....or have been...all your pseudo conservatarian crap. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts most of you have been on the fucking dole at some point in your disgusting stinking lives.

I ate some dole pineapples before. That count ?

Never. And am not acquainted with anyone that has been, either. Not WIC, not foodstamps or any of that shit.

Never. We were eligible, because our family was poor, but my father refused to participate in those things because to be on the dole was shameful to him. I was employed by the government at one time, in the Navy, and he called that being on the dole as well.

Yeah sure but how pany of your parents? The words of pathogical liars means less than shit.

Umm, what?

Many not pany. You dink a bottle of liquor and see good you spell. Your still a fucking piece of shit.

I was in county lock up for 4 days once. That is it. Never been on the welfare or unemployment.

Going back to my great granddad comin over here from Europe before WW1, none of my dad's family has been, as they were all self employed/employed in the family biddness. Mom's family was judges and high level civil servants, from when they came from the island of potatoes and drunkards.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

If yer lookin for people to share yer Welfare Blues with, Cheezy Poofs, ya better head over to the World Star board.

My spelling improves. I also become funnier, handsomer and more charming.

Both my parents worked 30 years plus. Both were raised by farmers that provided for themselves. My grandpa on my moms side also ran a small country store on a dirt road where they live and where my grandmother babysat me during the day. I worked 25 years for the state of Ky. in Juvenile treatment. Drew unemployment for a couple weeks in my twenties before going back to work. I started working when I was 16 for a furniture store delivering furniture. I've never been on welfare but if I ever need it I'll accept it without shame. I've paid my dues.

This is the central point on both sides, though neither's trying to see it 'cause you all, you each need, hell, insist on beating the crap out of each other.

Everywhere the working man pays his dues, the McConnells and Pauls and the like all says the other (negro, Spico, fago, dago,yugo...) fellow is using the same fucking thing everyone else pays into and it's a fucking crime to youse guys.

Sometimes I think it's the density of youse guys that's the crime.



Fucktards being baited all around.

lot of my white Appalachian neighbors are on the dole of one sort or another. They spend their day complaining that the negro and the mexican are getting a free ride.

I was on unemployment for 18 days when I was maybe 19 or 20. First week is a "waiting" week that you don't get paid for. Total received was under $200. I really stuck it to the Man on that one.

Does Workman's Comp count? I was on it for about 8 weeks when I hurt my back.

I have no beef with folks having a bad time, or needing a hand, or people who are unable to work getting benefits. Those are the people that I think we have an obligation as a society to help.

My beef is the people who milk it, see it as a career, or see it as a family business to be passed down from generation to generation. And my problem is less about laziness than it is about taking services from the people who truly need it. In my 15 glorious years in the Helping Industrial Complex, I've seen it over and over. Finite resources stretched to the breaking point by people who simply refuse to support themselves, at the expense of those who really need the help.

So, your problem is with The Waltons then. Cool.

Not sure how you got there, but OK. I thought they had that lumber mill, but it's been awhile. I'm not sure I remember the ep where they told the kids to live on the dole. Was that the same ep when the dude got pissed because they were teaching Darwin at the school?

i dont get free money or food stamps.

I've never been on welfare, unemployment, food stamps, or anything else. Only government checks I have ever received have been my annual tax refunds. Same with my entire family. You grow up on a family farm you learn to rely on yourself and nobody else.

tl;dr version: Unemployment is not welfare and welfare is an open ended handout and is the realm of the lazy and useless.

Unemployment isn't the dole. Employers pay into a state fund for each employee; like an insurance premium and is administered by the state. In California the first $7K per year of an employees wages are subject to the premium. It can range from 1.x% to 6.x% of the first $7K depending on some indecipherable formula they have concocted. Generally if a company has laid-off/fired a bunch of employees and they have made successful unemployment claims, their rate will be higher.

So in addition to the matching FICA taxes on every employee, the employer pays the unemployment insurance. So if the company is in the highest bracket they could be paying over $400 per employee per year to fund the unemployment fund. Unlike welfare, there is a limit on benefits based on last salary and length of employment (not number of dependents) and the benefits actually terminate at a certain point in time regardless if the unemployed person ever got a job. You must actively look for work during the benefits period and must not refuse any job offers that come your way.

In some cases, the federal government will step in and provide additional benefits after the state ones are exhausted. Those were the "99 weekers" from the Great Recession of 2007. Normally the employer pays a maximum of $42 per employee per year to Uncle Sam to cover the federal program, giving them credit for the employer's state contributions. But in the last few years, half of the states haven't paid back the feds and have reduced the credit, therefore the employer has to pay more to the feds.

I like to tell less my conservative that welfare was "insurance by the super rich to keep the rabble from uprising" and then work that point and see how they adapt.

I meant these Waltons. I assumed everyone hated John Boy on general principles.

Very fortunate income wise. Happy to pay Canadian tax rates. No bad feelings here for people who turn to the Government or others for help.

First off I don't have a clue what you're talking about and second if you're saying we are dense because we don't like others getting some benefit from our labors you are full of shit. I don't care if it helps someone as long as they are trying to help themselves. I hear that bullshit about "blaming poor people" all the time. And thats what it is utter bullshit. If someone needs help thats what we as Americans should be all about. My point is that others try to shame anyone that has worked and has money or makes it on their own as a way of justifying some shit for brains thats never worked a day in their life and raised their kids to do the same. I ain't ashamed of working and I damned well ain't holding anyone back. Just throw some racism and misogyny in there as well and you will have successfully completed an ignorant and transparent leftist bullshit attack. .......if thats what you are saying. If not, never mind.

Oh, you meant "corporate welfare". Not sure what that has to do with hating John Boy, but we all have our kinks, I suppose.

The WalMart family provide more to society than they could take. Does the 3rd generation bastard factory do the same?

No. You don't get to have it both ways. you either believe any kind of "social safety net" is an communist abomination of you don't. Just like pro-lifers can't say they support abortion only in cases of rape or incest.

All taxation is redistribution of wealth. your arbitrary dividing line of what amount is sensible has no more objective meaning than anyone else's.

Why is all taxation redistribution of wealth? You presume that taxation involves a forcible transfer of wealth from me to you, when it is perfectly possible for us to have a system that involves no forcible transfers of wealth at all.

You're out of your fucking mind right? Are we really going to have this semantic argument? All taxation is the collection of money by the sate from private persons or private constructs.....all taxation is "by force"

Yes, taxation is the extraction of wealth by force or threat of force. The distinction is whether the tax money is spent on matters of common interest, like roads and schools, or taken from one party and given to another party. The libertarian objection is not to government taking on certain limited functions of common interest, but rather robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Sure he does, courtesy of the Roberts court. Watch:





Pesky distinction? Not anymore. Thanks to Citizens United, corporations are people too, entitled to all sorts of, erm, entitlements. But that's okay, because they're producers, damnit. Don't believe me? Just listen to this slavishly enthusiastic, utterly unsupported assessment:





And he's right. Their patriotically low wages produce tens of thousands of flesh & blood welfare recipients who cost the taxpayer $6.2 Billion annually.





It's not, but don't let me stop you from shooting yourself in the foot.

I don't bother responding to him anymore. He's too fucking stupid to live. Trying to discuss anything with him only results in degrading your self.

He's stated several times he doesn't care about anything but himself, why would he give a shit about any of this?

Ah yes, of course, you get to become the arbiter of what level of taxation is appropriate under libertariansim. A huge faction would argue total privatization of schools, roads, police and anything else. You sure like to brag about being such a well traveled Dos Equis drinking man of the world but your bullshit stinks just the same no matter if it's in a privatized toilet or a communal privy ditch.

I've always found this interesting. Nike is horrible because they pay whatever to peasants in Viet Nam. WM is evil because of their low wages. Those poor people not making enough. The end game with the nannies is to shut down the Nike plant, to run the WM out of town...if not out of business. When that happens, those poor people making squat will really be in the driver's seat. But the nannies will feel better about themselves for "doing something". Which is what really matters.

To paraphrase the philosopher, yes, I do get to have it both ways. Because it is both ways. A different view of your pro- lifer thing is the pro- choicers who love abortion but have kittens when it's time to put down some murderer. Micro- hypocrisy is everywhere, but lines can be, should be and already are drawn. There are income and other requirements already in place for any of the societal social nets.

Like I said, and I stand by it, we're talking about finite resources. Fewer piglets at the teat means more teat for the ones who really need it. I've never, ever, said that no one needs help. I've been in the fucking trenches for a long time, not just hunting links to "prove" my point. In the real world, we could take actual care of the people who truly need it. But that won't happen until the lazy who don't need the resources are cut off. I'm sure I'm not the one to draw the line between those who need and and those who want. But to pretend there is no line is just willful blindness.

Well, hot damn, NOW you're bleating, Jasper. You got that all figured out, just like they told you, yessir. Anyway, since you've got those, umm, "nannies" all figured out, maybe you could answer one question:

How come they can pay McDrones in Australia ~$15.00 an hour without a crippling rise in prices?







(...and, no, "Whatevah! I do what I want!!!" isn't an acceptable answer.)

Say, doesn't a Big Mac, fries and a Coke cost EIGHT BUCKS in Oz? Here's the menu from a McDonalds in Queensland.

In Manhattan a Big Mac, fries and a Coke costs US$4.80. Unless I'm mistaken, three dollars and twenty cents is a TWO-THIRDS price difference. But maybe Manhattan has an unfair advantage over the wide-open spaces of Queensland thanks to Manhattan's lower cost of rent.

Those prices are in Australian dollars though.

The Australian dollar doesn't equate to the American dollar but it's all part of the bigger and ultimate fucking lie that the ultra rich " earned it" and don't use grotesque means to stay in power. It's so completely sick that people like Barry actually still believe in this carott on a stick. He thinks he's so street smart yet still so naive. In a world dominated by corporate welfare it's still the conversation about " the lazy people" fucking hysterical. And the great libertarian glib nugget about sweat shop workers being greatfull for the fucking scraps they get because they would have NOTHING else. What a mindset. The only reason we can have internet and sofas is from the surplus stolen from the third world

I sincerely hope you are torn apart and raped by a pack of niggrz

Right you are, Steezo. And the Oz dollar now trades at US$0.85. So that eight-dollar combo is only US$6.80, or 43% more than the Manhattan combo. Fair enough. A forty-three percent price difference instead of "no difference" as advanced by the socialists.

Say, who eats at McDonalds anyway? Is it more likely to be low-wage employees or international corporate lawyers? I don't really care if the cost of the Big Mac combo doubles because US$6.80 is quite literally two minutes' work for me, but gosh, I'd imagine that other wage earners — say, a third-class petty officer in the Navy with a young family — might consider a 43% increase in price somewhat burdensome.

This guy pictured below, though, he doesn't actually care about a higher-priced Big Mac combo. Raising the price of labor beyond its marginal value means that this guy here is likely to hold that job instead of some surly illiterate nagger, and the former McDonalds employee who now doesn't have a job is going to find the Big Mac combo much less affordable on his new US$0.00 hourly wage.

As for whether I'll be raped and torn apart by a pack of niggers, that seems unlikely because I live where there are no such animals and visit the United States only rarely. But you might be, if this kind of socialist thinking is not corrected. I'll be praying for you.



As long as we're full of concern for America's lowest-paid wage earners, CxGxPx, let me ask: Do you support the President's gambit to throw open the borders and import millions more illiterate peasants to compete with America's existing corps of illiterate peasants? I don't. I oppose amnesty and open borders, because of the economic violence done thereby to the most vulnerable Americans. Markets work; if the labor market weren't constantly being replenished with new low-wage workers, wouldn't the wages paid at the bottom rungs of the ladder increase naturally?

You know about this, right? Big Mac Index. With you being an attorney, I'm assuming this was all just a leading non-question.

I'm aware of the Big Mac Index, having been a reader of The Economist for about 30 years now. It's a little misleading, as it is based on the "rack rate" for a Big Mac all by itself. Who orders a Big Mac and no fries or drink? Still, it's a good comparison if one understands the limitations. An apposite comparison would be to the cost of a meal rather than just the sandwich. You'll note that a large fries, for example, is three Aussie dollars (about US$2.50). Buck seventy-nine in the States.

Your spouting the same old conservative bunk about how it's really. " good" to keep wages low because of the lie about it keeping prices low. A business will never charge more for a product than people will pay for it. Wages don't determine how many employees are hired . Demand does. Period. If an employer needs x amount if workers they will pay whatever the demand price is. If people were paid a living wage they could pump more money into the economy, unlike the rich who basically horde their income. Product skyrockets while wages stagnate. It's absolute horse shit when the boss claims he can't afford to pay the people more. ...... Reference the " rich don't create jobs" Ted talk.

As far as nig rapists I was talking to Barry

Funny you mention illegal aliens, if your pro capitalist you would be in favor of the cheapest labor force available. I thought you lived capitalism? But like all capitalists you only care about it when it suites your needs. .... We could say the same exact problem with plummeting wages would happen if we kicked millions if people off if welfare and into the low wage work pool

Lots of people, since they banned the tasty deep fryer oil.

Again... to repeat myself in case anyone didn't catch my rant in the breakfast thread.. I want every large town to have at least 1 SuperMcDonald's that serves all the shit that everyone wants. McRibs everyday, Breakfast all day long, Beef tallow french fries, etc.

I also love how fucking rear admiral actually tries to argue that australians don't like having a high minimum wage or that it's bad for their economy. Something that doesn't exist beyond online articles in the dailycaller.

His point was that everything costs more there than anywhere else, which is true. And it's a direct result of the ridiculously high minimum wake causing vendors to raise their prices. Why can you not see something so obvious?

Why can't I see it? Because it's fucking lawyer logic anecdotel evidence bullshit. If it was true then why isn't Australia crumbling into dust? I believe they were one of the only nations to avoid the hardest brunt of the recession. If wages kept pace with inflation the average wage would be ninety thousand dollars a year. The nonsense people like you repeat is shit uses to justify wage undercutting. Why can't you see that? But keep sucking the masters dick and enjoying the freedom to work for two dollars an hour

Whateva. I do what I want.

Because it's neither obvious nor true, Steez. Hell, no less a paragon of Capitalism than Henry Ford proved that if you want to have a consumer-based economy, you have to pay your drones enough to afford the product. Bigger societal picture: The uber-rich have nothing to lose and everything to keep by making it just a little easier for the rest of us. But they won't and history's about to repeat itself. They've got Bourbon Vision, and I don't mean like Whiskey Dick.

There's no reasoning with these kinds of people. They hilariously like to refer to anyone left leaning as having a "naive" view of economics yet get sucked into their own half understood screw ball ideas of how the economy really works based on "their feelings" another slur that is commonly thrown at progressives. .....the idea that the economy would really be better if people were allowed to work for a dollar an hour at the age of 9 because......what? deflation?.......not understanding that deflation has just as HORRIFIC consequences as inflation, if not worse.


I also like how Rear Admiral never answered my question of how he can bitch about illegal aliens undercutting the labor market when throwing people off welfare into minimum wage jobs does the same exact fucking thing.

I didn't notice the question. It's hard to address every point you raise because they are obscured by all the bile. But this one is easy: Throwing people off of welfare reintroduces Americans to employment, while importing Mexican peasants means that unemployed Americans have to compete with both the Mexican peasants who are not Americans as well as the other Americans I'd like to throw off the dole.

What is the basis for your position that Mexican peasants have some sort of right to come to the United States and to remain in the United States?