Total posts: 3,383
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
while I agree generally, what do you think are some of the unintended consequences from these now, entitlements?
I would say increased taxes, government dependency, obesity, program abuse/misuse, generational welfare, lack of motivation, low expectations and on and on.
discomfort is an excellent motivator. You need not look any further than people risking their very lives on makeshift boats trying to reach Florida. Imagine people being that motivated to not be dependant on the government, we wouldn't need much government would we, nothing like the vacuous monster it is now.
how is the homeless utopia in kommyfornia working out?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
#1 preventable disease....obesity
just learned a new word (from the wife actually) diaobesity lol like we need more words for the obvious
funny video of AOC giving advice about hand washing etc, as she is touching her face and hair lol, typical leftist do as I say......
masks aren't useful enough to bother with, yet everyone ran out to buy them, knee jerk reactions based on ignorance, go figure.
when everything else is going pretty well you are left with just making up a crisis.
now that people are FINALLY waking up to what the media actually is and does their viewership is probably tanking, best thing for them is a real pandemic. No one watching news for good news or feel good stories, it's very much the opposite. When there aren't any catastrophes, wars etc you have to make shit up.
Created:
Even if the coronavirus is not especially lethal, other characteristics of the virus—such as how easily it is transmitted from person to person—are still unknown, fueling fear and even panic.
As of Feb. 28, 2020, the flu is showing much more of an impact on Americans than COVID-19.
COVID-19: Approximately 2,871 deaths reported worldwide; 0 deaths in the U.S., as of Feb. 28, 2020.
Flu: 291,000 to 646,000 deaths worldwide; 12,000 to 61,000 deaths in the U.S. per year.
so yeah bfd
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I do think overall it is a more environmentally conscious way to eat.
the amounts and kinds of fertilizers and pesticides are not environmentally friendly, so I'm not sure it's any better than animal farms, certainly would depend on the farm, the free range, natural type I would say are more environmentally friendly than the corn, wheat and soybean fields.
some people thrive very well on a vegetarian/vegan diet, some do not and others thrive on a carnivore diet, others still thrive on a balance of meat and vegetables. I think it's very individualistic.
there are some predictions (because I really wouldn't call them studies) that claim we could not grow enough for a vegetarian populous, though I suppose with the gmos and other manipulations it could be possible, but would that be a good thing? ever see what a native corn and wheat plant look like? nothing like what is grown today.
I avoid wheat, corn and don't eat soy, from everything I have read they are not good for you at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I believe (not 100% sure) but the Medicare/Medicaid programs were just that, catastrophic coverage, but then they became unaffordable entitlements, covering much more than they were originally designed. Going to a more cash based system will lower costs provided there is transparency for costs.
About 30% of emergency department visits among patients with common chronic conditions are potentially unnecessary, leading to $8.3 billion in additional costs for the industry, according to a new analysis.Feb 7, 2019
now factor in the ghetto whore who won't spend $1 at the dollar store for a pregnancy test, instead goes to the e.r. for it because she gets medicaid and you should be able to see the vast amount of waste in the healthcare system. Like most things it's far worse that we even know.
I'd happily support a system where people get things they actually NEED if they get rid of the abuse and waste as much as possible.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
that's true, but that is a new dependant unemployed voter base, it's a win win, either they pay a lot more in taxes, as well everyone else, or they will be dependant on the government which you can buy their votes with hollow promises. Trump's economy makes it near impossible to buy votes with promises of independence and prosperity. Business having to offer higher wages and better benefits to compete for works is the best way to increase wages and allow people to get they own healthcare. This must be horrifying to any democrat in office or trying to run for one.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
orangeman bad running up the debt! sure this healthcare scheme will cost north of 30 TRILLION dollars and at NO point has anyone claimed it would reduce the debt which means it will raise it, but orangman bad so....
this is also why they need to raise the minimum wage so they can tax everyone more. wasn't that the other scheme? people making more than 30k? which $15 at 40 hours per week is more than 30k/year.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
democratic socialism just means you chose to be socialist, doesn't he want the gobermint to run the utilities too? I believe I heard that as well. When the government runs most everything that seems to negate democracy. You can put lipstick on a pig.........
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
love the apples and oranges comparisons. population alone is a huge one.
now I could see a "universal" catastrophic plan, but that's not really healthcare as much as it is emergency care.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
seems rather hypocritical when you complain about companies making money off workers, when you have come a millionaire off of taxpayers, not sure how you square that circle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
I like how you make it seem like I'm an idiot when you haven't mentioned taxes once this whole time. This is still a bit stupid though. They give money to students so they can give less money to the gov?
ah you are trolling me haha you got me bravo
read post #13, 31, 34, and the rest of my posts, all talk about taxes
I'm sorry you aren't grasping this topic of "free college" I've addressed it to Alec, perhaps read all the posts from the beginning it really seems you are missing major points in this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Ok, let me get your proposal straight. People go to college then find a job that pays off all their debt, and the job pays off all their debt by using money from the government, which comes from taxpayers? That's stupid.
are you purposefully being dense?
the company doesn't get money from the government, where did I say that? where in the world you got that assumption I just can't fathom.
I'll try to make it as plain as I possibly can.
Businesses pay taxes, with me so far? Ok, so, if the business is willing to pay off the student debt under certain constraints etc, they could pay a bit less in taxes (less does not mean no taxes, just so you know)
still with me?
The business attracts top level employees, which they badly need, employee (former student in debt) as part of they compensation package their new employer will pay their student debt based on some formula AND the business also benefits by paying reduced taxes by a % and based on some formula.
Business gets top level employee for difficult to fill position and some tax benefit
employee gets a job and student debt assistance
NONE of this has to be an all or nothing thing ALL of this can be adjusted as a % or whatever.
understand now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
does this mean we can be rest assured the choice to drink as large a soda as we want?!?!
how come antifa doesn't protest that fascist?
I can't think of anyone running more authoritarian than dumberg.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
the incentive for employers to pay for the employees student debt
The obvious answer would be money but that's a bit stupid.
ok so your position is what then? we make slaves teach college in fields with no utilities, supplies etc? how can you possibly do it without money? that's a bit stupid.
if you are going to fund it with taxes you either take the taxes from individuals or businesses, which one would you like?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
I'm not saying the employer must or has to pay it, but could be encouraged or be benefited by doing so.
there are loop holes in everything government, but setting that aside it could be structured to minimize abuse/misuse. For example when healthcare organizations hire doctors, some doctors will negotiate their contracts so employer pays their student loans for them which then lowers their taxable pay. Point being there are already things being done, more could be done without government controlling it directly, disguised by the wrong and misleading term "free"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
what if we gave businesses tax incentives to pay off employ's student debts?
let's say a graduate is hired for a position for which has a large shortage, after the first year x% of their debt is paid on their behalf, after 5 years x% + is paid on their behalf etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
it's like anything else, the more demand the higher the price, imagine a fully tax funded college system, the cost increases would be UGE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I don't think people would pursue college unless they want it and are willing to study hard to get their degree. If they fail college, they don't get it for free.
hmm if it's free that means free room and board, no need to work, party etc, people go to college for those reasons now and even graduate. If they fail you think they will pay it back? How long would that take? How about the expense to collect that money if they don't willingly pay it back? Sue them in court for it? Do you see how costly that would become?
Trade schools are good, but I don't know where a non-highschooler can get a trade under their belt.
if that's the case, perhaps that is your answer, there should be some created. Trade schools for high school aged children already exist, the structures etc are already there. However they are generally not used at night and on weekends. Maybe better use what already exists?
understandably afraid of taking out tens of thousands of dollars of student debt.
if they aren't that committed then they shouldn't be going.
If they didn't have to focus on debt and could focus solely on their studies, then the passing rate would increase.
if they can't handle that, they aren't mature enough to even go in the first place, they should wait until they are ready.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
just because you CAN do something doesn't necessarily mean you should
what about trade schools?
again if you have to pay for something and if you work hard at it and are successful you could get all more most of that money back, that would be the best incentive for success. entitlements and handouts rarely lead to success which i believe is obvious when you look at the ones that already exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
first please be more accurate with your wording, it's impossible for it to ever be free, it will be tax payer funded, someone MUST pay for it.
do you believe that for the average person, most things of value are earned or given?
how about people who aren't really committed to go to college, but since it won't cost them anything, they could
how about YOU pay for college and based on your grades and job prospects you are reimbursed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
there's really not much to say, it surprises me why this issue still comes up.
definitions that are mandatory, use them as they were during the drafting of the constitution
"militia"
"arms"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
One can either choose to be offended or not or simply to ignore.
exactly, it's your choice
Created:
Posted in:
Come, Mister tally man, tally me bananaDaylight come and me wan' go home
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
well, 7.25 x 2 = 14.50 so I rounded it up for the mathematically challenged, but I'll be specific.
because I make 14.50 I can buy x# more widgets than someone making 7.25
wage is increased to 15 as is the cost of the widgets due to increase business costs with increased wages.
so now all the reasons I made double minimum and my buying power are gone, diminished from what it was because there is no way I will get an increase just because the minimum got increased to keep me at the buying power I had.
are you familiar with a bell curve or grading on a curve, there has to be and will always be a bottom, this type of increase just puts more people at the bottom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
very astute, can anyone think of something the government gave up control over? anyone? anyone? Bueller?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
talk about power and influence, not so much about the money. People like Gates, Oprah few others don't use their power as a sword, not to any real extent that I know of, yet they have lots of money. Blaming the money is like blaming the gun. Imagine if Gates had been taxed to some lower level, would he then paid for all those vaccines for children? maybe not. I very much dislike the influence the powerful have over the rest of us. Influence peddling has been a huge problem and I don't see it ever ending. In this current culture if you aren't a protected class you are nothing which if obvious if you see the sickening pandering that is constanting broadcasted.
what I find a bit concerning, since this influencing IS a problem (huge) why would people want more government control? Just doesn't make sense does it? Whomever candidate you think is immune to this influence won't be president forever so why even risk it?
Putting all your eggs in one basket knowing the fox is right outside the door....well that's just stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
1) Were you raised in the United States?2) If yes to question 1 have you ever spent a significant (three consecutive months or more) period of time living outside the United States? If no to question 1 have you ever spent a significant (three consecutive months or more) living inside the United States?3) Do you believe that American society is - on average - more racist than the rest of the world?
1) for most of my childhood, yes (but not all)
2) yes
3) No
Created:
Posted in:
My state is considering and will probably raise minimum to $15 within 5 years.
What I don't understand is how this makes sense, at all.
Let's say I make $14.50 (double minimum) There is no way in hell and employer will raise that wage to $30.
If someone currently makes double minimum they have a certain level of buying power, more than someone who is making minimum. When the wages go up, again I just can't fathom why it wouldn't happen, prices will increase faster than they would otherwise. Does anyone really think businesses will just eat the extra costs? My employer also has tiers for insurance, if you make over $25/hr you go up to the next tier and pay more per month.
I don't pretend to know a lot about economics. but what I do know, all that matters is what you have to spend, your actual take home pay.
How much more would person take home if they made $15 instead of minimum? I'm not considering their hours will probably be cut if they aren't totally without a job, but just looking at the numbers on a monthly basis. Whatever government handout they may qualify for now might be impacted by that increase as well, would they really be better off then?
I just don't get it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
that true too, bring on the technology, let chaos reign!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I would like everyone to open their favorite browser and type in "hunting with airguns" and look for the big dead animals in the video thumbnails. You probably aren't familiar with it because it's not all that popular I would guess. Imagine though if you messed around with limiting ammo as one example how that might increase the popularity, design and price of these extremely powerful airguns.
for the exceedingly lazy https://youtu.be/t9wCeoDWhe8
I for one would love this technology to rapidly advance, they are much quieter and cleaner. So we sure we want to go down this road? I do, silencers are expensive, this would pretty much solve that issue and others the leftist have created.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I didn't watch the whole thing but certainly heard about it. What he said was a big time slam against her, basically he said she tore up all those people in the speech. They claim she's a good strategist etc and maybe she was at one time, not to be unkind but I really think she has some dementia as does Biden. That's the only way I can see an explanation for some of their behaviors. It's actually a sad thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MamaBear
you can't legislate safety, nor morality
some people still don't wear seatbelts, this religious faith in laws and government is grossly misplaced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I dunno, I'm not going to search it, but I'll bet you find a woman who is doing just that LOL
Not having the physical ability to give birth is a privilege imo, but many women consider that ability to be a privilege so.....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
in certain settings and circumstances privilege does exist, being super wealthy has its privileges, so does living off taxpayers in guise of a government job, that has the privilege of not being arrested for d.u.i. but I digress
"male privilege" is being used as a pejorative is it not? It's just another way to hate men imo because it serves no useful or practical purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
it's not my homebrewed but rather logic
if all male then = male
if male/female = unisex
whether one is disproportionate over the other is irrelevant since those proportions are subjective
This is where male privilege comes in as I see it, it's very subjective for all the reasons I've given.
being subjective as it is, one can not say an instance of perceived privilege is solely based on the single characteristic of being male, I have yet to hear of an example that proves that.
People of authority, power, perceived intelligence or education often control the conversation and are yielded to by those who feel subordinate.
If you want to say that generally males are more dominant and intimidating than women which can allow them certain privileges or leeway, I would agree with that, however a dominant personality is not exclusive to males and some women (not many) can also be physically intimidating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
if the pattern of baldness is not just seen it males it is incorrect to use "male" in its name
testicular cancer is a male cancer
breast cancer is found in both sexes but the majority is in females, I don't consider it a female cancer.
this male privilege doesn't not have to apply to all males, but must only apply to males otherwise calling it male (indicating exclusive) is inaccurate and misleading.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
"male pattern baldness."
why would I? it's not used as a pejorative and can't apply to me
Then this interrupting phenomenon is a pure example of male privilege as you define it.
since women also can do this I don't see how it is a pure example of male anything.
talking over someone or not letting them interject isn't sex dependant nor a privilege, it's it rude and not socially acceptable, in fact that can get you chastised and possible excluded in the future, hardly a privilege.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
If it doesn't only apply to only to men how can it be male pattern baldness?
like most terms it's not accurate, made up etc
What makes something "dominance" rather than "privilege"?
the way I see it, someone takes control, rather than it is given to him.
when I think of something that could be male privilege, it would be in a time when women were subservient to men, there was male privilege pre equal rights. Any woman subservient to a man does so by choice and that would be a relationship things most likely.
opening doors for women was a way to show respect, manners, etc, not a privilege, men and women are different no matter all the b.s. the leftist try to spin, doesn't mean those differences are privilege.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
if it doesn't only apply only to men how can it be male privilege?
how does a male give male privilege? that doesn't make sense to me.
how can one know it's male privilege that's going on or it's just because it's that individual male?
How about the fact that men are given more deference in conversations. They are less likely to be interrupted, more tolerated when they interrupt others. In groups, the conversation will be disproportionately men talking.
sounds like a dominance thing rather than privilege
so you have to know, assume and apply motive it would seem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
The fact that the pattern is also seen in women as does privilege makes both terms meaningless really.
I often find terms like this are used as an excuse as to why they can't do something.
Maybe you could describe a Male privilege that may not apply to all males but enough and well known enough that it can be recognized.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
eh it's called female-pattern baldness when it's in females, it effects both sexes.
if it doesn't happen to apply to all then any benefit anyone has for something is a privilege apparently, like tall people are generally preferred for basketball over short ones, height privilege clearly.
females generally pay less in auto insurance, female privilege. or is it just driving privilege? I dunno.
people are treated in certain ways based on their attraction to them, it's just preference or bias.
having a gold membership to a club allows you certain things a lesser membership does not, those are privileges that come with the higher membership.
I have yet to see what I can do or how I would be treated better just because I'm a man. I'm polite, kind and helpful, maybe that's why I might get treated better?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
perhaps it's the term then I guess because obviously not everyone would extend such a privilege and I would say some would actually do the opposite and treat them worse than a woman.
this is why I refer to this as just individual bias or a physical advantage that isn't always the case.
the term "male privilege" by its name refers to all males, I mean it's one of the 2 words. As you know the physical training for the military was made easier so more women could do it right? sounds like female privilege doesn't it? special rules or changes to benefit one sex, sounds like an unearned privilege to me.
it's the tree in the woods, if no one is giving a male unearned privilege does it still exist?
it's fun to chase ghosts up to a point.
do you consider favoritism different than privilege in this context? because I do and I think that's what people are seeing, or plain ole preference.
I guess we would agree that (assuming male privilege is a thing) it's not systemic, correct? and that it's not a societal norm?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
go back and read, it's what THEIR union contracted for and they agreed to, their pay methods, bonus etc aren't the same, at all, number of games played etc, apples and oranges
You've just shown you didn't read what I wrote or don't understand it.
if I negotiate a better deal than you do is that privilege in your mind? or better yet a pay someone to do it on my behalf what about that?
it's funny some people complain about corporate, yet they would have you believe these same greedy people will pay men more even though they bring in less, um yeah ok.
even if it's true in soccer, it's soccer hardly a societal issue, do you think one example is enough to make a sweeping claim as systemic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Female soccer players are paid less because their sport makes less. According to the Wall Street Journal, there was $17 million in sponsor revenue for this year's women's World Cup compared to $529 million for the 2014 men's tournament. America's winning women earned a larger share, about 11%, of the money their tournament made this year from sponsors than the victorious German team, who got just 6.6% of the sponsor revenue from last year's men's World Cup as their prize.
It’s tough to make a straightforward comparison of the earnings for men and women players, because the two teams have different collective-bargaining agreements that outline different pay structures.
The teams play different numbers of games each year and earn different bonuses depending on the game type, their opponents’ FIFA rank and the game’s outcome. On top of that, both teams can earn additional bonuses for winning specific tournaments. And certain events, such as the World Cup, have a separate bonus structure entirely.
“The male players are paid when they play, but not when they sit,” McCann said. “USMNT players must thus be on the roster to be pay eligible. USWNT players, in contrast, are guaranteed pay.”
if you read more it sounds like an apples and oranges comparison because of the pay structures THAT THEY AGREED TO by joining and playing, I suppose if they don't like it they should take it up with their union.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Right, but "male privilege" is a label people created and applied to phenomenon they perceive to exist in the real world.
yes some people perceive it to exist, some people think ghosts exist as well hahaha
in our society we are taught everyone is equal etc, not all individuals act that way though, so from my perspective it's an issue with the individual rather than society.
our society says one thing however people can still act as they chose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
grant a privilege or privileges to.
this is the definition I found from dictionary.com
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I feel weird having to spell out for you that that male sports bring in far more money than female sports do and since it's a business it should be obvious the more money you earn for a business the more you are worth to them right?
if something is illegal is that pro/for or counter/against society?
Society favors men such that there has yet to be even a female Vice President of the United States.
lol ok that's just funny, how is that not a preference, bias or they just were not the best person for the job?
like to try again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
while those things are true, because a woman could be biased towards other females and gives them privileges she would not give to a man doesn't make it a male privilege which is why it has to be granted. Generally society has agreed all people are equal, so society isn't granting that privilege but again it's individuals that do, it's really no different than bias generally speaking. There are physical advantages but I don't consider them privileges. The fact that women live longer and are less susceptible to certain diseases is not a privilege but advantage and vice versa.
Driving is a privilege open to all.
What is a privilege unique or that only applies to men?
what individuals do or how they act is exactly that an individual act.
If male privilege existed then women would also be forced to extend that privilege which does happen in other backwards countries and societies.
the examples refer to individuals and not to society, none I have seen yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@DynamicSquid
is privilege and advantage the same? Because I don't think so. If you want to say males have some advantages that females do not that should be obvious, but privilege?
privilege is granted by others so it's not something YOU have, it's something others give you.
of course in countries and societies where women are chattel that's different and I'm not talking about those but rather laws in the U.S. that apply to everyone equally, yes they do, whether those paid to administer them do so equatibily is about them personally and the the actual laws.
case in point this is government privilege
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
exactly, they do it for the same reason the Nazi's did to create fear.
Created: