Kinja reply list

Read More
Vanguard KnightHamilton Nolan
6/07/16 2:34pm
What is a large subset of this country going to do when Automation and Climate Chnage wipes out entire swaths of traditional jobs?

Will they adapt and change our system to accomodate the new growing masses of UNEMPLOYABLE people?

Will they instead double down and further vilify and ostracize the UNEMPLOYABLE class making them scapegoats for all the ills plaguing society?

There is definately a free rider problem, but its overstated. Every year the amount of people who want to work and want to better themselves but have no opportunity to grows. How we deal with that will be the true test of humanity in the 21st century.

Seeing as Automation and Climate Change will affect poor and minorities first and hardest I don’t have much hope of adaption before the cost in lives is paid, as there is a well documented empathy gap that exists between them and the white and rich.

I am betting on this being a very brutal century, one that they will be making entertainment (games, movies, books) of for a long time.
Reply
- Read More
  ThrumbolioVanguard Knight
  6/07/16 2:41pm
  Eventually, a certain subset of the electorate will be reduced to baldly stating their primary ethic in clear terms: fuck you, I got mine.
  
  We’ll see how people react when/if people dying in the streets (as in en masse) is more than a hypothetical.
  Reply
- Read More
  caekislove-caekingitupVanguard Knight
  6/07/16 2:41pm
  Why do you think they’re poking the middle east and twiddling their thumbs while all the whackadoodles establish a new caliphate?
  
  It’s Kissinger’s old plan made new again. We’re gonna send those undesirables off to WAR! Plus, we’ll now make it look like it was their idea when they chose to join the Army instead of fighting their entire high school graduation class for that one open greeter position at Wal-Mart!
  
  [Would you like to know more?]
  Reply
Read More
TRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)Hamilton Nolan
6/07/16 2:25pm
Note to Paul Ryan: When we say “anti-poverty,” we don’t mean “anti-poor people.”

Republicans believe that the only thing that keeps the American people acting as responsible, moral citizens is the threat of misery and death. Whether it’s the threat of hellfire in the pulpit, or the threat of starvation in the workplace. “Meritocracy” becomes a euphemism for bloody-minded social Darwinism. Of course, they do their best to stack the deck to make sure the other guy’s the one thrown out onto the street. So principled. So dignified. So mature.

Modern conservatism is nothing but institutionalized greed, graced with a veneer of unconvincing piety.
Reply
- Read More
  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzTRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)
  6/07/16 2:30pm
  This plan appears to be easily summarised as “A swift kick in the pants”
  Reply
- Read More
  IanTRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)
  6/07/16 2:34pm
  *crowd applauds*
  
  Great contribution as always, sir. *tips hat*
  Reply
Read More
pre-emptive sighHamilton Nolan
6/07/16 2:34pm
What you see is a prescription for pushing people off public assistance.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it lacks the crucial piece of getting people jobs that pay enough so that they don’t need public assistance.
Reply
- Read More
  VoxPoptartiuspre-emptive sigh
  6/07/16 3:06pm
  No, pushing people off public assistance is a bad thing.
  
  Making it so they don’t need it is something different.
  Reply
- Read More
  You might be wrong.pre-emptive sigh
  6/07/16 3:20pm
  People who get jobs that pay enough so that they don’t need public assistance aren’t pushed off public assistance. They don’t receive it anymore because they don’t need it any more.
  Reply
Read More
ThatGuy524Hamilton Nolan
6/07/16 2:37pm
I dunno, the 4 points seem pretty reasonable to me. I could see Dems writing the same thing.
Reply
- Read More
  Flying Squid (I hate me more than you do.)ThatGuy524
  6/07/16 2:39pm
  Point 1 only makes sense if you believe the Republican lie that people on assistance are lazy. Many people without a job are without a job because no one will hire them.
  Reply
- Read More
  EvanrudeJohnsonThatGuy524
  6/07/16 2:49pm
  If you add a 5th point that says after five years, no more welfare, you have a plan that democrats did enact.
  Reply
Read More
LindaHamilton Nolan
6/07/16 2:32pm

Folks there is video footage from 2012 of this jackass laying out his plans for balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class and poor. These people talking about what a good person Ryan is make me want to vomit. This is the guy who just endorsed a con artist/racist for President.
Reply
- Read More
  Flying Squid (I hate me more than you do.)Linda
  6/07/16 2:36pm
  I have yet to find anyone able to explain to me why it’s important for a government- not a family, not a small business, a government to have a balanced budget.
  
  I wish more people understood the difference between micro and macro-economics.
  Reply
- Read More
  LindaFlying Squid (I hate me more than you do.)
  6/07/16 2:41pm
  It’s not, really. It’s good to have surplus income for programs, to update equipment in the various gov’t departments, etc. but the way a government runs, do we ever know if the budget is balanced?
  
  It’s just politicians figured out they can get people riled up by saying that “we” have to balance our little budgets at home, so why can’t these big bad gov’t officials?
  Reply
Read More
CleverUsernameHamilton Nolan
6/07/16 3:12pm
2. Get incentives right so everyone benefits when someone moves from welfare to work;

So, more tax cuts for businesses who do the country a favor by hiring people? Sounds like business as usual.
Reply
- Read More
  helgaperezCleverUsername
  6/07/16 3:31pm
  I know this is not what they meant, but they could make the reduction and elimination of benefits more gradual as people’s income increases. If people don’t have to fear losing benefits if they get a job, and if getting a job actually improves their situation, we might see more people getting jobs.
  Reply
- Read More
  CleverUsernamehelgaperez
  6/07/16 4:20pm
  Companies love it when their employees are getting government assistance. Just ask WalMart and McDonalds. They justify paying them an unlivable wage because they know the employees are getting food stamps.
  
  There's no incentive for businesses to pay people more so they can be off welfare.
  Reply
Read More
BrtStlndHamilton Nolan
6/07/16 2:27pm
1. Raise the minimum wage

2-10. Something far less important or impactful
Reply
- Read More
  20 Shades of Grey including PorpoiseBrtStlnd
  6/07/16 2:31pm
  2. Raise the taxes of the richest Americans.
  
  3. Stop corporations from hiding thier money overseas.
  
  4-10. other stuff.
  Reply
- Read More
  BobbySeriousBrtStlnd
  6/07/16 2:33pm
  2) Restructure our trade agreements to protect American workers and industries
  
  3) Create an emergency education (job training) & infrastructure bill of no less than 1 trillion dollars. Fund it with a tax on Wall Street speculation, taxing capital gains, and cutting waste from our defense spending.
  
  4) End the war on drugs, reform our criminal justice system
  Reply
Read More
emooHamilton Nolan
6/07/16 2:28pm

Reply
- Read More
  BrtStlndemoo
  6/07/16 2:29pm
  This is great.
  Reply
- Read More
  Ianemoo
  6/07/16 2:33pm
  The Poor90X workout, bitches!
  Reply
Read More
BobbySeriousHamilton Nolan
6/07/16 2:28pm
Watching Republicans try to come up with a plan to fight poverty is like....

Watching the KKK try to come up with a diversity outreach program

Reply
- Read More
  IanBobbySerious
  6/07/16 2:36pm
  Watching the *Republicans try to come up with a diversity outreach program.
  
  FTFY
  Reply
- Read More
  jbrown2112BobbySerious
  6/07/16 2:54pm
  I tend to agree with Bill Maher on this observation. “Being a Republican doesn’t automatically mean you’re a Racist but if you’re a Racist, you’re probably a Republican.”
  Reply
Read More
Murry ChangHamilton Nolan
6/07/16 3:26pm
Eliminating poverty doesn’t technically mean helping poor people, it just means making sure there are no more poor people.

Anyhow, isn’t that like the exact same plan Clinton and the Republican Congress enacted 20 years ago?
Reply
- Read More
  DL ThurstonMurry Chang
  6/07/16 3:55pm
  Eliminating poverty doesn’t technically mean helping poor people, it just means making sure there are no more poor people.
  
  I mean...we do already have a company that has voluntarily named itself “Soylent”...
  Reply
- Read More
  OtherKate8Murry Chang
  6/07/16 4:02pm
  Ha-pretty much. I worked at a food bank for a few years, and one of our directors had retired from working in the county food stamps office before working with us. I was there during the worst years after the real estate bubble burst, and this is California, so we just had a flood of people who were dealing with absolutely dire shit. At the same time, there were a lot of proposals at the local and national level to cut assistance, right when the most people needed it. I remember asking this guy if this was just another turn of the cycle, and if he’d seen this type of bluster before, and he was all like, nope, this is the most openly vicious people have ever been, and it’s just like they want the poor to just go up and die or something...
  Reply