Trump's Final 100 days

Quote: darkoz

I want to make sure i understand you because i may agree with you here

Its not poverty class striving to remain in poverty but an industrial complex of businesses (some quite large like rent-a-center which will lease to purchase an item that over time and payments cost those that cant afford the item triple what it costs eg a $300 dvd player at $25 per month when finally puchased in 3 years cost the person $900) that is the real problem that needs fixing

If thats your point then i wholeheartedly agree

That's kind of what I was thinking.

I can already tell you where this is going, if you guys want to save time.

1.) I agree with DarkOz that major (and some smaller) companies are part of the complex that takes advantage of financially disadvantaged people by charging them usurious interest rates, or alternatively, sells those same people products with extended payment terms such as to make a ton of extra money on the product. They do the latter in order to take advantage of the fact that people cannot afford to just buy it outright.

2.) We all agree that, love them or hate them, those places create jobs.

3.) Perhaps we point out the irony of the fact that the majority of people who work at those places also find themselves economically disadvantaged, and occasionally avail themselves of the services of those same places.

4.) AZD will (correctly) point out that they do not necessarily need to avail themselves of those services and it is not terribly smart to do so.

IOW, all of these things are right, so it's just a question of whether you blame the customer, the business or nobody. My view on it is just kind of, "It is what it is."

Quote: AxelWolf

Were you receiving welfare while homeless? I don't think that's allowed. I guess it would depend on what kind of welfare. I'm talking about the monthly check and food stamps many people get, add that to HUD or living with your relative's in their basement and someone can live a lazy life.

Yes of course its allowed and yes at one point while homeless i did receive benefits

It is not an all or nothing scenario

If you are homeless you do not qualify for rental assistance. You do qualify for medical and food assistance

You qualify for financial aid but you have to work for it. I was offered 30 hours a week for $300 per month assistance. I turned those slave wages down.

EDIT: to qualify for pa you need a mailing address. That may be what is confusing you. They have to be able to contact you for face to face meetings and what not

I had a relative willing to accept my mail. Some homeless who dont have a mailing address are out of luck

Quote: darkoz

I never brought myself to panhandling but a lot do

Most panhandlers are just a bunch of scam-artists anyway.

There was a panhandler I would drive by almost every day who was obviously very-well fed (quite a large belly), had a nice clean dog he could obviously afford to take care of, and was dressed in nicer clothes than I would wear to my professional white-collar job. Dude, you should be giving ME money. And then there's all those panhandlers sitting on the side of the road playing with their smartphones. WTH

I've tried to give homeless people food before, and they have absolutely no interest. Like, buddy, you have zero right to be picky about anything. I remember one time in NYC I had a whole bunch of leftover pasta from a restaurant, and I tried to give it to a homeless guy who seriously looked like the "It's" guy from Monty Python, and he was like, "No, thanks, I just ate." Dumbfounded, I said, "Really? Are you sure?" and he said, "Yeah." I said, "Okay," and just smashed it down into a garbage can right in front of him and walked off. So, I don't know if there's some weird homeless person code about taking food from people or what, but stuff like that has happened to me on several occasions.

And most homeless vets aren't even vets. That's another big con the homeless try to run.

But obviously there are people like you, darkoz, who don't try to con people and actually want to be in a better situation and manage to get there eventually.

Quote: RogerKint

In 1940, only 14% of black children were born to unwed mothers. Is there a better indicator of whether a child will be successful, or not, than illigitimacy? Don't say IQ, that topic is off limits.

Conclusion: whitie must be more racist now than in 1940. Nevermind cryptos, white guilt = the most valuable mineable resource in the west.

CDC doesn't account for couples who have children who are cohabitating but are not married. That accounts for 58% of "out of wedlock births", so the children are being born into two parent homes but the parents are not married. This means that the actual numbers are much better than they seem.

Quote: TigerWu

Most panhandlers are just a bunch of scam-artists anyway.

There was a panhandler I would drive by almost every day who was obviously very-well fed (quite a large belly), had a nice clean dog he could obviously afford to take care of, and was dressed in nicer clothes than I would wear to my professional white-collar job. Dude, you should be giving ME money. And then there's all those panhandlers sitting on the side of the road playing with their smartphones. WTH

I've tried to give homeless people food before, and they have absolutely no interest. Like, buddy, you have zero right to be picky about anything. I remember one time in NYC I had a whole bunch of leftover pasta from a restaurant, and I tried to give it to a homeless guy who seriously looked like the "It's" guy from Monty Python, and he was like, "No, thanks, I just ate." Dumbfounded, I said, "Really? Are you sure?" and he said, "Yeah." I said, "Okay," and just smashed it down into a garbage can right in front of him and walked off. So, I don't know if there's some weird homeless person code about taking food from people or what, but stuff like that has happened to me on several occasions.

And most homeless vets aren't even vets. That's another big con the homeless try to run.

But obviously there are people like you, darkoz, who don't try to con people and actually want to be in a better situation and manage to get there eventually.

Wow you were really offended when a homeless guy DIDNT take food you offered? Because he said he had just ate?

Im certain i would have turned you down as well

For one thing homeless people have very limited means. If I just ate am i going to walk around with pasta for five hours? Then eat it cold?

Plus there is the possibility of being purposely poisoned. There are people with perverted sense of humor when it comes to the homeless

Finally if you are a germopbobe that doesnt go away just because of your poor situation. If eating off other peoples plates is disgusting to you and you have other choices then you wont accept other peoples food

Thanks on the compliment however. I feel very lucky to have pulled myself up and out

Quote: darkoz

Yes of course its allowed and yes at one point while homeless i did receive benefits

It is not an all or nothing scenario

If you are homeless you do not qualify for rental assistance. You do qualify for medical and food assistance

You qualify for financial aid but you have to work for it. I was offered 30 hours a week for $300 per month assistance. I turned those slave wages down.

I always assumed you had to verify residency when receiving food stamps or the check thing. I don't know if it varies from state to state or not.

Quote: darkoz

Wow you were really offended when a homeless guy DIDNT take food you offered? Because he said he had just ate?

Im certain i would have turned you down as well

Well, maybe my analogy wasn't clear enough when I said he looked like the Monty Python It's guy, but this is what I mean:



In other words, this guy clearly didn't care about germs or filth.

Quote:

If I just ate am i going to walk around with pasta for five hours? Then eat it cold?

I don't know... I mean, I've never been homeless, but when I was in the Army I walked around with cold food for hours because I didn't know when I'd have time to eat or when more food would be available, so I just figured a homeless person would be in an even worse situation.

Quote: AxelWolf

United States

Seal of the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General, which investigates welfare fraud
Welfare fraud is widespread, but in most cases it is committed by people who are unable to make ends meet. In a 2012 study, 30 of 34 interviewed welfare recipients admitted fraud.[4] A 1988 study of 50 Chicago women on welfare found that 80% worked either full-time or part-time, but none of them reported their income to the welfare office.[38] Surveys conducted during the 1970s in Seattle and Denver showed that 50% of recipients admitted to "cheating" in order to get by financially.[39] In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, an ex-fraud investigator for IDPA estimated that 25 to 50% of welfare recipients had committed some degree of fraud.[40] A study of 450 welfare recipients in Orange County, California, found that 45% of them had committed fraud.[41] Between 1970 and 1979, there was a 729% increase in the number of fraud cases initiated nationwide.[42]

30 years old.
Time, more current story. SNAP fraud is estimated to be 3.7%.

Another report shows the estimated fraud percentage by program with the national rate for all programs at 10%. Medicaid accounts for 34.3 of the 71.5 million in fraud followed by "Negative Income Tax" at 20.2 billion which has to do with improper claims of Child Tax Credits and EITCs.

Let's get our numbers right before we yank out the hook.

Quote: AZDuffman

Just look at how many people it employs. Just look at the poverty economy of check cashing shops, appliance rental, payday loans, low end tax prep, and other business that cater to this group in their neighborhoods.

You mean the businesses catering to most military bases?

Quote: rxwine

You mean the businesses catering to most military bases?

Yeah I'm a bit confused. It seems like AZ is implying that the industry is there to keep people impoverished by charging exorbitant costs relative to their ability to pay. Although I think the egg (the poverty) came well before the chicken (the services to support them). Not sure what his point is here.

Oh, this is totally what we need right now:

Pentagon says Trump ordered Washington military parade.

Quote: AxelWolf

I always assumed you had to verify residency when receiving food stamps or the check thing. I don't know if it varies from state to state or not.

Its possible it varies from state to state

You do require a mailing address so maybe thats what you are referring to. I had relatives who accepted my mail

They require an address so mail can be sent for appointments etc.

I did not have a cell phone while homeless. I couldn't afford one. Certainly not monthly minutes. That was the point of the obama phones handed out with 200 minute restrictions
I dont know if they will accept only a contact number or what these days. Last i was on the dole was 2012

Quote: TigerWu

Oh, this is totally what we need right now:

Pentagon says Trump ordered Washington military parade.

On top of that, Trump says he wants a govt shutdown
WTF
Do we have a President that is actually trolling the country
sad

Quote: boymimbo

Quote: AxelWolf

United States

Seal of the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General, which investigates welfare fraud
Welfare fraud is widespread, but in most cases it is committed by people who are unable to make ends meet. In a 2012 study, 30 of 34 interviewed welfare recipients admitted fraud.[4] A 1988 study of 50 Chicago women on welfare found that 80% worked either full-time or part-time, but none of them reported their income to the welfare office.[38] Surveys conducted during the 1970s in Seattle and Denver showed that 50% of recipients admitted to "cheating" in order to get by financially.[39] In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, an ex-fraud investigator for IDPA estimated that 25 to 50% of welfare recipients had committed some degree of fraud.[40] A study of 450 welfare recipients in Orange County, California, found that 45% of them had committed fraud.[41] Between 1970 and 1979, there was a 729% increase in the number of fraud cases initiated nationwide.[42]

30 years old.
Time, more current story. SNAP fraud is estimated to be 3.7%.

Another report shows the estimated fraud percentage by program with the national rate for all programs at 10%. Medicaid accounts for 34.3 of the 71.5 million in fraud followed by "Negative Income Tax" at 20.2 billion which has to do with improper claims of Child Tax Credits and EITCs.

Let's get our numbers right before we yank out the hook.

The percentage of the dollar amount of the total cost seems low because they are giving out an extremely high amount. Those numbers didn't tell us the number of people who not following the rules.

Revising my number to 95%

Quote: TigerWu

Well, maybe my analogy wasn't clear enough when I said he looked like the Monty Python It's guy, but this is what I mean:



In other words, this guy clearly didn't care about germs or filth.



I don't know... I mean, I've never been homeless, but when I was in the Army I walked around with cold food for hours because I didn't know when I'd have time to eat or when more food would be available, so I just figured a homeless person would be in an even worse situation.

Its a bit different. In NYC there are places handing out free food. While many will compare nyc to a war zone its really not. I can see being in the army where you would have even lower standards than nyc homeless lol

I was once in california and saw a similar guy digging out of a garbage can for food. I offered him cash and he refused. Said he got by just fine on his own. Everyone has his own mindset. I wasnt offended. In fact i was pleasantly surprised at his pride held even in adversity

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: boymimbo

Quote: AxelWolf

United States

Seal of the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General, which investigates welfare fraud
Welfare fraud is widespread, but in most cases it is committed by people who are unable to make ends meet. In a 2012 study, 30 of 34 interviewed welfare recipients admitted fraud.[4] A 1988 study of 50 Chicago women on welfare found that 80% worked either full-time or part-time, but none of them reported their income to the welfare office.[38] Surveys conducted during the 1970s in Seattle and Denver showed that 50% of recipients admitted to "cheating" in order to get by financially.[39] In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, an ex-fraud investigator for IDPA estimated that 25 to 50% of welfare recipients had committed some degree of fraud.[40] A study of 450 welfare recipients in Orange County, California, found that 45% of them had committed fraud.[41] Between 1970 and 1979, there was a 729% increase in the number of fraud cases initiated nationwide.[42]

30 years old.
Time, more current story. SNAP fraud is estimated to be 3.7%.

Another report shows the estimated fraud percentage by program with the national rate for all programs at 10%. Medicaid accounts for 34.3 of the 71.5 million in fraud followed by "Negative Income Tax" at 20.2 billion which has to do with improper claims of Child Tax Credits and EITCs.

Let's get our numbers right before we yank out the hook.

The percentage of the dollar amount of the total cost seems low because they are giving out an extremely high amount. Those numbers didn't tell us the number of people who not following the rules.

Revising my number to 95%

Why dont you just add illegal immigrants with no definable tracking and revise it to 140%

Quote: AxelWolf

Revising my number to 95%

Make it 100%. Just like the Mexican hombres and the illegal immigrants are all bad. Let's just get rid of the problem by setting an income test for life. If you make less than 15K per year per person in your household, report to the killing chambers (bring your children). If you are working less than full time at age 30, report to the killing chambers. If you turn 70 and don't have income to support yourself, report to the killing chambers. If you are incarcerated more than once, report to the killing chambers. As soon as you collect a dime of government assistance, you're on the killing watch list.

Solves a bunch of problems, and instead of a poverty industrial complex, you'll greatly expand the death industrial complex. It will solve all of our problems. MAGA!

Quote: boymimbo

Make it 100%. Just like the Mexican hombres and the illegal immigrants are all bad. Let's just get rid of the problem by setting an income test for life. If you make less than 15K per year per person in your household, report to the killing chambers (bring your children). If you are working less than full time at age 30, report to the killing chambers. If you turn 70 and don't have income to support yourself, report to the killing chambers. If you are incarcerated more than once, report to the killing chambers. As soon as you collect a dime of government assistance, you're on the killing watch list.

Solves a bunch of problems, and instead of a poverty industrial complex, you'll greatly expand the death industrial complex. It will solve all of our problems. MAGA!

Triggerrreddd

We're just one law away from Utopia. If we just tax the 1% just a little bit more, the poor and minorities will finally forgive white males.

Quote: RogerKint

Triggerrreddd

We're just one law away from Utopia. If we just tax the 1% just a little bit more, the poor and minorities will finally forgive white males.

Long ways to go before hundreds of years of history can or should be forgiven, especially when we have a president who refuses to disavow guys like David Duke.

I'm plugging this again. I've lurked the thread over the past couple of days and it's obvious that some of the folks on here are pretty naive to what institutional racism has done to minorities, especially the African-American community.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/13th/

Quote: Steverinos

Long ways to go before hundreds of years of history can or should be forgiven, especially when we have a president who refuses to disavow guys like David Duke.

I'm plugging this again. I've lurked the thread over the past couple of days and it's obvious that some of the folks on here are pretty naive to what institutional racism has done to minorities, especially the African-American community.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/13th/

I just about died laughing with the half second clip of Trump and later the flashed image of Trayvon Martin. According to the trailer, there's a loophole such that slavery is legal if someone is convicted of a crime, making it seem like people are getting sent to prison so they can do slave labor.

Quote: Steverinos

Long ways to go before hundreds of years of history can or should be forgiven, especially when we have a president who refuses to disavow guys like David Duke.

That's my point. The left has the mining of white guilt down to a science. For how many decades have black on white crimes far outweighed white on black? I can choose to forgive or I can choose to be pissed and demand reparations. Luckily I don't have the left bombarding me with temptations to take handouts and grow government for being a victim. The left isn't interested in helping minorites, theyre interested in appeasing them for political gain. The average guilty white voter who votes left may have good intentions but the road to hell and all that.

"Black mans got his problems and his ways of dealing with it so don't fool yourself thinking you're helping with your white liberal sh*t" - crass

Quote: RS

I just about died laughing with the half second clip of Trump and later the flashed image of Trayvon Martin. According to the trailer, there's a loophole such that slavery is legal if someone is convicted of a crime, making it seem like people are getting sent to prison so they can do slave labor.

That started right after slavery was abolished. But the film moves on throughout the last 150 years with analysis of each period's problems, culminating with the prison-for-profit mass incarceration crisis we have now, in what is supposedly the land of the free.

It's really not all that funny, but whatever...

Yay, are we onto white males under attack, or whites under attack?

Quote: rxwine

Yay, are we onto white males under attack, or whites under attack?

We are onto how the left uses white guilt to grow government and further oppress minorities. The war on poverty era has actually been a lot more opressive to blacks than the post slavery era. Some families have what, three generations on welfare? Like you said "yay"

Quote: RogerKint

We are onto how the left uses white guilt to grow government and further oppress minorities.

"White guilt" is so 90's.... the new boogeyman is "white privilege!"

Quote: RogerKint

We are onto how the left uses white guilt to grow government and further oppress minorities. The war on poverty era has actually been a lot more opressive to blacks than the post slavery era. Some families have what, three generations on welfare? Like you said "yay"

You seem to think that when republicans/conservatives/guys like Reagan are in charge, they shrink government? Throughout the last 50 years, according to the facts (I know I know I know, #fakenews), republicans have consistently increased BOTH federal employment AND federal spending while democratic administrations have shrunk the size of government.

Employment:

1961-1964 D Kennedy/Johnson -14,000
1965-1968 D Johnson +554,000
1969-1972 R Nixon -190,000
1973-1976 R Nixon/Ford +18,000
1977-1980 D Carter -7,000
1981-1984 R Reagan +34,000
1985-1988 R Reagan +203,000
1989-1992 R Bush -30,000
1993-1996 D Clinton -236,000
1997-2000 D Clinton -145,000
2001-2004 R Bush +12,000
2005-2008 R Bush +42,000
2009-2012 D Obama +5,000
2013-2014 D Obama -35,000

Spending:

1962 106,821 9.31% D Kennedy
1963 111,316 4.21% D Kennedy/Johnson
1964 118,528 6.48% D Johnson
1965 118,228 -0.25% D Johnson
1966 134,532 13.79% D Johnson
1967 157,464 17.05% D Johnson
1968 178,134 13.13% D Johnson
1969 183,640 3.09% R Nixon
1970 195,649 6.54% R Nixon
1971 210,172 7.42% R Nixon
1972 230,681 9.76% R Nixon
1973 245,707 6.51% R Nixon
1974 269,359 9.63% R Nixon/Ford
1975 332,332 23.38% R Ford
1976 371,792 11.87% R Ford
1977 409,218 3.34% D Carter
1978 458,746 12.10% D Carter
1979 504,028 9.87% D Carter
1980 590,941 17.24% D Carter
1981 678,241 14.77% R Reagan
1982 745,743 9.95% R Reagan
1983 808,364 8.40% R Reagan
1984 851,805 5.37% R Reagan
1985 946,344 11.10% R Reagan
1986 990,382 4.65% R Reagan
1987 1,004,017 1.38% R Reagan
1988 1,064,416 6.02% R Reagan
1989 1,143,743 7.45% R Bush
1990 1,252,993 9.55% R Bush
1991 1,324,226 5.69% R Bush
1992 1,381,529 4.33% R Bush
1993 1,409,386 2.02% D Clinton
1994 1,461,752 3.72% D Clinton
1995 1,515,742 3.69% D Clinton
1996 1,560,484 2.95% D Clinton
1997 1,601,116 2.60% D Clinton
1998 1,652,458 3.21% D Clinton
1999 1,701,842 2.99% D Clinton
2000 1,788,950 5.12% D Clinton
2001 1,862,846 4.13% R Bush
2002 2,010,894 7.95% R Bush
2003 2,159,899 7.41% R Bush
2004 2,292,841 6.16% R Bush
2005 2,471,957 7.81% R Bush
2006 2,655,050 7.41% R Bush
2007 2,728,686 2.77% R Bush
2008 2,982,544 9.30% R Bush
2009 3,517,677 17.94% D Obama
2010 3,457,079 -1.72% D Obama
2011 3,603,059 4.22% D Obama
2012 3,536,951 -1.83% D Obama
2013 3,454,647 -2.33% D Obama
2014 3,506,089 1.49% D Obama

And the Trump administration doesn't seem to be breaking this trend so far. Trillion dollar deficits are ready to return NEXT YEAR! Where are all the deficit hawks we saw during the Obama administration when we were CUTTING the deficit?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/

Quote: RogerKint

We are onto how the left uses white guilt to grow government and further oppress minorities. The war on poverty era has actually been a lot more opressive to blacks than the post slavery era. Some families have what, three generations on welfare? Like you said "yay"

From the American conservative,

"It turns out that only a minority of white Americans admit to feeling any kind of guilt about race. No matter how the question was framed, a substantial majority of whites stated that they felt literally no racial guilt."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-many-people-actually-feel-white-guilt/

Quote: Steverinos

You seem to think that when republicans/conservatives/guys like Reagan are in charge, they shrink government? Throughout the last 50 years, according to the facts (I know I know I know, #fakenews), republicans have consistently increased BOTH federal employment AND federal spending while democratic administrations have shrunk the size of government.

Employment:

1961-1964 D Kennedy/Johnson -14,000
1965-1968 D Johnson +554,000
1969-1972 R Nixon -190,000
1973-1976 R Nixon/Ford +18,000
1977-1980 D Carter -7,000
1981-1984 R Reagan +34,000
1985-1988 R Reagan +203,000
1989-1992 R Bush -30,000
1993-1996 D Clinton -236,000
1997-2000 D Clinton -145,000
2001-2004 R Bush +12,000
2005-2008 R Bush +42,000
2009-2012 D Obama +5,000
2013-2014 D Obama -35,000

Spending:

1962 106,821 9.31% D Kennedy
1963 111,316 4.21% D Kennedy/Johnson
1964 118,528 6.48% D Johnson
1965 118,228 -0.25% D Johnson
1966 134,532 13.79% D Johnson
1967 157,464 17.05% D Johnson
1968 178,134 13.13% D Johnson
1969 183,640 3.09% R Nixon
1970 195,649 6.54% R Nixon
1971 210,172 7.42% R Nixon
1972 230,681 9.76% R Nixon
1973 245,707 6.51% R Nixon
1974 269,359 9.63% R Nixon/Ford
1975 332,332 23.38% R Ford
1976 371,792 11.87% R Ford
1977 409,218 3.34% D Carter
1978 458,746 12.10% D Carter
1979 504,028 9.87% D Carter
1980 590,941 17.24% D Carter
1981 678,241 14.77% R Reagan
1982 745,743 9.95% R Reagan
1983 808,364 8.40% R Reagan
1984 851,805 5.37% R Reagan
1985 946,344 11.10% R Reagan
1986 990,382 4.65% R Reagan
1987 1,004,017 1.38% R Reagan
1988 1,064,416 6.02% R Reagan
1989 1,143,743 7.45% R Bush
1990 1,252,993 9.55% R Bush
1991 1,324,226 5.69% R Bush
1992 1,381,529 4.33% R Bush
1993 1,409,386 2.02% D Clinton
1994 1,461,752 3.72% D Clinton
1995 1,515,742 3.69% D Clinton
1996 1,560,484 2.95% D Clinton
1997 1,601,116 2.60% D Clinton
1998 1,652,458 3.21% D Clinton
1999 1,701,842 2.99% D Clinton
2000 1,788,950 5.12% D Clinton
2001 1,862,846 4.13% R Bush
2002 2,010,894 7.95% R Bush
2003 2,159,899 7.41% R Bush
2004 2,292,841 6.16% R Bush
2005 2,471,957 7.81% R Bush
2006 2,655,050 7.41% R Bush
2007 2,728,686 2.77% R Bush
2008 2,982,544 9.30% R Bush
2009 3,517,677 17.94% D Obama
2010 3,457,079 -1.72% D Obama
2011 3,603,059 4.22% D Obama
2012 3,536,951 -1.83% D Obama
2013 3,454,647 -2.33% D Obama
2014 3,506,089 1.49% D Obama

And the Trump administration doesn't seem to be breaking this trend so far. Trillion dollar deficits are ready to return NEXT YEAR! Where are all the deficit hawks we saw during the Obama administration when we were CUTTING the deficit?

No, I don't think that government is the answer to the failure of government. Yes, I know that debt based spending is much more expensive and damaging than just good old fashioned taxing and spending. If you think I'm some young Republican you have me confused with someone else. I quoted Crass for crissakes.

Boymimbo, asking for a government study that proves gov isn't as efficient as it claims, is like asking for Pepsi to provide a study that it doesn't cause diabetussss

Quote: RogerKint

Yes, I know that debt based spending is much more expensive and damaging than just good old fashioned taxing and spending.

Phew! We found something we can agree on! All that unity talk in SOTU must be contagious!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/05/politics/donald-trump-democrats-treasonous/index.html

Crap, never mind.

Quote: Steverinos

Phew! We found somethinwg we can agree on! All that unity talk in SOTU must be contagious!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/05/politics/donald-trump-democrats-treasonous/index.html

Crap, never mind.

The spending is the problem, not how they choose to F us lol. You like a kiss and a cig afterward, some Republicans don't. At the end of the day you two just want to decide who gets to F you. You do have that common.

#themoreyouknow

Quote: Steverinos

That started right after slavery was abolished. But the film moves on throughout the last 150 years with analysis of each period's problems, culminating with the prison-for-profit mass incarceration crisis we have now, in what is supposedly the land of the free.

It's really not all that funny, but whatever...

I laughed at how stupid it is to flash a picture of someone that has nothing to do with the prison/jail system....but his picture was likely flashed due to the perceived "racism" surrounding his death (when race or racism had nothing to do with it, unless you ask the MSM).

So yeah, that's pretty damn funny to me.

Quote: RS

I laughed at how stupid it is to flash a picture of someone that has nothing to do with the prison/jail system....but his picture was likely flashed due to the perceived "racism" surrounding his death (when race or racism had nothing to do with it, unless you ask the MSM).

So yeah, that's pretty damn funny to me.

It didn't? You think neighborhood watch people are following every unknown white person who walks through their neighborhood?

Quote: rxwine

It didn't? You think neighborhood watch people are following every unknown white person who walks through their neighborhood?

If it's a black neighborhood, yes!

Quote: rxwine

It didn't? You think neighborhood watch people are following every unknown white person who walks through their neighborhood?

When the white guy fits the description of the people who have been breaking in to other people's houses, you betcha.

Does racism have anything to do with the fact Trayvon was beating the literal sh** out of Zimmerman? Somehow that's Zimmerman's fault too, probably. Don't blame the victim.

Trayvon wasn't some "angel". The picture of him in a white hoodie? That was years old. The kid was a thug, frequently fought others, did (and IIRC, sold) drugs. Hell, the AZ tea and Skittles(?) he had were most likely to be used to mix up some "fire ass lean".

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

If it's a black neighborhood, yes!

Having lived in predominantly black neighborhoods when an unknown white person walks through most assume its 5-0

They walk away not follow lol

Quote: darkoz

Having lived in predominantly black neighborhoods when an unknown white person walks through most assume its 5-0

They walk away not follow lol

Around here, the person would be assumed to be a dope addict.

Quote: RS

When the white guy fits the description of the people who have been breaking in to other people's houses, you betcha.

Does racism have anything to do with the fact Trayvon was beating the literal sh** out of Zimmerman? Somehow that's Zimmerman's fault too, probably. Don't blame the victim.

Trayvon wasn't some "angel". The picture of him in a white hoodie? That was years old. The kid was a thug, frequently fought others, did (and IIRC, sold) drugs. Hell, the AZ tea and Skittles(?) he had were most likely to be used to mix up some "fire ass lean".

Trayvon probably wasn't an "angel". He probably did smoke weed. He probably did make syrup. But Trayvon was minding his own business in a free country. Zimmerman followed and profiled him after being told not to. So was it Zimmerman's fault? Of course. It was his fault that he was getting his ass kicked and it was also his fault somebody got killed. If he would've just followed DIRECTIONS none of it would've happened.

#MAGA - back to the times when if you got your ass whooped you got your ass whooped, especially when you were the one picking the fight

Let's pretend that Zimmerman's post-trial life and actions hasn't shed any doubt to his "innocence". It has been full of domestic violence and other violent incidents. He's a scumbag, putting the gun he cowardly used to kill Trayvon up for auction?, advertising it as a "piece of American history." It currently isn't a jail cell, but there's a special place waiting for that coward.

Anyway, great documentary.

Quote: RS

When the white guy fits the description of the people who have been breaking in to other people's houses, you betcha.

Does racism have anything to do with the fact Trayvon was beating the literal sh** out of Zimmerman? Somehow that's Zimmerman's fault too, probably. Don't blame the victim.

Trayvon wasn't some "angel". The picture of him in a white hoodie? That was years old. The kid was a thug, frequently fought others, did (and IIRC, sold) drugs. Hell, the AZ tea and Skittles(?) he had were most likely to be used to mix up some "fire ass lean".

You know it doesn't matter if Trayvon had a police record as long as your arm. If you don't know someone you can't assume anything by walking.

It also doesn't matter if Martin was a black racist as to why Zimmerman confronted him in the first place since there was no indication Martin did anything wrong. Not anything more than I would be doing walking through a neighborhood.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Around here, the person would be assumed to be a dope addict.

Well nyc is a small place. U dont have to travel tp the black part of town to find drugs

Quote: Steverinos

Trayvon probably wasn't an "angel". He probably did smoke weed. He probably did make syrup. But Trayvon was minding his own business in a free country. Zimmerman followed and profiled him after being told not to. So was it Zimmerman's fault? Of course. It was his fault that he was getting his ass kicked and it was also his fault somebody got killed. If he would've just followed DIRECTIONS none of it would've happened.

#MAGA - back to the times when if you got your ass whooped you got your ass whooped, especially when you were the one picking the fight

Let's pretend that Zimmerman's post-trial life and actions hasn't shed any doubt to his "innocence". It has been full of domestic violence and other violent incidents. He's a scumbag, putting the gun he cowardly used to kill Trayvon up for auction?, advertising it as a "piece of American history." It currently isn't a jail cell, but there's a special place waiting for that coward.

Anyway, great documentary.

No, he didn't "probably" smoke weed or made syrup. He did do those things. Not probably. He did. He wasn't "probably" not an angel. He wasn't. He was a piece of sh** thug kid.

Zimmerman was NOT directed to "leave him alone". The directions were rather "You don't have to follow him", to limit their liability, in case something happened, like the POS trying to beat him to death. If I'm a few seconds away from dying, you better bet I'm pulling the trigger until there aren't any bullets left, whether the POS is white, black, asian, or any other.

He cowardly killed someone who was literally about to kill him? Wow. I really hate to ask, but -- are you kidding? Jeez, no wonder this country is f***ed.



Based on the fact there's a split second clip of Trump (not even saying anything meaningful) and a flashed image of Trayvon Martin in the trailor.......I'm going to have to assume the documentary is a mix of awful, made up and fudged stats, and flat out 9/11-conspiracy-like-documentary that's filled with stuff like "COINCIDENCE????????? YOU DECIDE!!!!!!!!!!" The trailer is supposed to make you want to watch the film and make it seem better than it really is. If that's the kinda nonsense they're putting into the trailer.....well, I'm not going to waste my time watching that BS.

Quote: RS

Zimmerman was NOT directed to "leave him alone". The directions were rather "You don't have to follow him",

l...o...l

You're right, this country IS f***ed if we have people who believe "leave him alone" and "you don't have to follow him" do not mean the same thing. And I believe the dispatcher's exact words were, "okay we don't need you to do that".

There's a clip of Trump because of his history with racism, which, umm, is what the documentary is about...America's greatest sin. You probably shouldn't watch it.

Quote: darkoz

Well nyc is a small place. U dont have to travel tp the black part of town to find drugs

https://www.wxyz.com/news/heroin-express-kids-ride-bus-to-get-a-fix

Quote: Steverinos

l...o...l

You're right, this country IS f***ed if we have people who believe "leave him alone" and "you don't have to follow him" do not mean the same thing. And I believe the dispatcher's exact words were, "okay we don't need you to do that".

They don’t mean the same thing. This is very basic. Do you also think “The sky is blue” and “The sky is not orange” mean the same thing?

Quote: Steverinos

There's a clip of Trump because of his history with racism, which, umm, is what the documentary is about...America's greatest sin. You probably shouldn't watch it.

They sure used a great clip to exemplify his “racism”.




I swear this thread makes me think Ashton Kutcher is setting me up on the TV show “Punk’d”. This can’t be real.

In the context of that call, they mean the same thing. It’s obvious. Soooooooo very obvious. And since the dispatcher did not say what you said he said, it really doesn’t matter.

Quote: Mission146

The Democrats are the only party, in my view, to show an actual vested interest in pulling people out of poverty. Do you think I'm advocating for free state college in order to keep people in poverty? Is that what you're getting out of this?

Situations are different, the mere act of having kids without being married has nothing to do with anything. It's having kids when you're in poverty that is the problem.

Having kids without being married is the #1 way to end up in poverty. Democrats live off the votes of people in poverty. They do not have a vested interest in getting them out. Their vested interest is in acting like they will help just enough.

Quote:

If you think finishing high school has merit, and high school is free, then how can you so easily dismiss free state college?

1. You get 12 years of free education. If that does not get you to 1st base, 4 more will not make a difference.
2. This will just become 13th-15th grades, needed skills will not be learned.
3. Most kids do not belong in college in the first place.
4. We cannot afford such a handout.

Fix the high schools. Make vo-tech mean something. But having them lose 4 years of income for a marginal degree just makes you feel better, doesn't help them.

Quote: AZDuffman

Having kids without being married is the #1 way to end up in poverty. Democrats live off the votes of people in poverty. They do not have a vested interest in getting them out. Their vested interest is in acting like they will help just enough.



1. You get 12 years of free education. If that does not get you to 1st base, 4 more will not make a difference.
2. This will just become 13th-15th grades, needed skills will not be learned.
3. Most kids do not belong in college in the first place.
4. We cannot afford such a handout.

Fix the high schools. Make vo-tech mean something. But having them lose 4 years of income for a marginal degree just makes you feel better, doesn't help them.

Chris Cuomo had a fantastic interview with Joe Biden last night. Biden talked about how one of the reasons we became the most powerful country on Earth was our education system. We started offering K-12 public education for all around the turn of the century. I repeat, at the turn of the century. Do you think, today, that 12 years is enough?

They started talking about, well, how can you afford it? Biden replied, "if you eliminate one single loophole, called stepped up basis, there's a trillion three hundred and forty billion dollars in loopholes out there for the wealthy, and others. If you just eliminate that one that costs 17 billion dollars, I can put every single qualified kid in America, who qualifies, into community college, for free. For free, while cutting the cost of four year college in half, costs 6 billion a year. And I can reduce the deficit by 11 billion dollars because we're giving away 17 billion dollars a year in a thing called stepped up basis."

A trillion...and three hundred...forty...billion dollars in loopholes. This idea that we can't afford to pay for higher education for every American who wants it is absurd. The problem is we have some in America who interprets that as a handout while some in America interprets it as necessary and the key to our future.

Quote: beachbumbabs

You have a point. However, I think the giant advocate protecting the poverty trade is the private prison construction and administration business. Those other businesses are getting cracked down on for usury or put out of business for predatory practices; private prisons (an abomination as a for-profit sector) just keep expanding.

Disgusting that the government would contract that out. Or that our society refuses to do the things necessary to lower the rates of incarceration.

Don't limit it to private prisons. Look at what the government rakes in off DUIs. Two beers with dinner can ruin your life. I am of two minds on the incarceration rate. On one hand, it is high. OTOH, just 1% are locked up. People do not want crime. It is shown that hoods tend to settle down by age 30 or else have moved up the ladder by then, so there might be 1% that just need to be locked up until they settle down. To lower it we probably need to decriminalize the Jesse Pinkmans of the world and let the damage their products do thin the herd.

Quote: darkoz

I want to make sure i understand you because i may agree with you here

Its not poverty class striving to remain in poverty but an industrial complex of businesses (some quite large like rent-a-center which will lease to purchase an item that over time and payments cost those that cant afford the item triple what it costs eg a $300 dvd player at $25 per month when finally puchased in 3 years cost the person $900) that is the real problem that needs fixing

If thats your point then i wholeheartedly agree

That is what I am talking about. It will not get "fixed." The mentality in these places is the problem. I saw it doing taxes and working at the laundry. This is boom month, EIC time! They know how the EIC works better than the average CPA. They get the money and blow it. Might be a nice vacation once a year, we had a guy did that. Lived in poverty all year, except one week in Hawaii or some other great place. Or they get furniture at said store. repoed by summer. Some spent in dribs and drabs.

The idea of using a bank was alien to them, assuming they did not get banned for bounced checks. Most never had a bank, used the check cashing place. Oh, and they wanted EIC NOW. A loan shark would give you a better rate on a knockdown loan than they paid in fees and interest. I once saw >999% APR. (That was an outlier, it was usually just half that.)

So they came to the tax office where I worked, paid several hundred to get their taxes done because they did not have to pay out of pocket. Then they went to Chester's Check Cashing (real place!) and paid to have the check cashed. Then they go to RAC and get nice furniture and TV/Stereo. This went on all the time. The scamming of the EIC we called "rent a kid."

And that is the poverty industrial complex.

Quote: Steverinos

A trillion...and three hundred...forty...billion dollars in loopholes. This idea that we can't afford to pay for higher education for every American who wants it is absurd. The problem is we have some in America who interprets that as a hweandout while some in America interprets it as necessary and the key to our future.

No, the problem is too many people think "free" college will solve everything. It would just do a few things.

1. It would destroy the value of having a degree. So we do this, and every entry level job then requires a degree. Or at least most. People lose 4 years income working to get the degree for the job that requires none. MOST JOBS DO NOT REQUIRE A DEGREE! 4 years, you are talking losing 6 figures in income.

2. It destroys work ethic. Assuming you went to college, did you see the difference between the kids that paid and the ones where mommy and daddy paid?

3. It lets people delay adulthood for 4 more years, and we are delaying adulthood enough already.

No thanks.

I would agree with some of this. I've never been one to say that free college will solve everything. There are always pros and cons and winners and losers to every solution. I only wanted to demonstrate that we can very well afford it...if we wanted to.

You listed some valid points, all cons of offering free community college (although I would argue that a college degree is ALREADY the new high school diploma) What about the pros though?

1) Expansion of freedoms to study what you want, leading to happiness (not worried about studying something that you, kinda, want to study because you know you have to land a job that can pay back the debt you accumulated)? More happy people, means happy country?

2) Better-educated population leading to better decisions in society?

3) Less reliance on public assistance?

4) Reduction in student loan debt upon graduation, which would increase the the chances of home ownership, starting a family, and accumulating wealth?

Just look at what the investment in the GI bill did for our high productivity and economic growth we enjoyed during the postwar years. There are other solutions as well. What about interest-free student loans? HELP in Australia? I just get so frustrated with this mentality of "well it's the way we've always done it, so it's the best way to do it". No, that is usually NOT the case!

Quote: AZDuffman

1. It would destroy the value of having a degree.

Why?

Quote:

So we do this, and every entry level job then requires a degree.

What do you base that conclusion on?

Quote:

MOST JOBS DO NOT REQUIRE A DEGREE!

If most jobs don't require a degree, then the people applying for those jobs are not going to go to college, even if it is free. The jobs that don't require a degree are not suddenly going to require one just because it's free to go to college. If McDonald's suddenly required a four year degree to flip burgers at 3 o'clock in the morning, no one would apply and they would put themselves right out of business.

Quote:

2. It destroys work ethic. Assuming you went to college, did you see the difference between the kids that paid and the ones where mommy and daddy paid?

No, I did not. My "mommy and daddy" paid for my college the first time around, and I was almost a straight-A student. The people with the worst work ethics were people who were terrible people anyway, regardless of how they got into college.

Quote:

3. It lets people delay adulthood for 4 more years, and we are delaying adulthood enough already.

Why is going to college "delaying" adulthood? What does that even mean? Being a college student is not a metric for being an adult or not.

Your objections to free college range from bizarre to downright nonsensical.