"Mad at the Internet" - a/k/a My Psychotherapy Sessions

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Waifu Days said:
They have keynote speakers :story:
Click to expand...
I've been laughing my ass off at this biography for the past ten minutes.

Screenshot_20240415_062054_Brave.jpg
 
  • Lunacy
  • Horrifying
  • Like
Reactions: fake farts, Thumb Butler, Drama Fan and 10 others
Pale Empress said:
I've been laughing my ass off at this biography for the past ten minutes.

View attachment 5908928
Click to expand...
I'm going to bet that "palatable fattie" is not actually trademarked in lower case letters, or at all. Shameful misuse of ™

This is the only thing that comes to mind with fatties and pallets:
1713187677286.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: fake farts, Drama Fan, indomitable snowman and 5 others
Null said:
I took one in college. It was my only A.
Click to expand...
Where was this at? Clown college? You fuckin' doofus.
Clownmutt.jpg
Like any college class, what makes a good Poli-Sci course is the professor teaching it. I've had classes which were the highlights of my day to attend, and others which were either boring at best, or complete indoctrination at worst. I remember taking a Criminal Justice class that I was not at all hopeful for (had to fulfil some gen ed credits), but turned out to be one of my favorite classes I've ever taken. The next course up from it was "Social Justice," and was taught by a black woman. Needless to say, I did not continue down that path.
 
Last edited:
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Ether Being, Mazdamundi, BrainSand63 and 7 others
The US tax law and welfare programs are bastardized, redlined shitshows of laws that are frequently thrown together at the last minute and passed without anyone- even a staffer of a voting congressperson that read the whole thing. I don't know if the whole "equity disqualifies you from welfare" thing was explicitly added to keep people from owning houses and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps or if it is just the product of lazily written policy.

Lets be honest, what percentage of people getting benefits for being layabouts would actually be investing into a home if not for that rule? i agree the rule is dumb. Means testing as a way to narrow the benefactors of government aid to the lowest, least productive losers is what makes the democrat's policy strategy a) ineffective and b) alienating to a large portion of middle class people, who for example are ineligible for basically any of those campaign advertised tax rebates because they make $81k per year when the ceiling for income to qualify for any kind of federal tax credit it like $76k.

The other issue is that both parties campaign on big slogans like "welfare reform", which is judged by journalists, academics, and voters (lol not really) in dollars saved, or budget reduction. So, reforming welfare typically means reducing the yearly line item spend. How is this done? As lazily as possible with no consideration about the secondary effects, of course. Reduce the line item expense by narrowing the eligibility requirements. Easy way to do that is to just make it so anybody with equity in a house is not eligible. Boom, you just got rid of x number of people. never mind that because they no longer receive benefits they are much more likely to take out a second mortgage, default, lose the house and be back on bennies in a few years anyway. Who cares? by then, nobody will even remember who did what and when to the budget and welfare reform can be done again, making the system even worse.
 
  • Feels
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Ether Being, Blackhole, Local Fed and 4 others
mister fireworks said:
Lets be honest, what percentage of people getting benefits for being layabouts would actually be investing into a home if not for that rule?
Click to expand...

people who are legitimately disabled, whom the system is supposed to help

I do not want to powerlevel nor lose the merit for my charitable actions but I also feel like it's necessary to discuss the reality of who gets bennies. The people you know about are malingerers and whiners, sure, but that is the minority. The majority of people on benefits are either working parents or people with serious disabilities. Working parents are motivated to get up and out so most of them get off benefits as soon as they can, and they suffer duting the

the legit disabled however are turbofucked by the trap Null described. and I know this because of direct involvement in the lives of people in this terrible situation.

Maybe means testing is necessary but the object should be independent dignified poverty, not dependence and more jobs for social workers.
 
  • Like
  • Optimistic
  • Agree
Reactions: fake farts, gmax alcremie, Active User and 8 others
mold said:
people who are legitimately disabled, whom the system is supposed to help

I do not want to powerlevel nor lose the merit for my charitable actions but I also feel like it's necessary to discuss the reality of who gets bennies. The people you know about are malingerers and whiners, sure, but that is the minority. The majority of people on benefits are either working parents or people with serious disabilities. Working parents are motivated to get up and out so most of them get off benefits as soon as they can, and they suffer duting the

the legit disabled however are turbofucked by the trap Null described. and I know this because of direct involvement in the lives of people in this terrible situation.

Maybe means testing is necessary but the object should be independent dignified poverty, not dependence and more jobs for social workers.
Click to expand...
My argument is that means testing is stupid because state programs like tax incentives and temporary disability/medical benefits should be available for everyone who isnt literally in the top 5% (or whatever making like $1 mil per year is) tax bracket. The reason for this is because otherwise the exact situation I described above in my previous comment happens where cuts are made that make the programs inefficient and in the case of the "you cant have equity and get benefits" it simply solves an immediate political problem for the people we elect to govern to reduce the spend in that particular area, but ends up screwing over people and cost all of us more money in the long term.

Not letting people get benefits because they have equity in a home is the definition of means testing. To use your example, one of two parents needs but is excluded from the pool of people who can collect temporary benefits simply because their spouse works and earns "too much money". Thats means testing. Means testing is just a way to make budgets look better and to basically trick voters into thinking that these programs are being reformed so that the "welfare queens" get kicked out when the reality is the exact opposite. Its also how democrats alienate voters who have seen themselves excluded from tax deduction programs for making too much (but still firmly middle class) money.

Removing means testing would essentially give voters actual visibility into whether or not the shit that candidates are promising them would be worth voting for, since it could be understood that the law could directly affect (improve the life of) the voter regardless of their personal wealth. If there is a new proposed law about giving people better temporary disability, then I would be more likely to support it if I didn't have to assume that I wouldn't be able to benefit from it if I needed it because I make too much money and have assets, which is the default for a lot of Americans when they hear about new tax incentives or bennies. People are self interested. Remember it was the clintons who did the last major welfare reform. The republicans dont even really have to address this issue from their side because the democrat party line of "everything we say we will do assumes means testing" makes it so the shit isnt even popular enough to need a rebuttal from the right.

There is no formula for means testing that makes it worth doing anyway. It DOES turbofuck people and it reinforces the turbofucking by creating a cycle of people who arent turbofucked never wanting to support any kind of benefits expansion out of fear it will just be more wasted money that they never get a chance at in their time of need.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: gmax alcremie, Ether Being, germboy and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back