2016 Election -- Part II

Quote: 777

Want to see some to see some thing really horrific?

Naw, I'm good, keep doing your thing. I think it's healthy for you and quite entertaining for us ;)

Quote: SanchoPanza

They will join the 24 million whom Affordable Care left uncovered.

This post implies that the ACA is a failure in part because it left 24 million uncovered.

So hopefully SanchoPanza will hold the GOP's "replacement" to the same rigorous standard: if it leaves 24 million (or more) without high quality health care, it will be a failure.

Nareed on that other board has posted a few times this observation: "Where you stand depends on where you sit". Meaning, of course, how you view an act is dependent on who's done it, and how you're aligned with that person. Rather fascinating watching it in action, both in our members and within myself.

Sort of on topic, I remember hearing an interview with Ivana where she recanted her claims of rape. It was a few months back and I was only half listening, so feel free to double check. But what she had said was that Trump took her in a way that lacked intimacy, that she didn't recognize the man who he was. I don't recall her mentioning violence or anything violent, but the term "rape" was used to describe her feelings emotionally, and she expressly DENIED that he had actually raped her, ie took her by force against her will.

Just thought I'd put it out there to encourage some ME level of discussion. His rap is on par with SOOPOO stating in real terms the effects of the ACA. Opinionated and biased, but real talk. Wild allegations and tired talking points strike me as the flip side to the "He's a Kenyan!" hogwash I had to endure the last 8 years. So to ME, I give thanks for your effort.

Also to ME, I'm of age now. If you need a running mate, I bet we could pull off a decent lefty/righty combo and nail that middle majority. I sure could use some of that lifetime healthcare ;)

Face,

Lol. Well said.

Quote: ams288

This post implies that the ACA is a failure in part because it left 24 million uncovered.

So hopefully SanchoPanza will hold the GOP's "replacement" to the same rigorous standard: if it leaves 24 million (or more) without high quality health care, it will be a failure.

6 years with no alternative plan developed, and now they want to whip one up in 2 weeks.

Quote: Face

Just thought I'd put it out there to encourage some ME level of discussion. His rap is on par with SOOPOO stating in real terms the effects of the ACA. Opinionated and biased, but real talk. Wild allegations and tired talking points strike me as the flip side to the "He's a Kenyan!" hogwash I had to endure the last 8 years. So to ME, I give thanks for your effort.

Also to ME, I'm of age now. If you need a running mate, I bet we could pull off a decent lefty/righty combo and nail that middle majority. I sure could use some of that lifetime healthcare ;)

I appreciate it. Dogma isn't talking points anyway; if someone wants to propose that "tax cuts for the rich are good for the working class" because someone mentioned "trickle-down" economics once, and won't look at the failures of 1980s fiscal policy as disproof of that proposition, then there's no point in trying to persuade them otherwise. Just like if someone wants to propose that Donald Trump is a perfect gentleman, and won't look at his taped recordings with Howard Stern or Billy Bush as disproof of that proposition, then there's no point in trying to persuade them otherwise.

I'm less of a lefty than you might think. I'm just not mean-spirited, and I think the prevailing conservative social policy is mean-spirited, not "compassionate conservatism" as Bush once coined. I think it's a pathetic failure of execution, in a country as wealthy as we are, that anyone has to go without food or water or shelter or clothing or basic health coverage. A woman died last week in Portland of hypothermia after she was evicted from low-income housing and couldn't take care of herself.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/01/after_refusing_help_and_evicti.html#incart_river_home_pop
I perceive the conservative movement as one that implies people who are failing deserve to fail, and people who are succeeding deserve to succeed. But that philosophy implies that Trump and I are deservedly successful, and millions of struggling working-class Americans are deservedly failures. I think that's an invalid conclusion and therefore the premise is flawed. I think that the rights granted to us under the Constitution come with a cost, and we should be more willing than we are to pay the price for them. Nobody living in the United States got to where they are solely by themselves. Nobody. To quote the loser of this year's election, "it takes a village."

Quote: Dalex64

6 years with no alternative plan developed, and now they want to whip one up in 2 weeks.

To be fair, they didn't think they'd win until about October. And ironically, Obama and Trump now agree with regard to the ACA: if the GOP has a better plan, they're all for it, but don't just blow it up without a replacement.

Ruh roh:

Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him

Quote:

The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

Quote: ams288

Ruh roh:

Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him

Well, we know of at least one, when the son in law went to Paris the first week of October and negotiated with Russia on Trump's behalf about US policy.

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm less of a lefty than you might think.

FWIW, when I think "numerate leftist", none other holds that slot than MichaelBluejay. My classification of you comes below...

Quote: ME

I'm just not mean-spirited, and I think the prevailing conservative social policy is mean-spirited, not "compassionate conservatism" as Bush once coined. I think it's a pathetic failure of execution, in a country as wealthy as we are, that anyone has to go without food or water or shelter or clothing or basic health coverage. A woman died last week in Portland of hypothermia after she was evicted from low-income housing and couldn't take care of herself.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/01/after_refusing_help_and_evicti.html#incart_river_home_pop
I perceive the conservative movement as one that implies people who are failing deserve to fail, and people who are succeeding deserve to succeed. But that philosophy implies that Trump and I are deservedly successful, and millions of struggling working-class Americans are deservedly failures. I think that's an invalid conclusion and therefore the premise is flawed. I think that the rights granted to us under the Constitution come with a cost, and we should be more willing than we are to pay the price for them. Nobody living in the United States got to where they are solely by themselves. Nobody. To quote the loser of this year's election, "it takes a village."

What I see when viewing these threads is folks spewing what is a simplistic view of an already simplified stance, which has become so due to the medium we are engaging in. It's much like my earlier post where I tried to explain my anti-PC stance. In reality, a very complicated stance. But in type... it's hard to do much more than "PC is killin' ma' country!" without engaging in a several paragraph, hour long post.

I am exactly one of those "Let 'em suffer" fellas. I feel that simply by living in USA#1, any failure to succeed is nothing short of a failure of self, and as such, that responsibility should lie at that selfs' feet. It what I believe; further, it's what I live. There's not few here who know of my trials and tribulations, and there's a couple few that will attest to my refusal of charity, my "shunning of handouts". It's not a lack of compassion, as I believe I have, if anything, too much of that. But it's something, surely...

And I think what it is is nothing more than good, ol fashioned cynicism. I just haven't seen it, what the Left is trying to accomplish. Perhaps that's the fault of sensationalized media, maybe it's my fault for not being attuned to the positivity that surrounds me, but nothing pops into my mind when hearing "charity" or "welfare" other than fraud, corruption, and folks doing nothing while affording more and better material goods than the working man. Perhaps it's nothing more than brainwashing, perhaps it's nothing more than a lack of information, but it is nonetheless the only feeling that happens inside me.

But many things you've said have gotten through, and they've done so through no other means than an effort at communication and original ideas. You tell me to help a poor, and I'll tell you I am by not being one. Tell me to "help" by donating a buck, and I ain't got a buck to spare. Give a good and I ain't a good to give. But by mixing the tired standard of "give" with something attuned to "my side", "skill", and suddenly, we're approaching understanding. A left idea and a right concept merging, for no other reason than two folks listened and heard.

Lol, what's embarrassing is I was gonna reference what i think was Bab's post, about something serious going on and we're all bitching about some salacious bit of freaking gossip, and I can't even reference it properly because what was said was "important" and ain't nobody got time fo dat, so I just sort of skimmed it.

It's happening. Can we please dial up the proper discussion before I become just another caricature?

CHRISTMAS HAS COME EARLY FOR TRUMP HATERS!!

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

RUSSIAN HOOKERS PERFORMING GOLDEN SHOWERS FOR DONALD!!!

I can't wait to constantly hear the phrase "golden shower" on the news this week.

Quote: ams288

CHRISTMAS HAS COME EARLY FOR TRUMP HATERS!!

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

There are no Trump haters. This is very sad, and there is no reason to cheer.

I'm not sure I buy that document's credibility. For example, the second page talks about how Trump hired hookers to urinate on a bed previously slept on by Obama (and I don't put that past Trump), but then it also says that the hotel was known to be controlled by FSB who had microphones and cameras everywhere. Could it possibly be true that the Secret Service would allow the president to sleep in a hotel with microphones and cameras everywhere?

Quote: Face

I am exactly one of those "Let 'em suffer" fellas. I feel that simply by living in USA#1, any failure to succeed is nothing short of a failure of self, and as such, that responsibility should lie at that selfs' feet.

I think the truth is necessarily more nuanced. Certainly someone who sits on their ass and plays their friend's Xbox instead of getting a job, and then complains about not having any money, is failing of their own accord. But someone who used to be a West Virginian coal miner, then the mine collapsed and the energy companies switched to natural gas mining in North Dakota anyway? That's not their fault. Markets come and go, entire industries are born and crash. I couldn't have been a software developer 100 years ago. The lamplighter from 100 years ago can't find a job today. Our nation's economy has thrived due to the hard work of it's citizens. Turning our backs on those citizens when the market changes and discarding them like so much used newspaper is unjust. We need to recycle the unemployed back into the economy -- and I mean that in the "retrain and re-employ" meaning, not in the "Soylent Green" meaning. We The People includes the economically disenfranchised, and if Government will not be "for the People" -- all of them -- then it has failed in its purpose.

And remember what happens when Government isn't for the People: "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm not sure I buy that document's credibility. For example, the second page talks about how Trump hired hookers to urinate on a bed previously slept on by Obama (and I don't put that past Trump), but then it also says that the hotel was known to be controlled by FSB who had microphones and cameras everywhere. Could it possibly be true that the Secret Service would allow the president to sleep in a hotel with microphones and cameras everywhere?

Secret Service would obviously sweep the room for recording devices before the Obamas came anywhere near it. The Russians would know that too.

This will be the gift that keeps on giving for the next 4 years...

Quote: ams288

This will be the gift that keeps on giving for the next 4 years...

Somehow I don't think you are enjoying this "gift". You come off as bitter about someone like Trump even existing. Of course you would hate any of the Republicans winning, except for maybe Lindsey Graham.

Quote: Boz

Quote: ams288

This will be the gift that keeps on giving for the next 4 years...

Somehow I don't think you are enjoying this "gift". You come off as bitter about someone like Trump even existing.

Then you truly don't get me.

I haven't been this amused in ages!!! I went to the gym an hour ago and I had to restrain myself from bringing up the "golden shower" news to everyone I came in contact with.

Quote: ams288

Quote: Boz

Quote: ams288

This will be the gift that keeps on giving for the next 4 years...

Somehow I don't think you are enjoying this "gift". You come off as bitter about someone like Trump even existing.

Then you truly don't get me.

I haven't been this amused in ages!!! I went to the gym an hour ago and I had to restrain myself from bringing up the "golden shower" news to everyone I came in contact with.

Good way to get punched in the mouth if someone didn't get it in the proper context. But yea, it is funny actually.

Somewhere Little Jimmy Norton is smiling.

Obama's speech tonight was very fitting, seeing that he is a failed community organizer that couldn't organize any resemblance of universal support. He's like a wide receiver that cannot score. An organizer that only knows how to be a divider using Saul Alinsky tactics...(a book dedicated to Lucifer). Only the low IQ could fall for his lies. Mr. pathetic had to run back to Chicago to find any support for his lame speech. Jimmy Carter is so happy that he has survived to see his legacy of most failed presidency abolished.

It's the end of an error!!

Quote: ams288

This will be the gift that keeps on giving for the next 4 years...
]

It's starting to look like this was a 4chan troll, that buzzfeed in particular, took hook line and sinker.

I'll be much amused either way.

Quote: Face

I am exactly one of those "Let 'em suffer" fellas. I feel that simply by living in USA#1, any failure to succeed is nothing short of a failure of self, and as such, that responsibility should lie at that selfs' feet.

I've heard that point of view expressed many times by others. YOU'RE SO VERY PROUD. You're so sure that if you had a prostitute drug fiend for a mother and your older brother and uncle (you've never seen your father) taught you how to sling crack on the streets when you were 9 years old that you would have risen above it all. You're so sure about that. For myself I don't see it that way. I don't think I would have been that strong to rise above it. I don't think I would even have known right from wrong which is basically the legal definition of insanity. I would have known that society sees it as wrong because they're trying to put you in jail. But since everyone in my culture was doing it not really wrong. I probably would have ended up a gang banger who either died very young or spent a lot of time in prison.

Quote: MaxPen

Obama's speech tonight was very fitting, seeing that he is a failed community organizer that couldn't organize any resemblance of universal support. He's like a wide receiver that cannot score. An organizer that only knows how to be a divider using Saul Alinsky tactics...(a book dedicated to Lucifer). Only the low IQ could fall for his lies. Mr. pathetic had to run back to Chicago to find any support for his lame speech. Jimmy Carter is so happy that he has survived to see his legacy of most failed presidency abolished.

It's the end of an error!!

Poor MaxPen. I feel for you.

Turns out those warm liberal tears you've been drinking for the past two months were something else entirely....

Quote: lilredrooster

I've heard that point of view expressed many times by others. YOU'RE SO VERY PROUD. You're so sure that if you had a prostitute drug fiend for a mother and your older brother and uncle (you've never seen your father) taught you how to sling crack on the streets when you were 9 years old that you would have risen above it all. You're so sure about that. For myself I don't see it that way. I don't think I would have been that strong to rise above it. I don't think I would even have known right from wrong which is basically the legal definition of insanity. I would have known that society sees it as wrong because they're trying to put you in jail. But since everyone in my culture was doing it not really wrong. I probably would have ended up a gang banger who either died very young or spent a lot of time in prison.

So proud? More like TOO proud. It has made and continues to make my life far more difficult than it needs to be. But we do what we can to protect our fragile egos, don't we?

In truth, I'm not sure of your charge at all. In fact, I believe I am living proof of ME's stance. I was not born into poverty or addiction, but I was born into a hard working family of country dumb folks. As such, I've had my own difficulties with the simple act of growing up and being an adult. I just turned 36. 36 is when I learned such things as what a premium is, what a deductible is, basic, simple terms that most everyone else knows by the time they hit the road on their own. I just happened to miss that lesson. Now, if I don't even know what a GD deductible is, for no other reason than a gap in my upbringing, how much you think I know about retirement, taxes, savings, 401k's, stocks, health care? If i have such raging gaps in my knowledge about such simple, necessary events, how "stable" am I as a citizen? How far away from my potential am I? How much money is my ignorance costing me, and especially, how much is it costing YOU?

My beliefs are formed off my experiences. They're the only ones I can have, as I can't "take" experiences from anyone else. So when I hear a broad term like "welfare", I translate that into "giving folks money for nothing". I lived in poverty for one full year. $16,XXX with a dependent. I survived. It wasn't fun, I lost 40lbs due to no food, I stuffed jalepenos into a rotten tooth of mine to get an endorphin dump to deal with my back pain. It was no way to live, but live I did. And handing me whatever sum one could bestow on me would have done what, exactly? Given me a happy week? And then what?

ME's stance is different in this regard, and aligns almost EXACTLY with my core beliefs. I don't know what I'd have to go through to accept cash, I just know I've gone through much and ain't never reached that point yet. I can't explain it and I'm not sure I even understand it, but to do so is an act I find to be a close cousin to outright theft. Dunno why that is, but it's how I feel. But you take that cash and invest it into a retraining program, and suddenly, I'm on board. I guess it's no more than "give a fish / teach to fish". I'm not greedy in the slightest, and I'm not near heartless despite some of my more hype postings. But I do have a giant problem with paying others with my money for no reason. I cannot understand it, view it, or see it as anything short of theft. But you take that same money, invest it into a program that will BREAK THAT CYCLE, and I'd be running to the polls with my Yay vote. I'd also be the first in line to sign up for it.

But we gotta start talking, first. We'll never get to these types of things without serious conversation and consideration, and we can't even do the talking part yet. I'd suggest we all do a bit of reading of Mr George Washington, especially the parts about political parties. Perhaps a reading and reflection session can help jiggle us toward where we need to be, instead of this absolutely bizarre trend of rooting for sides like it's a BOS vs PHI game.

Quote: MathExtremist

I think the truth is necessarily more nuanced. Certainly someone who sits on their ass and plays their friend's Xbox instead of getting a job, and then complains about not having any money, is failing of their own accord. But someone who used to be a West Virginian coal miner, then the mine collapsed and the energy companies switched to natural gas mining in North Dakota anyway? That's not their fault. Markets come and go, entire industries are born and crash. I couldn't have been a software developer 100 years ago. The lamplighter from 100 years ago can't find a job today. Our nation's economy has thrived due to the hard work of it's citizens. Turning our backs on those citizens when the market changes and discarding them like so much used newspaper is unjust. We need to recycle the unemployed back into the economy -- and I mean that in the "retrain and re-employ" meaning, not in the "Soylent Green" meaning. We The People includes the economically disenfranchised, and if Government will not be "for the People" -- all of them -- then it has failed in its purpose.

And remember what happens when Government isn't for the People: "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

I am absolutely right here with you, but I've a question.

I recall about 5 years ago going on a rant how corps. should have some sort of component where they are judged based on how magnanimous and benevolent they were, as opposed to the simple metric of the bottom line. You chimed in stating that what I was describing was a meritocracy, and then spent some time explaining why it would never work.

I agree that as the "Greatest Nation in the World", none should go hungry, none should go under medicated, none should sleep in the elements without shelter. But isn't your stance sort of rooted in the same core beliefs than my faulty one was some years back?

For sure we have the resources to do all you wish, and probably a ton more besides. But how do you get the public to adjust and conform? People gonna people, IMO, and ain't ne'er not a one of us that I've seen that are gonna sacrifice all that much voluntarily.

Quote: Face

People gonna people, IMO, and ain't ne'er not a one of us that I've seen that are gonna sacrifice all that much voluntarily.

What you're saying in this quote is so very, very wrong. Thousands of people (but nowhere near enough) including myself work extremely hard as volunteers. And sacrifice a significant % of what they have in donations. You're right if you say that few do it. But very wrong if you say that nobody does it.

Just actually listed to Tom Brokow state that no President has went after a news organization like Trump did since Nixon. And they wonder why there is little respect of the media. How quick they forgot Obama telling people to stop getting information from Fox News.

Quote: Face

ME's stance is different in this regard, and aligns almost EXACTLY with my core beliefs. I don't know what I'd have to go through to accept cash, I just know I've gone through much and ain't never reached that point yet. I can't explain it and I'm not sure I even understand it, but to do so is an act I find to be a close cousin to outright theft. Dunno why that is, but it's how I feel. But you take that cash and invest it into a retraining program, and suddenly, I'm on board. I guess it's no more than "give a fish / teach to fish". I'm not greedy in the slightest, and I'm not near heartless despite some of my more hype postings. But I do have a giant problem with paying others with my money for no reason. I cannot understand it, view it, or see it as anything short of theft. But you take that same money, invest it into a program that will BREAK THAT CYCLE, and I'd be running to the polls with my Yay vote. I'd also be the first in line to sign up for it.

I give my kids money and resources for no reason. Well, not for no reason, it's because I care about their well being and development. But they didn't earn it in the economic sense. They're barely able to clean up their own dishes. You may have seen an economic analysis recently that says the cost of raising kids is over $230k each. But I'm incurring that expense because I know it's an investment that will pay off. My parents' investment in me paid off, now I'm paying it forward to their grandkids. Their investment contributed to my economic success, and I expect that mine will contribute to my kids'.

It's not much of a stretch to conclude that similar investments that don't happen to fall along blood lines would reap similar returns. But just as you can make good and bad investments, you can implement good and bad social policy. If I send my kids to college, that's a good policy. If I just give them $200k (the ballpark cost of that college education), that's less good. Sure, they might figure it out, but not necessarily. I'd note that there is some research indicating that a universal basic income is not bad social policy, but $200k is not "basic income", so there's obviously a line to be drawn.

Quote:

For sure we have the resources to do all you wish, and probably a ton more besides. But how do you get the public to adjust and conform? People gonna people, IMO, and ain't ne'er not a one of us that I've seen that are gonna sacrifice all that much voluntarily.

What if they don't? What if it's entirely voluntary? What if the folks who want to live in a mutual-benefits society agree to pay the tax, and the libertarian folks don't, and we divvy up social benefits accordingly? We could either do that with a tiered government system or with a basic, minimalist government and non-profit corporations taking up the slack.

If you could join a corporation as an employee where you worked zero hours, and the terms of your employment were that you sign a contract that for the next 20 years, you would either (a) fork over 75% of your actual job's income or (b) work for a small salary within the corporation, in exchange for "corporate benefits" including food, shelter, clothing, health care, transportation, education, and all other basic needs, would you? Would you fault someone else who did?

Quote: Boz

Just actually listed to Tom Brokow state that no President has went after a news organization like Trump did since Nixon. And they wonder why there is little respect of the media. How quick they forgot Obama telling people to stop getting information from Fox News.

I assume Brokaw was referring to Trump and the CNN guy at today's "press conference."

If you can find an example of Obama going after someone from FOX like that, be my guest. But you can't.

Quote: lilredrooster

What you're saying in this quote is so very, very wrong. Thousands of people (but nowhere near enough) including myself work extremely hard as volunteers. And sacrifice a significant % of what they have in donations. You're right if you say that few do it. But very wrong if you say that nobody does it.

Apples and oranges, IMO. We're talking passed each other.

You never have and you never will hear me complain about grassroots support. Soup kitchen at the church, what KJ did with homeless kids, I've never said a word against it. You perhaps may have heard a critique or two when things get national. When something like Wounded Warriors spends more on corporate meetings than they do their top service, yeah, I'm gonna say something and peer with suspicious eyes.

But even that I comment more as an addition to a convo than a staunch belief, because that's all voluntary. It's precisely .gov, the topic ME and I are discussing, where I get hype. And it's not a lack of compassion that fuels it. I suppose it's lack of control.

Giving for free solves nothing whatsoever, in my experience. I totally draw a parallel with conservation. You give for free, or give what does not naturally exist, and what you wind up with is dependents that cannot survive of their own accord. You wind up with a society that cannot support itself, which drags down several related or adjacent systems, lowering the quality of the entire ecosystem. Feeding deer might be "compassionate", but what you'll find is problems galore as those who should have moved on instead stay, skills necessary to survive stagnate, and the only way to continue supporting the system you've created is to pump more and more resources into. Resources that do nothing long term except continue to grow your problem exponentially. By that time you can't even stop, because you have made the entire area dependent and to stop means chaotic death.

How is this any different when applied to humans?

ME's idea tackles that. His idea does not let skills stagnate, his idea GIVES those skills. It's still "charity", it's still "taking my money involuntarily", yet he's found the ground that can survive given my beliefs and experiences. AND, does so in a way that, IMO, is leaps and bounds better than current, and shows real promise.

I'm not sure what part of my side you have a problem with.

Quote: ams288

If you can find an example of Obama going after someone from FOX like that, be my guest. But you can't.

James Rosen.

Quote: SanchoPanza

James Rosen.

The lack of any supporting documentation showing how Barack Obama went after James Rosen is noted.

What a day, the media is made to look like
the fools they are.

Trump Report Takes ‘Fake News’ To a New Level

"There is literally no evidence on offer in these memos or from BuzzFeed that any single sentence in these documents is factual or true. What’s more, we know most major news organizations in America had seen them and despite their well-known institutional antipathy toward Trump, had chosen not to publish them or even make reference to them after efforts to substantiate their charges had failed." http://nypost.com/2017/01/10/buzzfeeds-trump-report-takes-fake-news-to-a-new-level/

Quote: EvenBob

What a day, the media is made to look like
the fools they are.

Trump Report Takes ‘Fake News’ To a New Level

"There is literally no evidence on offer in these memos or from BuzzFeed that any single sentence in these documents is factual or true. What’s more, we know most major news organizations in America had seen them and despite their well-known institutional antipathy toward Trump, had chosen not to publish them or even make reference to them after efforts to substantiate their charges had failed." http://nypost.com/2017/01/10/buzzfeeds-trump-report-takes-fake-news-to-a-new-level/

Quote: Face

FWIW, when I think "numerate leftist", none other holds that slot than MichaelBluejay. My classification of you comes below...



What I see when viewing these threads is folks spewing what is a simplistic view of an already simplified stance, which has become so due to the medium we are engaging in. It's much like my earlier post where I tried to explain my anti-PC stance. In reality, a very complicated stance. But in type... it's hard to do much more than "PC is killin' ma' country!" without engaging in a several paragraph, hour long post.

I am exactly one of those "Let 'em suffer" fellas. I feel that simply by living in USA#1, any failure to succeed is nothing short of a failure of self, and as such, that responsibility should lie at that selfs' feet. It what I believe; further, it's what I live. There's not few here who know of my trials and tribulations, and there's a couple few that will attest to my refusal of charity, my "shunning of handouts". It's not a lack of compassion, as I believe I have, if anything, too much of that. But it's something, surely...

And I think what it is is nothing more than good, ol fashioned cynicism. I just haven't seen it, what the Left is trying to accomplish. Perhaps that's the fault of sensationalized media, maybe it's my fault for not being attuned to the positivity that surrounds me, but nothing pops into my mind when hearing "charity" or "welfare" other than fraud, corruption, and folks doing nothing while affording more and better material goods than the working man. Perhaps it's nothing more than brainwashing, perhaps it's nothing more than a lack of information, but it is nonetheless the only feeling that happens inside me.

But many things you've said have gotten through, and they've done so through no other means than an effort at communication and original ideas. You tell me to help a poor, and I'll tell you I am by not being one. Tell me to "help" by donating a buck, and I ain't got a buck to spare. Give a good and I ain't a good to give. But by mixing the tired standard of "give" with something attuned to "my side", "skill", and suddenly, we're approaching understanding. A left idea and a right concept merging, for no other reason than two folks listened and heard.

Lol, what's embarrassing is I was gonna reference what i think was Bab's post, about something serious going on and we're all bitching about some salacious bit of freaking gossip, and I can't even reference it properly because what was said was "important" and ain't nobody got time fo dat, so I just sort of skimmed it.

It's happening. Can we please dial up the proper discussion before I become just another caricature?

I think you and I are very much in the same boat when it comes to the poor, which is a subset of personal responsibility. We both, most importantly (and I'm paraphrasing your words and actions) refuse to judge other people. It just manifests itself differently in us.

I give, you don't. I allow that I may be getting scammed, you allow that at times people really legitimately need the help and can then recover to self-sufficiency. I think there is a place for social agencies, you don't. And we're both partly right. And you do walk the walk; as you mentioned above, you are self-reliant to a fault (my opinion) but I admire you very much for it. I believe that if you have, and those you love don't, you share. I've paid a high price for that belief, and it still grieves me.

If you are a caricature, you are one worthy of emulation. I am also a caricature, but belief structures and personal ethos tend to hang together, one leading to another. We are both products of.our environments, resources, and the consequences of our actions.

Quote: ams288

I assume Brokaw was referring to Trump and the CNN guy at today's "press conference."

If you can find an example of Obama going after someone from FOX like that, be my guest. But you can't.

Obama just went after the voting public telling them to stop getting their information from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Hillary also tried insulting the public that did not agree with her. Didn't work out too well for her, but great for those of us who laugh at your anger over Trumps election.

Quote: ams288

The lack of any supporting documentation showing how Barack Obama went after James Rosen is noted.

The inability to use a search engine is noted, going along with customary lack of any citation.

"The Justice Department did more than seize a Fox News reporter's emails while suggesting he was a criminal "co-conspirator" in a leak case -- it did so under one of the most serious wartime laws in America, the Espionage Act.

It's the same law used by the Nixon administration to go after The New York Times and Daniel Ellsberg over the leak of the Pentagon Papers. It's the law used to charge the Rosenbergs, American communists, for allegedly passing secret information to the Soviet Union -- they were executed for the offense in 1953.

One Washington attorney, who represents two defendants recently charged under that World War I-era law, told FoxNews.com that the decision by the Justice Department to invoke it in the current case is "beyond chilling" -- and could set a dangerous precedent for going after reporters.

"This kind of puts us into the deep freeze," attorney Jesselyn Radack said. "I feel like we're back to the Dark Ages."

In the case involving Fox News, a government adviser was accused of leaking information after a 2009 story by Fox News' James Rosen was published online which said North Korea planned to respond to looming U.N. sanctions with another nuclear test." FOX NEWS CHANNEL, YES, FNC

------
For those who fear that Fox News cannot report accurately on itself:
------
"Ever since a Monday Washington Post article revealed that the Department of Justice investigation into a national security leak included searches of Fox News reporter James Rosen‘s email and phone records, the media has been focused on fluffing up comparisons of that case with the unfolding Associated Press leak investigation. Lost amid the hype and hysteria over the searches was the actual content of the emails between Rosen and his alleged source, then-State Department contractor Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. In those emails, now confirmed to be from Rosen, the Fox News Reporter reveals his noble intentions for seeking secret information from Kim.

The Justice Department investigation stems from an alleged leak that appeared in this 2009 Fox News article by James Rosen:

U.S. intelligence officials have warned President Obama and other senior American officials that North Korea intends to respond to the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution this week — condemning the communist country for its recent nuclear and ballistic missile tests — with another nuclear test, FOX News has learned.

What’s more, Pyongyang’s next nuclear detonation is but one of four planned actions the Central Intelligence Agency has learned, through sources inside North Korea, that the regime of Kim Jong-Il intends to take — but not announce — once the Security Council resolution is officially passed, likely on Friday.

Ordinarily, Fox News would be among the first people to tell you that we don’t tip off our enemies that we have sources deep within their governments. In fact, James Rosen would be the first to tell you that, in the same article:

FOX News is withholding some details about the sources and methods by which American intelligence agencies learned of the North’s plans so as to avoid compromising sensitive overseas operations in a country — North Korea — U.S. spymasters regard as one of the world’s most difficult to penetrate.

Yes, you have to wonder what a North Korean leak investigation looks like. Probably involves all kinds of search warrants and phone records and due process.

From the minute WaPo released its story, the press has been fluffing the details for maximum Scandalabra™ impact, comparing the Kim investigation with the DOJ’s seizure of the Associated Press’ phone records, and breathlessly reporting that the Justice Department “Tracked Rosen’s Movements,” and “Obtained His Personal Emails.”

You can think what you will of the investigation, but a review of DoJ documents reveals that they “tracked Rosen’s movements” by checking the government’s own records of ID badge use. By that logic, you could say that the Secret Service and the White House “track” my movements. Attica! Attica! Attica!

Furthermore, the emails and phone records they seized, as the warrant affidavit notes, were exclusively for communications between Rosen and his alleged source, not the wide net that the headlines would suggest. Apparently, those records included a phone call between the source and a phone number either located at, or billed to, Rosen’s parents’ address, which led many to declare that Baier was saying the Justice Department targeted James Rosen’s parents as well.

What Baier actually said (emphasis mine) was that “the seized toll records also relate to James’ parents’ home in Staten Island.”

Fox News and much of the mainstream media have gone out of their way to make the DOJ investigation of Rosen seem as abusive as possible, and an extension of the AP leak investigation story, but a cursory review of the government’s affidavit reveals that the DOJ developed probable cause to conduct a much narrower investigation of Rosen by first examining the alleged leaker’s emails, work phone records, and the State Department’s ID badge records. Much has been, and perhaps should be, made of the affidavit’s characterization of Rosen as “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator in the crime,” but since he has not been charged, it would appear the government was deploying that legal theory primarily to support searching Rosen’s emails, rather than voluntarily asking for them. -- mediate

and the Obama Administration even harassed his parents:

"The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza has uncovered more details about the Justice Dept.'s investigation into the former State Dept. contractor who is accused of leaking classified information to James Rosen, the Fox News reporter.

According to Lizza, the Justice Dept. also seized phone records of numbers associated with two White House staffers and at least five Fox News reporters.

"The document uncovered today suggests the government seized 'call detail' records from Rosen’s work and cell phones, which would show whom he called, who called him, how long they spoke, and the times of the calls," Lizza reports. "The document suggests that the government was seeking only the subscriber records for the two White House numbers targeted, information that a government source said would include the name of the official who used the specific line."

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the Justice Dept. had searched Rosen's personal e-mails and tracked his visits to the State Dept in 2009. The court affadavit described Rosen as “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator" of his government source, presumably because he had solicited classified information from that source." -- politico

duplicate deleted

Quote: Boz

Obama just went after the voting public telling them to stop getting their information from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

That doesn't even come close to comparing to Donald's attacks on the media (just today).

So, in conclusion, Tom Brokaw was right and you were wrong.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I allow that I may be getting scammed, you allow that at times people really legitimately need the help and can then recover to self-sufficiency. I think there is a place for social agencies, you don't. And we're both partly right. And you do walk the walk; as you mentioned above, you are self-reliant to a fault (my opinion) but I admire you very much for it. I believe that if you have, and those you love don't, you share. I've paid a high price for that belief, and it still grieves me.

And to interject, since I look at the world as a probabilist, the distribution of societal outcomes is superior when you tilt the needle toward "more social spending, less likely for an individual to fail, more likely for an individual to scam the system" than "less social spending, more likely for an individual to fail, less likely for an individual to scam the system." It's never going to be black or white and there's no one-size-fits-all solution. We just need to find the strategy that optimizes EV. (Just...)

To use a forum-appropriate analogy, a casino's net profit is greater if it lets some card counters play than if it aggressively prevents all advantage play activity, because the organizational cost to prevent all AP activity is higher than the revenue saved by doing so. Similarly, though I recognize that not everyone agrees, I believe economic growth is greater if social benefits are calibrated more generously, even if it means more cheaters, because the economic cost of letting people fail is greater than the economic cost of letting people cheat. We're seeing that right now, where millions of less-than-successful citizens just elected a demagogue who promised them better times. Except Trump will move the needle in exactly the opposite direction. When someone is drowning, you don't start reeling in the life preserver and yell to them "sink or swim." If Obama deserves criticism, it's that he wasn't able to help those people in the time he had (and with the intransigent GOP Congress he had). But it's easy to say "Obama failed, let's do it the other way" and elect Trump, and that's what happened. That was the wrong answer and we know where that will end up. The right answer was "Obama failed to finish the job, let's keep going."

If GOP policies accelerate the wealth gap, as they seem destined to do, then the bloom will shortly be off Trump's rose.

Trump answered more questions in his 42min
presser today than Obama answered in his
90min presser last month. Obama is love
with the sound of his own voice, brevity is
not a word he understands. Trump is a
straight talker, he gets to the point. When
Obama answers a question, he jumps in
a glider and soars around in the clouds
and might get to a point, but probably not.

Quote: ams288

That doesn't even come close to comparing to Donald's attacks on the media (just today). So, in conclusion, Tom Brokaw was right and you were wrong.

Yup, that's correct. The DOJ under Holder and Lynch have not amounted to diddly squat when it comes to the press, especially on the painfully rare instances when the press takes one step outside the party line. Keep up the enforcer work!

Quote: ams288

That doesn't even come close to comparing to Donald's attacks on the media (just today).

So, in conclusion, Tom Brokaw was right and you were wrong.

It that is wrong, I don't want to be right!

Bet the poor little CNN guy is crying somewhere knowing he was called out by the soon to be President of the United States. Somehow he didn't expect that to happen with his liberal college education. Or maybe he thinks it makes him some hero in the coffee shops of American where liberals like him gather and discuss issues instead of actually working. F Van Jones, Jim Acosta, Wolf and all the others at CNN like them. At least MSNBC admits their bias. CNN tries to act like they play it down the middle. But when you give someone like Jones airtime, you make it clear to everyone your a far left fringe, beyond even liberal, network.

Van Jones slipping and falling in a puddle of AIDS would be a good thing for America, and perhaps for CNN's ratings.

Quote: ams288

Poor MaxPen. I feel for you.

Turns out those warm liberal tears you've been drinking for the past two months were something else entirely....

You're brainwashed. The simple fact that you buy into the whole left vs. right arguments proves it. Left, left, left, right, left is how you march troops down the trail. When you are incapable of formulating your own opinions, utilizing your own brain housing group, you tend to believe whatever is sold to you based on your bias. Keep up the fight against your own though. LOL

Quote: MaxPen

Left, left, left, right, left is how you march troops down the trail.

I want to see a video of troops marching like this...

Quote: MathExtremist

I want to see a video of troops marching like this...

Just Google "military marching cadence videos" and watch away.

I'm neither left nor right. I find subscribing to any one party's doctrine absurd both sides are equally
full of self serving power mongering lying criminal ego maniacs.

This one is for the righties. I bumped into it you may get a chuckle I did, but I despise Maddow she's right
up there with Hannity as far as the top plastic people in the news media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut0TaegQ-kw

Quote: beachbumbabs

If you are a caricature, you are one worthy of emulation. I am also a caricature, but belief structures and personal ethos tend to hang together, one leading to another. We are both products of.our environments, resources, and the consequences of our actions.

Thanks you, dear Babs.

But to clarify, since we're trying to do just that, I'm not anti-giving. My personal preference on that is time, usually helping to do what those who cannot do need. I love stopping the truck to get the bitch pile some plow left for a lil old lady, or putting an arm around a kid and telling him great hit but you're not to checking age yet, and taking the time to explain why it was wrong and how he could do it better, instead of just binning him for 2min. Or any of the many random acts of kindness, whether retrieving a blown about garbage can or buying a vet lunch on the sly. Paying it forward is rewarding on many levels.

I just can't be arsed on a macro level. ME believes the benefit of many outweighs the abuse of the few. I'll admit both that I lack the ability to see things in a macro sense, and also that EMOTION flat out overrides my logic in this case. It is very hard for me to think of a struggling poor doing all they can and needing just a crumb to break free, because the emotion of anger overrides it, thinking back to that day standing in line with two items while a bunch of able bodied teens come up with arms full of junk with their EBT. I know it's "wrong", a fault of my person. But I can't yet break it. It's gotta be like 7 years since that day happened, and I STILL feel that mf'er owes me a cut lawn and a raking. Money ain't but a tangible form of time. That mf'er shorted my life with no compensation to me. I can't get passed it.

Quote: ME

And to interject, since I look at the world as a probabilist, the distribution of societal outcomes is superior when you tilt the needle toward "more social spending, less likely for an individual to fail, more likely for an individual to scam the system" than "less social spending, more likely for an individual to fail, less likely for an individual to scam the system." It's never going to be black or white and there's no one-size-fits-all solution. We just need to find the strategy that optimizes EV. (Just...)

I think we have real info regarding the latter. Surely there are or has been a sort of "fend for yourself" society. I'd imagine any monarchy / patriarchy / dictatorship type place would fit, and I'd agree it's a poor system. But is there any real example of your former? Is there a place that's pulled off your version? My lack of education / experience leads me to think you're speaking of communism, and I don't mean Red China - USSR - anti-American buzzword communism, but just ideological communism (please correct if wrong). And I think it has never flown because it's one of those "on paper" ideas. An idea that for reasonable ME makes total sense and is the supreme choice, but when put into practice with one ME and five hundred thousands whack jobs, money grubbers, psychopaths and sycophants, the whole house of cards goes fluttering to bits.

I sort of get it, don't let my opposition fool you. I see people on this very thread describe their days, and more often than not, I sit here thinking "That dudes one SESSION at the table would have FED me for the entire YEAR". Some of y'all blow my entire YEARLY entertainment budget on ONE HAND OF CARDS. How many of them do you think would skip an hour of rolling dice, just give it right up including the money they'd need, and just hand it to me so I can get out of this level7 pain and get this tooth popped out? Surely my health trumps their entertainment. Surely addressing it now will cost much, MUCH less than waiting until I have thefunds. For sure the overall status of society will increase if that "miserable f#$%", which is what I am when in pain, suddenly becomes a genuine, decent member of society. But ain't none of 'em gonna do it. And most of these folks like me lol.

I guess I said all that to say I agree with, and laugh at, you at the same time =)

Quote: MathExtremist

I give my kids money and resources for no reason. Well, not for no reason, it's because I care about their well being and development. But they didn't earn it in the economic sense. They're barely able to clean up their own dishes. You may have seen an economic analysis recently that says the cost of raising kids is over $230k each. But I'm incurring that expense because I know it's an investment that will pay off. My parents' investment in me paid off, now I'm paying it forward to their grandkids. Their investment contributed to my economic success, and I expect that mine will contribute to my kids'.

It's not much of a stretch to conclude that similar investments that don't happen to fall along blood lines would reap similar returns. But just as you can make good and bad investments, you can implement good and bad social policy. If I send my kids to college, that's a good policy. If I just give them $200k (the ballpark cost of that college education), that's less good. Sure, they might figure it out, but not necessarily. I'd note that there is some research indicating that a universal basic income is not bad social policy, but $200k is not "basic income", so there's obviously a line to be drawn.

Hey, man, if I can go down to the projects and round up the poors and make them do my dishes and yardwork AND also have them be my fishing buddy AND have them responsible for my end-of-life care, then sure. Otherwise, randoms =/= your/my personal children ;) Jokes aside, I get it and agree on paper. My counter to this is already posted above.

Quote: ME

What if they don't? What if it's entirely voluntary? What if the folks who want to live in a mutual-benefits society agree to pay the tax, and the libertarian folks don't, and we divvy up social benefits accordingly? We could either do that with a tiered government system or with a basic, minimalist government and non-profit corporations taking up the slack.

If you could join a corporation as an employee where you worked zero hours, and the terms of your employment were that you sign a contract that for the next 20 years, you would either (a) fork over 75% of your actual job's income or (b) work for a small salary within the corporation, in exchange for "corporate benefits" including food, shelter, clothing, health care, transportation, education, and all other basic needs, would you? Would you fault someone else who did?

This, as well as some previous postings you've made about corporations being involved in what is now seen as more of a government function, is a little beyond me. I'm having trouble putting together what you're saying to the point I can "see" it, but I'll throw a few things out nonetheless.

I'd have a real problem putting my welfare on the line when my "shield" as it were was a profit generating entity. It's one thing to be denied something because there is no money for it (like a park). It's another to be denied when that thing is amoxicillan. And then it's a whole 'nuther thing entirely when you're denied "because shareholders". I dunno what you got cooking in that dome of yours, but it seems you're gonna have to change the entire game for this one.

I'd also have, because I damn sure HAVE HAD, a real problem with "Too Big To Fail". A handful of asshats screw the pooch, now we gotta pay 11 figures to clean it up? Not cool, but it's the choice we made. But under your system, would it even be a choice? What if "fail" didn't mean the loss of X,XXX jobs, but the loss of XXX,XXX jobs, houses, healthcare, meals, cars, and schools? No choice there, it's an insta-pay. Who's paying? And from what purse? Walmart hiccups now, your 401k just depreciated by $14. It hiccups in your world,.... I don't even know. Doubt it'd be pretty, though.

And this is kind of an aside, but plays into my resistance for these things. An in depth look at the recession of 2004 ain't something I've looked into too hard, because I know I'd be on the news that night. I KNOW them sumbitches played a game they knew they would lose, I KNOW they were aware of the damage they were causing, I KNOW this was no "mistake". That's OK. Scumbags exist, and scumbags gonna scumbag. But how in seven hells can these mf'ers KEEP their jobs, CONTINUE to receive bonuses, and RETAIN their goddamn freedom? I don't know if it's right or wrong, but who I am as a person cannot tolerate that. It's s#$% like this exactly that's turning me into the cynical misanthrope that reveals himself in threads like these. It's s#$% like that that's got me in the streets chanting "BURN IT DOWN!". And it does have a bit, not entirely but a bit, to do with my "leave me the f#$% alone" stance. ANYTHING to do with .gov has to pass through this filter, and that filter is fiiiiiine indeed. Yet you'd ask me to remove the filter entirely, and put my whole BEING in their trust?

You're ahead of your time, ME. You might got it all figured out. The welfare of a 340mm people, 3.79mm square mile country and you done got the cure. Now all you gotta do is explain it, and explain it well, to 250mm country dumb idiots like myself.

I'm 36. I speak country dumb fluently. So again, if you need a running mate, I ain't too proud to play second fiddle =)

Quote: Face

But to clarify, since we're trying to do just that, I'm not anti-giving. My personal preference on that is time, usually helping to do what those who cannot do need. I love stopping the truck to get the bitch pile some plow left for a lil old lady, or putting an arm around a kid and telling him great hit but you're not to checking age yet, and taking the time to explain why it was wrong and how he could do it better, instead of just binning him for 2min. Or any of the many random acts of kindness, whether retrieving a blown about garbage can or buying a vet lunch on the sly. Paying it forward is rewarding on many levels.

I just can't be arsed on a macro level. ME believes the benefit of many outweighs the abuse of the few. I'll admit both that I lack the ability to see things in a macro sense, and also that EMOTION flat out overrides my logic in this case. It is very hard for me to think of a struggling poor doing all they can and needing just a crumb to break free, because the emotion of anger overrides it, thinking back to that day standing in line with two items while a bunch of able bodied teens come up with arms full of junk with their EBT. I know it's "wrong", a fault of my person. But I can't yet break it. It's gotta be like 7 years since that day happened, and I STILL feel that mf'er owes me a cut lawn and a raking. Money ain't but a tangible form of time. That mf'er shorted my life with no compensation to me. I can't get passed it.

Very reasonable explanation of your position.

Here's what I'll say ...

• Bill Clinton passed welfare reform in '96 which did several things that may surprise you:

      • Limited the lifetime cash assistance of any individual to 60 months
      • Restricts welfare for most legal immigrants
      • Requires recipients to find a job within 24 months of receiving aid

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

• "Welfare" is a very broad term, and not all of it is cash assistance like people imagine. States have a huge amount of latitude as to how they spend federal welfare funds. Several states spend 10's of millions of this money on "non-core" services such as marriage counseling. That money often ends up in the hands of private corporations.

      http://features.marketplace.org/yourstateonwelfare/

Quote:

It is very hard for me to think of a struggling poor doing all they can and needing just a crumb to break free

• I understand this sentiment, but it's too much the case for people who have been convicted of felonies. Once you have that on your record, it can be super difficult to get a job, lease, mortgage, or even a bank account. A felony is really a life sentence, and I personally think that is wrong. When you are convicted, you are sentenced to prison as your punishment, and that should be your punishment - not 1,000 additional caveats that prevent you from doing anything else in life once you're released. It's part of the reason why so many criminals re-offend.

Quote: Face

It is very hard for me to think of a struggling poor doing all they can and needing just a crumb to break free

A crumb can be the difference between life and death.
Between eternal misery and future happiness.
For example the opioid addicts who don't have the resources to pay for rehab.

Quote: Face

I think we have real info regarding the latter. Surely there are or has been a sort of "fend for yourself" society. I'd imagine any monarchy / patriarchy / dictatorship type place would fit, and I'd agree it's a poor system. But is there any real example of your former? Is there a place that's pulled off your version? My lack of education / experience leads me to think you're speaking of communism, and I don't mean Red China - USSR - anti-American buzzword communism, but just ideological communism (please correct if wrong).

Sure, look toward the Scandinavian countries, or Ireland. They have far higher taxes, far higher social spending, and are ranked better for both doing business (by Forbes) and personal freedom (by Cato) than the United States. Denmark, for example, ranked #6 for business, #5 for freedom. Ireland is #4 on both rankings, while the US ranks #23 on both:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2016/12/21/sweden-heads-the-best-countries-for-business-for-2017/#50cc051e1cdc
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2016.pdf

Quote:

I'd have a real problem putting my welfare on the line when my "shield" as it were was a profit generating entity. It's one thing to be denied something because there is no money for it (like a park). It's another to be denied when that thing is amoxicillan. And then it's a whole 'nuther thing entirely when you're denied "because shareholders". I dunno what you got cooking in that dome of yours, but it seems you're gonna have to change the entire game for this one.

No, I'm not talking about a for-profit entity owned by shareholders. I'm talking about a non-profit, mutual-benefit corporation owned by its employees that basically serves as a secondary government, but for the services that die-hard libertarians don't want to "coerce" out of all citizens. If the members voluntarily accept the terms of the contractual association, including the obligations to contribute and the right to receive benefits, there's no coersion. The "leave-me-alone" crowd gets to be left alone. The people who want to collaborate and pool resources can. It will lead to a stratified society but we've already got that. The difference here is it will be along philosophical lines, members vs. non-members, rather than economic ones based on the whims of the free market like we've got now.

Are you watching "Incorporated" on Syfy? If you're not, check out a few episodes, but that society is entirely the opposite of what I'm talking about.

Quote:

Scumbags exist, and scumbags gonna scumbag. But how in seven hells can these mf'ers KEEP their jobs, CONTINUE to receive bonuses, and RETAIN their goddamn freedom? I don't know if it's right or wrong, but who I am as a person cannot tolerate that.

Right now, you have no choice but to tolerate it: there's only one government. With the approach of voluntary mutual-benefits association on top of a libertarian-type government, you can live your way, not tolerating it, and others can choose differently.

Quote:

You're ahead of your time, ME. You might got it all figured out. The welfare of a 340mm people, 3.79mm square mile country and you done got the cure. Now all you gotta do is explain it, and explain it well, to 250mm country dumb idiots like myself.

See, that's just it. I'm not trying to address the welfare of 340mm people. Just the ones who want to join. I know we've got the resources to pull it off for all of the 340mm of they so choose, but I also know that millions don't choose and I don't want to force anyone. If someone really wants to live in the woods, hunt, fish, make their own house out of logs, go for it. They don't consume much government, they shouldn't pay much. Just the externalities and national bits -- army, infrastructure, the stuff that benefits everyone, etc. Same for someone who lives in New York City and already has a bazillion dollars. They can interact with people and businesses that are part of The Company the way they do now: by spending money. But if you're not independently wealthy, not financially self-sufficient or otherwise want to join The Company, agree to the terms of the employment contract and The Company will provide basic needs to the extent internal economics allows. With enough critical mass, those basic needs benefits will cover everything, even if you decide you want to take a few weeks off and just play Xbox.

Do I think there will be cheaters? Of course. But I also think that the ratio of cheaters to productive members won't be greater than the ratio of children to adults in the typical household, yet families still manage to make it work. This is the same thing, just to scale. Our society expects that once kids leave the house, they're productive until they retire. That's not a realistic expectation anymore, not with the velocity of business change and increasing income inequality, and it's empirically true that many adults do not see their productivities (or incomes) increase uniformly for decades. I've collected unemployment before and so have many of my friends -- tech companies are volatile like that. What I'm proposing is a way to smooth out the variance in individual outcomes by pooling resources so the group can help the unlucky ones back on their feet. We all don't get unlucky at the same time, after all. I think the mean individual outcome will be higher too, but even if it isn't, that's okay. People willingly pay money to hedge against risk - that's what insurance is. This is basically a social insurance proposal structured in a non-coercive way, managed by a non-government entity but acting like one.

I don't think the biggest risk is that it won't work. I think the biggest risk is that the statist conservatives in government will outlaw it for fear of being made to look bad.