21st century view is that the government can take care of those people, which is also an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard or actually solve the inherent problems.

Does your public school suck? Let's just throw another $2 million at it like we did every year for the past 30 years.
Out of work? Let's just keep you on unemployment for a year or more.
Underemployed? Let's just make sure you get enough food stamps and welfare checks to keep you there.

We can land on the moon, we can pull a device from our pocket and communicate with anyone else in the world through any medium we like, we can buy a car that can accelerate faster than gravity, we can rent an apartment that is over half a kilometre off the ground.

Yet we cant set up a simple and efficient public framework in which to fund improvements to our schooling?

...

.....

.......

Oh thats right we can, in fact theres lots of them all accross the political spectrum, we are just, collectively, too belligerant as a species to ever possibly agree on one.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby Symmetry on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:50 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Agreed, but there is a well-established way of avoiding that moral obligation for people who really don't want to deal with the problem of poverty. Make poverty itself a moral crime. Call the poor feckless, lazy, ignorant and inherently criminal. It's one of those pervasive 19th century ideas that equates poverty with mental illness and criminality.

It's an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard.


The 20th and 21st century view is that the government can take care of those people, which is also an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard or actually solve the inherent problems.

Does your public school suck? Let's just throw another $2 million at it like we did every year for the past 30 years.
Out of work? Let's just keep you on unemployment for a year or more.
Underemployed? Let's just make sure you get enough food stamps and welfare checks to keep you there.


Ah, all those magic jobs out there in a recession. What a shame that people are just too lazy to work. I'm totally with you on this. The Great Depression too. Just a load of bums who didn't want to get a job. Dust bowl? Try paying your water bills.


Woah there killer. Jumping the gun aren't we?

I guess my question to you would be this:

(1) How much more money, incrementally, has been spent on public education from 1960 to 2012? How much have the US public schools improved?

(2) How much money is spent on unemployment benefits? How many people have gotten jobs at the end or towards the end of their unemployment run?

(3) How much money is spent on welfare? How many people who have been on welfare have been able to get themselves out of welfare?

And throw in this one as well - What leads you to believe that the people who write and administer these laws are interested in anything other than their own self-preservation, power, and wealth? And who do you think ensure that those people will continue to enjoy power and wealth?


These are questions that you find much more interesting than me, but I'd be happy to look at your findings and discuss them. Sadly, I'm not going to be doing the legwork for your own vague points. If you have some answers, I'll discuss them with you, but a Lionz style list of vague leading questions is just tiresome. Especially when they're immediately followed by another vague list.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:50 pm

Lootifer wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:The 20th and 21st century view is that the government can take care of those people, which is also an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard or actually solve the inherent problems.

Does your public school suck? Let's just throw another $2 million at it like we did every year for the past 30 years.
Out of work? Let's just keep you on unemployment for a year or more.
Underemployed? Let's just make sure you get enough food stamps and welfare checks to keep you there.

We can land on the moon, we can pull a device from our pocket and communicate with anyone else in the world through any medium we like, we can buy a car that can accelerate faster than gravity, we can rent an apartment that is over half a kilometre off the ground.

Yet we cant set up a simple and efficient public framework in which to fund improvements to our schooling?

...

.....

.......

Oh thats right we can, in fact theres lots of them all accross the political spectrum, we are just, collectively, too belligerant as a species to ever possibly agree on one.


I'm not really talking about funding public schooling. I'm suggesting that there are reasons other than money why public schools are failing and yet the only solution we are provided and pushed towards is increasing the funding. Mostly because, in my jaded view, the people that receive that funding are the ones that are pushing for it.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:52 pm

Symmetry wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Agreed, but there is a well-established way of avoiding that moral obligation for people who really don't want to deal with the problem of poverty. Make poverty itself a moral crime. Call the poor feckless, lazy, ignorant and inherently criminal. It's one of those pervasive 19th century ideas that equates poverty with mental illness and criminality.

It's an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard.


The 20th and 21st century view is that the government can take care of those people, which is also an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard or actually solve the inherent problems.

Does your public school suck? Let's just throw another $2 million at it like we did every year for the past 30 years.
Out of work? Let's just keep you on unemployment for a year or more.
Underemployed? Let's just make sure you get enough food stamps and welfare checks to keep you there.


Ah, all those magic jobs out there in a recession. What a shame that people are just too lazy to work. I'm totally with you on this. The Great Depression too. Just a load of bums who didn't want to get a job. Dust bowl? Try paying your water bills.


Woah there killer. Jumping the gun aren't we?

I guess my question to you would be this:

(1) How much more money, incrementally, has been spent on public education from 1960 to 2012? How much have the US public schools improved?

(2) How much money is spent on unemployment benefits? How many people have gotten jobs at the end or towards the end of their unemployment run?

(3) How much money is spent on welfare? How many people who have been on welfare have been able to get themselves out of welfare?

And throw in this one as well - What leads you to believe that the people who write and administer these laws are interested in anything other than their own self-preservation, power, and wealth? And who do you think ensure that those people will continue to enjoy power and wealth?


These are questions that you find much more interesting than me, but I'd be happy to look at your findings and discuss them. Sadly, I'm not going to be doing the legwork for your own vague points. If you have some answers, I'll discuss them with you, but a Lionz style list of vague leading questions is just tiresome. Especially when they're immediately followed by another vague list.


Oh yeah, I forgot. You're doing this thing where you post an ad hominem rant and then bob and weave.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby Lootifer on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:59 pm

thegreekdog wrote:(1) How much more money, incrementally, has been spent on public education from 1960 to 2012? How much have the US public schools improved?

I take your rhetorical and come back with:
a) How much more time did children spend with at least one parent in the 1960's compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
b) How much has the nutritional value of our diets decreased from 1960's compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
c) How much more outdoor exercise did children in the 1960's do compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
d) How much have cultural behaviour standards decreased from 1960 to 2012 due to the impact of pop culture? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
e-h) All the "this country has gone to the dogs" rhetoric that conservatives blame for todays sorry state (e.g. elimination of corpereal punishment, decrease of religion etc). how has these changes affected in-class behaviour?
i) How has the location of supportive extended family changed since 1960? (i.e. are we more dispersed geographically now?) how has this affected behaviour?

Should I go on? I reckon I still have a few more in me.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby Lootifer on Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:00 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I'm not really talking about funding public schooling. I'm suggesting that there are reasons other than money why public schools are failing and yet the only solution we are provided and pushed towards is increasing the funding. Mostly because, in my jaded view, the people that receive that funding are the ones that are pushing for it.

I'd completely agree with that, though I usually do :P

(in fact its pretty much the same point as I was making with my rhetorical question post lol)
Last edited by Lootifer on Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby AndyDufresne on Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:00 pm

And now, for something almost entirely different, but still on topic, from Futurama:




--Andy
User avatar
Corporal AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25698
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:02 pm

Lootifer wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(1) How much more money, incrementally, has been spent on public education from 1960 to 2012? How much have the US public schools improved?

I take your rhetorical and come back with:
a) How much more time did children spend with at least one parent in the 1960's compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
b) How much has the nutritional value of our diets decreased from 1960's compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
c) How much more outdoor exercise did children in the 1960's do compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
d) How much have cultural behaviour standards decreased from 1960 to 2012 due to the impact of pop culture? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
e-h) All the "this country has gone to the dogs" rhetoric that conservatives blame for todays sorry state (e.g. elimination of corpereal punishment, decrease of religion etc). how has these changes affected in-class behaviour?
i) How has the location of supportive extended family changed since 1960? (i.e. are we more dispersed geographically now?) how has this affected behaviour?

Should I go on? I reckon I still have a few more in me.


Yeah, this is what I'm saying. There are factors other than public school funding that affect the quality of public education. Perhaps we need to address those factors rather than just throwing more money at the problem.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Lootifer wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(1) How much more money, incrementally, has been spent on public education from 1960 to 2012? How much have the US public schools improved?

I take your rhetorical and come back with:
a) How much more time did children spend with at least one parent in the 1960's compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
b) How much has the nutritional value of our diets decreased from 1960's compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
c) How much more outdoor exercise did children in the 1960's do compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
d) How much have cultural behaviour standards decreased from 1960 to 2012 due to the impact of pop culture? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
e-h) All the "this country has gone to the dogs" rhetoric that conservatives blame for todays sorry state (e.g. elimination of corpereal punishment, decrease of religion etc). how has these changes affected in-class behaviour?
i) How has the location of supportive extended family changed since 1960? (i.e. are we more dispersed geographically now?) how has this affected behaviour?

Should I go on? I reckon I still have a few more in me.


In a sense, that doesn't really answer TGD's rhetorical. If you are going to concede that more public funding for the education system is not helpful, because of all these external factors you mention, then he has made his point. What is wrong with his argument is to assume that because money has not solved these problems, more money is a bad idea. I strongly disagree with this. In either case when we spend more money on the education system, we are investing in our future by being able to provide better classrooms and equipment, smaller class sizes, higher-paid and higher-quality teachers, etc. It is not an easy thing to answer the question, why have students not gotten better with time? Lootifer's list is surely part of it. Also surely part of it is that we have an enormous number of students to serve, and the best method we have found to determine how to appropriate funding and other government resources for all those millions of students is through standardized testing scores, which leaves less opportunity for creative teaching methods (e.g. inquiry-based learning in the classroom). Perhaps all of these things together dwarf what more money put into public education can do; but that is not an argument for less funding of public education.

Numerous studies have shown that one of the best public investments you can make is in universal preschool for children. Students are better prepared for their grade school experience, and later in life are significantly more likely to have stable economic and home situations. Some estimates say that you get back seven times what you put in through this investment. So I don't think the argument can be substantiated, that simply more funding for more schooling cannot have a positive impact.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 4387
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:17 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(1) How much more money, incrementally, has been spent on public education from 1960 to 2012? How much have the US public schools improved?

I take your rhetorical and come back with:
a) How much more time did children spend with at least one parent in the 1960's compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
b) How much has the nutritional value of our diets decreased from 1960's compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
c) How much more outdoor exercise did children in the 1960's do compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
d) How much have cultural behaviour standards decreased from 1960 to 2012 due to the impact of pop culture? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
e-h) All the "this country has gone to the dogs" rhetoric that conservatives blame for todays sorry state (e.g. elimination of corpereal punishment, decrease of religion etc). how has these changes affected in-class behaviour?
i) How has the location of supportive extended family changed since 1960? (i.e. are we more dispersed geographically now?) how has this affected behaviour?

Should I go on? I reckon I still have a few more in me.


In a sense, that doesn't really answer TGD's rhetorical. If you are going to concede that more public funding for the education system is not helpful, because of all these external factors you mention, then he has made his point. What is wrong with his argument is to assume that because money has not solved these problems, more money is a bad idea. I strongly disagree with this. In either case when we spend more money on the education system, we are investing in our future by being able to provide better classrooms and equipment, smaller class sizes, higher-paid and higher-quality teachers, etc. It is not an easy thing to answer the question, why have students not gotten better with time? Lootifer's list is surely part of it. Also surely part of it is that we have an enormous number of students to serve, and the best method we have found to determine how to appropriate funding and other government resources for all those millions of students is through standardized testing scores, which leaves less opportunity for creative teaching methods (e.g. inquiry-based learning in the classroom). Perhaps all of these things together dwarf what more money put into public education can do; but that is not an argument for less funding of public education.

Numerous studies have shown that one of the best public investments you can make is in universal preschool for children. Students are better prepared for their grade school experience, and later in life are significantly more likely to have stable economic and home situations. Some estimates say that you get back seven times what you put in through this investment. So I don't think the argument can be substantiated, that simply more funding for more schooling cannot have a positive impact.


Actually, I'm not even suggesting that we take money away from public education and would like to see most federal tax dollars go to public education than any other institution.

What I am suggesting is that, if we're going to collect these tax dollars, that the tax dollars be used in different ways than purchasing a new microscope or paying for a director of public communications position.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby Lootifer on Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:24 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(1) How much more money, incrementally, has been spent on public education from 1960 to 2012? How much have the US public schools improved?

I take your rhetorical and come back with:
a) How much more time did children spend with at least one parent in the 1960's compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
b) How much has the nutritional value of our diets decreased from 1960's compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
c) How much more outdoor exercise did children in the 1960's do compared to 2012? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
d) How much have cultural behaviour standards decreased from 1960 to 2012 due to the impact of pop culture? how has this affected in-class behaviour?
e-h) All the "this country has gone to the dogs" rhetoric that conservatives blame for todays sorry state (e.g. elimination of corpereal punishment, decrease of religion etc). how has these changes affected in-class behaviour?
i) How has the location of supportive extended family changed since 1960? (i.e. are we more dispersed geographically now?) how has this affected behaviour?

Should I go on? I reckon I still have a few more in me.


In a sense, that doesn't really answer TGD's rhetorical. If you are going to concede that more public funding for the education system is not helpful, because of all these external factors you mention, then he has made his point. What is wrong with his argument is to assume that because money has not solved these problems, more money is a bad idea. I strongly disagree with this. In either case when we spend more money on the education system, we are investing in our future by being able to provide better classrooms and equipment, smaller class sizes, higher-paid and higher-quality teachers, etc. It is not an easy thing to answer the question, why have students not gotten better with time? Lootifer's list is surely part of it. Also surely part of it is that we have an enormous number of students to serve, and the best method we have found to determine how to appropriate funding and other government resources for all those millions of students is through standardized testing scores, which leaves less opportunity for creative teaching methods (e.g. inquiry-based learning in the classroom). Perhaps all of these things together dwarf what more money put into public education can do; but that is not an argument for less funding of public education.

Numerous studies have shown that one of the best public investments you can make is in universal preschool for children. Students are better prepared for their grade school experience, and later in life are significantly more likely to have stable economic and home situations. Some estimates say that you get back seven times what you put in through this investment. So I don't think the argument can be substantiated, that simply more funding for more schooling cannot have a positive impact.

I never said take money away. I'm pretty left leaning :D

My point was that the money could very well have been spent wisely, and the decrease in quality of education could be a result of a million other things; hence we'll never know.

I guess my post wasnt aimed at TGD per se (since I generally understand and mostly agree with where he's coming from), it's a follow up addressed at the PS/NS's of this world who see what TGD says and think to themselves "Damn right ya'll, DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT!".
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:27 pm

I would normally be on board with the "down with the government" thing, but I think public education should be a top priority.

I guess I am sort of "down with the government" on this since I'm fairly sure the government's only goal with respect to public education is to appropriate more funds to throw at teachers' unions and other government employees. There was a rather talked about Philadelphia school district decision recently that basically created a bunch of unneeded positions in the school district, paying upwards of $100,000 each. A lot of people, from both sides of the aisle, questioned the decisions. To me, this kind of quid pro quo that goes on is no different from that going on between large corporations and the government. They are probably both equally not transparent and both bother me.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:36 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Agreed, but there is a well-established way of avoiding that moral obligation for people who really don't want to deal with the problem of poverty. Make poverty itself a moral crime. Call the poor feckless, lazy, ignorant and inherently criminal. It's one of those pervasive 19th century ideas that equates poverty with mental illness and criminality.

It's an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard.


The 20th and 21st century view is that the government can take care of those people, which is also an easy get-out for people who don't want to think too hard or actually solve the inherent problems.

Does your public school suck? Let's just throw another $2 million at it like we did every year for the past 30 years.
Out of work? Let's just keep you on unemployment for a year or more.
Underemployed? Let's just make sure you get enough food stamps and welfare checks to keep you there.

I see, becuase its now the government's job to create jobs, not just to provide a safety net.

What ever happened to your lauded free market that was to solve everything completely on its own.


What? No seriously, what are you saying?

The government's job is not to create jobs. The government can provide a safety net. But there is providing a safety net, and then there's what the government does now, which is perpetuate the state that people find themselves in.

I understand you wish to make that claim, but then where are all these jobs just open and available.. and how many of them actually pay enough for a person to live upon? As Symmetry noted, its easy to point the finger.

Why aren't there more jobs out there? According to you, it must be government assistance, because according to you, if it were not for that assistance more people would be working. Therefore you are asking the government to provide jobs. I say, instead that the governmetn provides a safety net and when people who work still qualify for assistance then maybe the problem is that the wages are too low... particularly when the percentage income of CEOs proportional to lowest wage workers is skyrocketing in so many organizations, when stock prices determine far more about company policy than long term product integrity and quality...I say THAT is the problem, not government assistance.
thegreekdog wrote: It seems clear, at least to me, if we just take public schools, as an example. Public schools in the United States get more money per student, by far, than any other public school system in the world, yet we have very poor schools for the most part. I certainly don't have a solution to that problem, but I do know that the solution should not be making the per student amount higher when throwing more money at the problem has not worked the 2,000 other times we've done it. But I don't see anyone proposing anything other than throwing more money at the problem. Why?
For starters, our students are not equal to other students. In other countries, most kids get universal medical care, so you don't have that whole myriad of issues with which to deal. They generally don't have the serious crime issues and various social service disasters we allow in our country. Also, kids in other countries who have disabilities, particularly the most serious are classed under different programs, not just lumped with regular students.
There are other issues, but too much money is not the problem. You are correct that "just throwing money" at the problem is not the answer, but neither is saying "Public schools suck, private schools do better.. so put all kids in private schools". The truth is that there are some pretty bad private schools, even that stay in business. In some cases, these poor schools stay in business because some parents care more about religion or other belief systems than they do about overt quality of education -- to them, things other than how well their child reads and writes or, particularly, understands science. Further, the biggest advantages private schools have is just the ability to be selective. They don't have to take the difficult child. Public schools do. That makes a HUGE difference.

Its not that public schools are perfect or as good as they could be. Its that the claim that privatization will fix everything is patently and proven false.. but people still keep making the claim becuase it meets their political agendas.

thegreekdog wrote:
I'm also not a 100% free market person, as you well know. What I am in favor of is limiting the government's control over things, especially when the things it does are abject failures in nearly every way.

Except, is welfare truly an abject failure or is it just a bit too much of a success? You have said that your income exceeds $200K. I don't consider that "rich", but at the same time, you don't seem to recognize or to be willing to admit that it does very much put you in the very upper escheleon of income earners in this country. Nor do I think you have really and truly looked objectively at why you are there instead of, say, working in a factory or flipping burgers. Don't get me wrong, you are certainly intelligent, have certainly worked hard..... but so are and have many other people who don't make $50,000. More than a few of those people even studied law, passed their bar exams.

I have no problem with people making millions or billions. I have a problem when people making those kinds of incomes turn around and declare that they "have" to move their company overseas because they just "cannot afford" the taxes and/or the pay unions demand.. or follow the environmental regulations. I have a problem with this idea that its OK to ignore impacts of pollution in an industry because it is creating jobs -- never mind that the pollution is going to last a couple hundred years and the jbos maybe a decade. Yet, when you say that welfare is too high, that people should just go out and get jobs... when people cannot feed their families, they are willing to ignore impacts of pollution or abuse by bosses or any other negative situation just to put the food on their table. Having welfare gives a few people who are idiots a jerks a "pass", but it also serves as the fall back for many, many hardworking people -- people who work in their communities even when getting welfare or who work hard looking for a job (until depression or desperation make them give up for a time), people who maybe "could" geta job.. if they were willing to let whomever take care of their kids, (and I mean truly abusive or negligent providers!), or willing to put up with truly nasty abusive bosses or deal with truly dangerous situations.

Have you ever read Steven Covey's 7 Habits? One of the things he points out is that a poor manager will always blame the employees for failures.. he cannot find good work, etc, etc. Good managers, to contrast, seem "magically" to find good employees. The difference is not the employees, its the manager. Today, too many companies simply want to take the easy route and say "those lazy bastards... welfare is too high" instead of looking honestly at the choices THEY have made. They are the first to explain to employees how they must take pay cuts, work more... etc, etc.... but somehow when the balance sheets come out great, all they can do is give out a nice dinner or some kind of award. Those things are nice, but not as nice as a fatter paycheck!
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:51 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I would normally be on board with the "down with the government" thing, but I think public education should be a top priority.

I guess I am sort of "down with the government" on this since I'm fairly sure the government's only goal with respect to public education is to appropriate more funds to throw at teachers' unions and other government employees. There was a rather talked about Philadelphia school district decision recently that basically created a bunch of unneeded positions in the school district, paying upwards of $100,000 each. A lot of people, from both sides of the aisle, questioned the decisions. To me, this kind of quid pro quo that goes on is no different from that going on between large corporations and the government. They are probably both equally not transparent and both bother me.

This stuff is wrong and needs to be changed, but the problem is when instead of saying "we need to fix some problems", it becomes "public education is failing..we have to do away with public education".

However, in government, we at least have the legal authority to challenge and investigate, to get answers. It can take time and there are a few limits, but not many. Corporations largely are designed to be opaque. The executives often have fiduciary responsibilities to not give out information. They have far fewer reporting and recording responsibilities, so that even if something is essentially known, it can be hard to get proof (about pollution, for example, but also worker abuses, shifty business dealings, etc, etc,)
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:00 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:Ok, let's look at it from this perspective:
Do you personally buy any products/services from corporate owned companies? Isn't it really consumer buying habits then that are to blame? If nobody bought products/services from corporate owned enterprises there would be no big fat CEO's grubbing all the profits. The low prices gained by the corporate structure are what's attractive to people but then they don't like the consequences of their support. Why is it so easily forgotten that the two things are connected?


Or I could take a knife and go kill the sons-of-bitches like Mary Harris Jones said?! Just because it's an option doesn't make it a good one.
There's no question of who to support anymore. People who make $19K a year don't have any options for where to shop. And in my community, we have Wal*mart, JCP, Walgrens, CVS, F&F, Shop*Ko, Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Cub Foods, Sullivan's Grocery, and Menard's. That's it for 45 miles. All big-chain stores. Our beloved Kmart will be closed by January.

The low prices argument is bullshit. Just because a company has low prices does not mean they get low prices by ripping off their employees and giving the money to the CEO. Like Hostess did. The two things were 'not connected' until recently. That's what's so easily forgotten. Union power peaked in 1970, and this out-of-control CEO pay sh*t didn't start until around '78. And that's not a coincidence. The system didn't work like this until now, and these assholes don't have to continue making more money than God for our country to function. They don't earn this, the workers are the ones who create the wealth.


I'm not disagreeing that the workers create the wealth, that's pretty obvious.
So let's take your example of your options within 50 miles: Do you happen to know which of these corporate owned chains are better to their employees? Does this affect where you shop or do you generally go where it's most convenient at the time/slightly cheaper? Everyone has options in an open market, it's just "too hard" to make an effort one way or another. So you save $5 choosing one place over another, even on a $20k salary this doesn't amount to a hill of beans.


There are options and options...
I can buy from one of 4 grocery stores, including Walmart. There are 14 others within an hour driving radius. Several of those are duplicates (there are 3 Walmarts, for example and 2 Aldis), so not really different options. However, if you look at the suppliers, then you have far fewer options. Teh 18 stores are all supplied by essentially the same 3 suppliers, plus Aldis (2, each an hour away). In truth, the only real option is the farmer's market or a few direct sellers. However, they only sell limited items and only during certain seasons. (meat and produce, plus some handcrafts, woodworking, etc.)

Funkyterrance wrote:My point is that we Americans are very good at pointing out what's wrong but terrible at adjusting our habits in an effort to make things better. Armchair politicians can spout all they want but until they actually reflect their beliefs in their own consumer choices they can keep it to themselves as far as I am concerned.

Our system is so entrenched that its a lot more than convenience standing in the way of the corporate supply chain. The more we support it, though, the more we support low wage jobs and increase dependence upon government aid, instead of independence.

The answer is to require more of the companies, not to require less in assistance for those in need.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby Lootifer on Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:01 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I would normally be on board with the "down with the government" thing, but I think public education should be a top priority.

I guess I am sort of "down with the government" on this since I'm fairly sure the government's only goal with respect to public education is to appropriate more funds to throw at teachers' unions and other government employees. There was a rather talked about Philadelphia school district decision recently that basically created a bunch of unneeded positions in the school district, paying upwards of $100,000 each. A lot of people, from both sides of the aisle, questioned the decisions. To me, this kind of quid pro quo that goes on is no different from that going on between large corporations and the government. They are probably both equally not transparent and both bother me.

Heh, I can understand the whole down with government sentiment - the US government has a track record that has done superbly well to create it! But I perceive your attitude to be "Id rather a small libatarian government but if there are some areas of governement involvement I dont neccessarily agree with, but are performing in a relatively efficient and rational manner, then I have no issue" compared to others attitudes (not naming names ;) ) where any government involement is immediately bad, regardless of the way in which it's run.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: $168 Per Day

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:20 pm

Lootifer wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I would normally be on board with the "down with the government" thing, but I think public education should be a top priority.

I guess I am sort of "down with the government" on this since I'm fairly sure the government's only goal with respect to public education is to appropriate more funds to throw at teachers' unions and other government employees. There was a rather talked about Philadelphia school district decision recently that basically created a bunch of unneeded positions in the school district, paying upwards of $100,000 each. A lot of people, from both sides of the aisle, questioned the decisions. To me, this kind of quid pro quo that goes on is no different from that going on between large corporations and the government. They are probably both equally not transparent and both bother me.

Heh, I can understand the whole down with government sentiment - the US government has a track record that has done superbly well to create it! But I perceive your attitude to be "Id rather a small libatarian government but if there are some areas of governement involvement I dont neccessarily agree with, but are performing in a relatively efficient and rational manner, then I have no issue" compared to others attitudes (not naming names ;) ) where any government involement is immediately bad, regardless of the way in which it's run.


BBS is still in school, so don't fault him.

I will continue to make comments like these until BBS comes back, by the way.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

PreviousNext

Return to Babble-On Five

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mrswdk

Login