DukeNukeEm

CUE THE WHITE GUILT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN Plenty of those companies failed on their own too, Samuel Insull, Pullman, etc. There was also a lot of competition in many industries, you really think Bethlehem Steel and Inland Steel would be allowed to exist by the government today?

Oh you mean the fastest period of growth any country in the history of the world has ever experienced? Must have been awful.

Ehhhhhhhh I mean in a real open market, where the government doesn't have such a huge presence, big companies would fail a lot more. Is it really a wonder how wealth gets concentrated once the words "too big to fail" start entering the picture? All those investors are protected, all those executives are safe, the workers hide behind their unions and the unions are politically untouchable. GM should've been split into a thousand pieces and left a massive void in the market which would have to filled by someone, there's an opportunity for some turnover at the top right? I mean it's almost sad when you think about it with GM. Here you have Tesla, which is doing some absolutely incredible stuff with electric cars, and GM which got forced by the government to build a $40,000 piece of s*** that NOBODY WANTS. All those players I mentioned earlier still win, GM's still there and those pensions are untouchable. But they are just clogging the market, they are the definition of rotten institution fighting institutional rot. Of course capitalism is going to fail when you take the possibility of failure out of capitalism, and no s*** small businesses are going to suffer when you've decided who is actually risking anything and who isn't by virtue of size.

Because the market and I dont see eye-to-eye on the value of my labor. I can accept that.

I'm not rich or anything, I'm just not poor. And yea I'm underpaid at all three of my jobs, I just dont b**** about it because I dont expect anyone to come riding in a chariot of righteousness and adjust all my wages. I either pick up more hours, find another job or just leave one to find another which is better. I have control over that.

I never brought rich into the discussion. What I'm saying is if you cut this net out from under them that enables them to do basically nothing and get by they'll be forced to find some way of making money. Some will get jobs, some will find some scheme, some will resort to crime (in an ideal world however the 2A deters that path). Either way, no matter what happens, the people who actually earn their living wont have to shoulder this burden of handing them free s***. This same basic idea applies to business and the epic welfare packages they receive in the form of corrupt contracts and straight up handouts.

Already reserved for the Federal Govt unfortunately.

It'll just be upper middle class white people who feel guilty driving their Prius' to the nearest Unitarian Church and pledging to donate to Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016. Hardly a revolution.

Well do you work for the government pettie? If so, get a real job. If you work in the real world the market has dictated your value. If you dont like it that's fine, but it doesn't change the reality. Maybe someone else will value your labor more? You're free to look around. Its not super complicated, liberals just like making it that way so they can confuse and trick people into paying more taxes.

People will figure it out. I was well below the poverty line for 18 months of my life and after realizing how much I hated that existence I decided I would stop being poor. Suffering makes people stronger, being poor makes you want to be rich... pretty simple stuff. Toughen em up a little, make them sweat it out for a year or so and they'll get awfully creative in finding new ways of making money.

At this point the system is so broken that fixing it is going to put us through some nasty times. We could've just gotten it over with in 2008 and the structural fixes would finally be helping out, but we've elected to just live permanently in mediocrity as opposed to a few years of legit suffering for what would be a better overall lifetime. We cannot just hide behind the copout that something might cause a recession.

You ever see The Thing? You know when Kurt Russell figures out that even burning a little saucer of blood provokes a wild overreaction out of the monster? That's how liberals are about their government. As for the % GDP s***, government shouldn't grow exactly at the rate GDP growth does. Police/fire/military spending should go up, but at a slower rate because there is existing infrastructure. Let's say town of 10,000 people with a median income $30k has 50 cops. 20 years later the median income has risen to $50k and population to 12,000, does that mean they need 75 cops now? No, but the local government still wants their cut and incompetent bums will still feel entitled to government jobs. Besides, we always hear from liberals how poorly funded everything is (they even complain about the military cuts now, but maybe that's only because they think they can use it to kill gun owners): "Our roads are falling apart! Oh no, the bridges! What about healthcare?! WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE TEACHERS?!". Look at the graph motherf***ers, we've been feeding your little monster 10% more of the entire value of the wealth created in this country in the past 60 years and its somehow gotten worse at doing just about goddamn everything.

Except government is actually outgrowing GDP.

As an increasing number of Americans get more and more lazy the majorities' share of the wealth gets smaller and smaller.

So as the country prospers government has to prosper too. They must always get their cut. Its such an absurd notion that any growth Americans see has to be shared by the government. Jenks' graph shows how costly that approach is.

To them its not a problem. That's their baby and it needs to be fed to grow.

Can the resident state-worshippers tell me how the government does nearly four times the amount of "stuff" it does now than when it was fighting a two front total war on opposite sides of the planet? Every time I see that chart I ask myself that question.

The "Dreaded Socialism" (in quotes), the Obama styling, the 1% crap. Just a new liberal brainwashing video, its popular though so it'll probably turn a couple weak minded idiots who want to blame someone else for their problems.

Entitlement Mentality: The Movie.

I was pretty drunk when I came up with the public shaming idea. That wouldn't work since nobody would hire anyone who's clearly on welfare, didn't think it through at all. My b.

If the judge says they can be. You ignore the part where I say people on welfare cannot have children without prior permission. And the world is black and white, there are no shades of grey for you and your limp-wristed liberal ideology to fall back on. The contrast is stark, live as a free American without welfare or be a public slave on welfare. Which you choose is entirely up to you, but there needs to be consequences for not being able to support yourself. I wouldn't mind some sort of mandated sign that a person must display that show they are on welfare at all times. Stigmatize them, force them into oppression, make every day they spend on welfare a living hell... I want them to feel like the whole world would rather they just go away.

Not at all. If you want public money you are essentially owned by the public. Its a choice, nobody is forced onto welfare.

I'd rather there be no welfare at all. Honestly, just none... that's unfortunately impossible nowadays so I have to tone myself down a little. Way I see it welfare is having an individuals life subsidized by the state, and by state I really mean taxpayers. Taxpayers deserve to be updated on their investments and have every single possible guarantee possible to information that facilitates that process. What does that mean? (1) Welfare recipients must use one debit card for all transactions made with taxpayer dollars. This debit card cannot be used to withdraw cash. All cash purchases must be accompanied by a matching receipt and reported. (2) That information is then made public to the taxpayers, so we know exactly where, when and how our money is being spent. (3) Taxpayers can file complaints against what they see as waste and within a week a judge must make a ruling on whether the complaints are legitimate. If the judge rules that they are indeed valid the welfare recipient is cut off from funds permanently. (4) Once a month all welfare recipients must attend a public forum to answer questions from taxpayers about their efforts to get off welfare. Failure to attend is automatic grounds for removal from the welfare system. (5) Purchases of more than $500, changing of address, conceiving a child* and trips outside the resident state by a welfare recipient must be pre-approved by a judge. (6) Mandatory drug testing *if rejected the baby does not need to be aborted, but will be put up for adoption immediately upon birth. I know this will create a little bureaucracy, but the damage it does to the welfare system will offset that cost and then some. Before you say its a breach of someone's rights, if you're on welfare you've given up all of your rights except the right to life and cruel and unusual punishment. You've become government property and should be treated as such, if you dont like it get off welfare.

THINK OF THE CHILLENS doesn't work on me. I dont give a s*** about the kids, if they are really being neglected to the point its criminal the state can seize them and give them to a new family. Well I advocate getting rid of the assistance programs. Kind of... its a complicated, I can explain it if you want.

Eh if all that's separating you from poverty is a few government cuts you need to get your s*** together. Let em suffer, toughen the welfare leeches up a little bit maybe they'll think twice next time they blindly join a union or rely on the government for anything. And yea, I think our current administration is proof that a government that exists only to waste obscene amounts of money has (shock!) a negative impact on what is supposed to be a free economy.