HorrorMovieFans.com

I fully expect Democrats to ignore and embrace deadbeats, so they get a pass on this one.

So anyway, over the past few years I have been in a unique position to interview and hire a lot of people. I hired assistants and salespeople while in real estate (about 6 hires), enumerators while working on the census (maybe 50 hires), caregivers for my aunt (4 hires), and about 30 for the food business.

This topic came up because the current caregiver for my aunt is legally disabled due to COPD, which is due to years of cigarette smoking. She receives monthly income, food stamps, medical care, transportation vouchers, etc. Yesterday she called me and said she was being taken to the hospital because she could not breathe, but expected to be back in a few hours.

So I came home to be with my aunt. The caregiver was able to talk but was having some trouble breathing, she was also able to smoke and walk up stairs and go outside to do so. The ambulance arrives and two gentleman walk past her bucket of cigarette butts, go inside and have to smell the awful stink of cigarettes on her. After running some tests, they give her a ride to the hospital ER. She gets breathing treatments and is brought back in a taxi.

Within minutes, she is back outside smoking. Makes zero attempts to quit. She has two doctor appointments per week. These doctors are paid by society. They give her tons of pills, again, society pays of them. When my aunt passes away or I have to put her into a home, society will pay for the caregiver's housing.

I wish this was uncommon. My experience tells me it is not. People leaving real estate because their disability is in jeopardy. People not starting with the census because theiir unemployment might be difficult to restart, etc.

So, when does society get serious and start talking about the free loader problem instead of tranny bathroom habits?

when does foo get serious and stop talking about tranny bathroom habits?

There's no greater example of practical vs. theoretical ideology than Republicans suckling on the government teet while condemning others who do the same.

It is definitely well past the time to frame this as a partisan issue. It's not even an American issue. It's a human issue.

Oh, and there is no solution. It's like hoping the military-industrial complex goes away. It can only expand. And that's what it will do. There's no wake up call coming. Once you giveth, you cannot taketh away.

Why the Tranny bathroom thing... What a random and stupid add-on...

On the actual substance here, there seems to be a typical two-way pull here. On the one hand, people who get "hooked" on benefits and therefore continue to consume them when they really should be doing something more productive and useful is a problem. It's a problem in all its forms and nobody wants people to be like that. So I agree there is a problem.

The issue here is that there isn't a good solution, in my eyes. Because if these people are relying on these things to live/survive, much like your care-giver, then taking it away is a de-facto death sentence for I would assume either hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions if the issue is as endemic as you suggest. Nobody wants to be THAT legislator. Very much like the removal of Obamacare attempt earlier, the headline is never "some people get the wakeup call they need and start doing a productive job" the headline is always "millions homeless and starving" because that is how it will be framed to them as well.

A realistic approach for some of the issues you've mentioned would have to be to have more engagement with individuals. The morbid "bright spot" of your aunt's carer is that the smoking is clearly having a very adverse effect on her health, so you'd assume it will come to a natural conclusion sooner than later. By contrast, the unemployment people seem to be in quite a different position. Here, I tend to side with the need for benefits to keep people off the street and out of crime, personally, but if you were to craft a solution, I'd assume the solution has to be a more tethered short-term unemployment tier that caters to more job interviews and possibly community service related ideas in order to motivate and create more opportunity to get employed. It's a hard one though. Rhyl, where my wife is from, is an unemployment hell-hole. Basically just drugs and $1 stores are the main thing, and when you go there in the day on any weekday (I've gone up the occasional Friday or Monday with a long weekend of my personal time off) you'll always see armies of uneducated hillbilly looking fucks smoking, drinking and sitting around in their gaudy track-suits and new trainers. Clearly, here, they are staying on unemployment and probably peddling drugs or some other stupid illegal thing for extra income. The solution I guess is to crack down on the drug trade and clean up any illicit things, and then force more of them to get some kind of job. But looking at these people I wouldn't hire them to pick up garbage in the streets. They'd have to start by putting themselves in a black bin bag and jumping in a landfill...

I actually think that both Democrats and Republicans, left and right everywhere, want less freeloaders, but can't agree on how to get rid of them. If there's a good solution, I'd love to hear it.

my understanding is that government, in large part thrives on disenfranchisement, either for working class (liberals) or minorities (republicans). so there really isn't an interest to solve problems, but just to appear to do that. when you make your campaign on the other side is the enemy and you work to undo and dismantle everything they set up just 4 to 8 years before. nothing is going to change in any lasting way. and i think it's kind of what the politicians and government wants, seemingly.

if you want people to stop being freeloaders, then encourage them on a large scale to be productive, and give them the resources and opportunity to do that. if you make things harder and harder and then condemn people when they start to be affected by you making things harder for them, it's not going to do anything but cause things to be worse and worse.

zombie wrote:my understanding is that government, in large part thrives on disenfranchisement, either for working class (liberals) or minorities (republicans). so there really isn't an interest to solve problems, but just to appear to do that. when you make your campaign on the other side is the enemy and you work to undo and dismantle everything they set up just 4 to 8 years before. nothing is going to change in any lasting way. and i think it's kind of what the politicians and government wants, seemingly.

if you want people to stop being freeloaders, then encourage them on a large scale to be productive, and give them the resources and opportunity to do that. if you make things harder and harder and then condemn people when they start to be affected by you making things harder for them, it's not going to do anything but cause things to be worse and worse.

That is why Trump, from outside the system, willing to dismantle the establishment systems should hold a lot of appeal. I almost guarantee he would sign laws that greatly reduce freeloading.

I think more public shaming might be the solution. People used to fear being called lazy. Now they embrace being lazy slugs.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:my understanding is that government, in large part thrives on disenfranchisement, either for working class (liberals) or minorities (republicans). so there really isn't an interest to solve problems, but just to appear to do that. when you make your campaign on the other side is the enemy and you work to undo and dismantle everything they set up just 4 to 8 years before. nothing is going to change in any lasting way. and i think it's kind of what the politicians and government wants, seemingly.

if you want people to stop being freeloaders, then encourage them on a large scale to be productive, and give them the resources and opportunity to do that. if you make things harder and harder and then condemn people when they start to be affected by you making things harder for them, it's not going to do anything but cause things to be worse and worse.

That is why Trump, from outside the system, willing to dismantle the establishment systems should hold a lot of appeal. I almost guarantee he would sign laws that greatly reduce freeloading.

if trump stops treating anyone who holds a different political view to him, or even just questions him at all, as the enemy, and works to not disenfranchise minorities and actually makes a difference for the better, maybe he'll "hold a lot of appeal", but i don't see that from him yet. *shrug*

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:my understanding is that government, in large part thrives on disenfranchisement, either for working class (liberals) or minorities (republicans). so there really isn't an interest to solve problems, but just to appear to do that. when you make your campaign on the other side is the enemy and you work to undo and dismantle everything they set up just 4 to 8 years before. nothing is going to change in any lasting way. and i think it's kind of what the politicians and government wants, seemingly.

if you want people to stop being freeloaders, then encourage them on a large scale to be productive, and give them the resources and opportunity to do that. if you make things harder and harder and then condemn people when they start to be affected by you making things harder for them, it's not going to do anything but cause things to be worse and worse.

That is why Trump, from outside the system, willing to dismantle the establishment systems should hold a lot of appeal. I almost guarantee he would sign laws that greatly reduce freeloading.

if trump stops treating anyone who holds a different political view to him, or even just questions him at all, as the enemy, and works to not disenfranchise minorities and actually makes a difference for the better, maybe he'll "hold a lot of appeal", but i don't see that from him yet. *shrug*

Who gives a shit about that? I am more interested in everyone thriving in this country than hurting the feelings of the perpetually butthurt.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:my understanding is that government, in large part thrives on disenfranchisement, either for working class (liberals) or minorities (republicans). so there really isn't an interest to solve problems, but just to appear to do that. when you make your campaign on the other side is the enemy and you work to undo and dismantle everything they set up just 4 to 8 years before. nothing is going to change in any lasting way. and i think it's kind of what the politicians and government wants, seemingly.

if you want people to stop being freeloaders, then encourage them on a large scale to be productive, and give them the resources and opportunity to do that. if you make things harder and harder and then condemn people when they start to be affected by you making things harder for them, it's not going to do anything but cause things to be worse and worse.

That is why Trump, from outside the system, willing to dismantle the establishment systems should hold a lot of appeal. I almost guarantee he would sign laws that greatly reduce freeloading.

if trump stops treating anyone who holds a different political view to him, or even just questions him at all, as the enemy, and works to not disenfranchise minorities and actually makes a difference for the better, maybe he'll "hold a lot of appeal", but i don't see that from him yet. *shrug*

Who gives a shit about that? I am more interested in everyone thriving in this country than hurting the feelings of the perpetually butthurt.

if everyone thrives in this country, there would not be a whole lot of complaining. and you have your own "butthurt", so i wouldn't cast blame onto others for their own.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:my understanding is that government, in large part thrives on disenfranchisement, either for working class (liberals) or minorities (republicans). so there really isn't an interest to solve problems, but just to appear to do that. when you make your campaign on the other side is the enemy and you work to undo and dismantle everything they set up just 4 to 8 years before. nothing is going to change in any lasting way. and i think it's kind of what the politicians and government wants, seemingly.

if you want people to stop being freeloaders, then encourage them on a large scale to be productive, and give them the resources and opportunity to do that. if you make things harder and harder and then condemn people when they start to be affected by you making things harder for them, it's not going to do anything but cause things to be worse and worse.

That is why Trump, from outside the system, willing to dismantle the establishment systems should hold a lot of appeal. I almost guarantee he would sign laws that greatly reduce freeloading.

if trump stops treating anyone who holds a different political view to him, or even just questions him at all, as the enemy, and works to not disenfranchise minorities and actually makes a difference for the better, maybe he'll "hold a lot of appeal", but i don't see that from him yet. *shrug*

Who gives a shit about that? I am more interested in everyone thriving in this country than hurting the feelings of the perpetually butthurt.

if everyone thrives in this country, there would not be a whole lot of complaining. and you have your own "butthurt", so i wouldn't cast blame onto others for their own.

Do you think the goal is equal opportunity or equal outcome?

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:my understanding is that government, in large part thrives on disenfranchisement, either for working class (liberals) or minorities (republicans). so there really isn't an interest to solve problems, but just to appear to do that. when you make your campaign on the other side is the enemy and you work to undo and dismantle everything they set up just 4 to 8 years before. nothing is going to change in any lasting way. and i think it's kind of what the politicians and government wants, seemingly.

if you want people to stop being freeloaders, then encourage them on a large scale to be productive, and give them the resources and opportunity to do that. if you make things harder and harder and then condemn people when they start to be affected by you making things harder for them, it's not going to do anything but cause things to be worse and worse.

That is why Trump, from outside the system, willing to dismantle the establishment systems should hold a lot of appeal. I almost guarantee he would sign laws that greatly reduce freeloading.

if trump stops treating anyone who holds a different political view to him, or even just questions him at all, as the enemy, and works to not disenfranchise minorities and actually makes a difference for the better, maybe he'll "hold a lot of appeal", but i don't see that from him yet. *shrug*

Who gives a shit about that? I am more interested in everyone thriving in this country than hurting the feelings of the perpetually butthurt.

if everyone thrives in this country, there would not be a whole lot of complaining. and you have your own "butthurt", so i wouldn't cast blame onto others for their own.

Do you think the goal is equal opportunity or equal outcome?

People in this country don't have either, so what's the point?

Foo wrote:
Do you think the goal is equal opportunity or equal outcome?

the goal should be equal opportunity. what actually seems to happen is disenfranchising part of the population, and saying you champion another part, just to the point that it gets you elected (as a party)

Jigsaw wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:my understanding is that government, in large part thrives on disenfranchisement, either for working class (liberals) or minorities (republicans). so there really isn't an interest to solve problems, but just to appear to do that. when you make your campaign on the other side is the enemy and you work to undo and dismantle everything they set up just 4 to 8 years before. nothing is going to change in any lasting way. and i think it's kind of what the politicians and government wants, seemingly.

if you want people to stop being freeloaders, then encourage them on a large scale to be productive, and give them the resources and opportunity to do that. if you make things harder and harder and then condemn people when they start to be affected by you making things harder for them, it's not going to do anything but cause things to be worse and worse.

That is why Trump, from outside the system, willing to dismantle the establishment systems should hold a lot of appeal. I almost guarantee he would sign laws that greatly reduce freeloading.

if trump stops treating anyone who holds a different political view to him, or even just questions him at all, as the enemy, and works to not disenfranchise minorities and actually makes a difference for the better, maybe he'll "hold a lot of appeal", but i don't see that from him yet. *shrug*

Who gives a shit about that? I am more interested in everyone thriving in this country than hurting the feelings of the perpetually butthurt.

if everyone thrives in this country, there would not be a whole lot of complaining. and you have your own "butthurt", so i wouldn't cast blame onto others for their own.

Do you think the goal is equal opportunity or equal outcome?

People in this country don't have either, so what's the point?

There are three types of people:

1. I will try
2. I will do my best
3. I will do whatever it takes

Don't confuse people not taking advantage of opportunities for opportunities not existing.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
Do you think the goal is equal opportunity or equal outcome?

the goal should be equal opportunity. what actually seems to happen is disenfranchising part of the population, and saying you champion another part, just to the point that it gets you elected (as a party)

It is easy to disenfranchise people who are just looking for an excuse.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
Do you think the goal is equal opportunity or equal outcome?

the goal should be equal opportunity. what actually seems to happen is disenfranchising part of the population, and saying you champion another part, just to the point that it gets you elected (as a party)

It is easy to disenfranchise people who are just looking for an excuse.

you know that people are having a hard time. and you know that not all of those people are free loaders. people will work to help themselves. if people in positions of authority and power work against those people, that is how they become disenfranchised.

Foo wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:my understanding is that government, in large part thrives on disenfranchisement, either for working class (liberals) or minorities (republicans). so there really isn't an interest to solve problems, but just to appear to do that. when you make your campaign on the other side is the enemy and you work to undo and dismantle everything they set up just 4 to 8 years before. nothing is going to change in any lasting way. and i think it's kind of what the politicians and government wants, seemingly.

if you want people to stop being freeloaders, then encourage them on a large scale to be productive, and give them the resources and opportunity to do that. if you make things harder and harder and then condemn people when they start to be affected by you making things harder for them, it's not going to do anything but cause things to be worse and worse.

That is why Trump, from outside the system, willing to dismantle the establishment systems should hold a lot of appeal. I almost guarantee he would sign laws that greatly reduce freeloading.

if trump stops treating anyone who holds a different political view to him, or even just questions him at all, as the enemy, and works to not disenfranchise minorities and actually makes a difference for the better, maybe he'll "hold a lot of appeal", but i don't see that from him yet. *shrug*

Who gives a shit about that? I am more interested in everyone thriving in this country than hurting the feelings of the perpetually butthurt.

if everyone thrives in this country, there would not be a whole lot of complaining. and you have your own "butthurt", so i wouldn't cast blame onto others for their own.

Do you think the goal is equal opportunity or equal outcome?

People in this country don't have either, so what's the point?

There are three types of people:

1. I will try
2. I will do my best
3. I will do whatever it takes

Don't confuse people not taking advantage of opportunities for opportunities not existing.

I don't. I just know and realize the systematic disadvantages this shitty country and system presents.

Foo wrote:There are three types of people:

1. I will try
2. I will do my best
3. I will do whatever it takes

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BibHtTaAi5E&t=2m39s

Jason wrote:

Foo wrote:There are three types of people:

1. I will try
2. I will do my best
3. I will do whatever it takes

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BibHtTaAi5E&t=2m39s

any attempt to politicize freddy krueger should be severely punished.