[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
Fucking drown these people in gasoline and burn them with fire. If it’s to the point where your obesity is having a negative impact on the national debt, then it’s time for you to die and try doing life over again. You lost this round.[/quote]
Damn fucking right. Game over. They would do more good fertilizing grass anyway.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Exactly! Those people put in their time and effort, got paid and restored their pride.
[/quote]
Better[/quote]
haha! Perhaps brevity is better.
[quote]inkaddict wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I hate when people work the system like that. I’ve been in a couple of conversations with people about this and can’t hold my tongue. Once they get done pandering for sympathy I tell them about my brother, and how he severed his spinal chord. Then went back to school, got 2 degrees and became employed in his field of education- in a wheel chair. Then I tell them that they are not handicapped, they are lazy pieces of shit, and walk away.
[/quote]
This reminds me of this sign I saw in South Africa recently. The parking spaces were chained off, so not just any lazy fuck could park there. Parking lot attendants had the keys, and would have to verify your handicappedness to allow you to park there. Here in the good old USA, it’s like “Oh shit, you’re fat? Here, park closer so you don’t have to walk as far.”
Fucking lazy fucks.
Bravo to your brother too man, he’s the man![/quote]
Yea, obesity isn’t tolerated nearly as much here thank God. If you applied for disability on these grounds the government would laugh at you.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Exactly! Those people put in their time and effort, got paid and restored their pride.
[/quote]
Better[/quote]
haha! Perhaps brevity is better.
[/quote]
Without wanting to drag this into PWI, my point was that government programms are unable to stimulate the economy, because the money is redirected from the private sector.
Since we know that the projects governments sponsor are not the peoples first choice because if they were whatever project the government undertakes would already have been built by the private market, make work programms necessarily reduce overall utility, or more precise, furure overall utility is lower than it would have been.
Flows logicaly from the idea of utility.
And that is before the waste and corruption that inevitably occur when people woek with other peoples money and have no stake whatsoever in the economic outcome.
So, if you want to sell it as some kind of work therapy, fine, but helping the economy it most decidedly did not.
And DB stop playing devils advocate, the motorcycle example doesn’t apply. According to your logic if I was shot walking home from the gym because I know there may be a possibility of muggers on the road then I am wrong for being there. Applying the same logic to ANY circumstance where the result is unfavorable would yield the same result.
Edited because it’s not worth it. I’m guessing everyone on this thread is a perfect physical specimen who has never taken advantage of anything in their lives and is a moral saint.
People on disability for being fat should get a special handicap license plate where parking inside any parking lot is illegal, that way they have to walk extra far anytime they go somewhere in a car. This kind of stuff pisses me off as much as everyone else but look on the bright side, they may be getting free money but their quality of life is still far less than ours.
[quote]SSC wrote:
Edited because it’s not worth it. I’m guessing everyone on this thread is a perfect physical specimen who has never taken advantage of anything in their lives and is a moral saint.[/quote]
How is the weather up there on your moral high horse?
What is it that you equate this with? I don’t find this a petty complaint but that is what is coming across to me with your post.
Can you point out where anyone said we all had to be perfect physical specimens? You can’t, no one did.
I did post that you can work to not be obese.
[quote]SSC wrote:
Edited because it’s not worth it. I’m guessing everyone on this thread is a perfect physical specimen who has never taken advantage of anything in their lives and is a moral saint.[/quote]
You do not have to be a moral saint to understand that institutionalized subsidies of quite common flaws are a bad idea, in fact, being a bit of a prick helps.
Also, it may well be that people find her behavior especially repulsive because they recognize it in themselves and do not particularily like it, but be glad that they have not all succumbed to the siren song of the public teat or else women like her would simply starve for lack of resources.
It might take a while though.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
That being said, there are also more and more studies each year that indicate that there is a distinct possibility that a huge factor in someone’s weight is genetic in nature and that essentially many people cannot “choose” to not be fat, only the extent to how fat they become. I’ve even heard of studies raising the possibility of an “obese” gene. Perhaps this woman’s disability doesn’t even boil down to choice as much as it does chance.
[/quote]
If genetics were the cause and not environmental factors, then why are there so many more fat people now than 40 years ago? Evolution doesn’t work that quickly.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Exactly! Those people put in their time and effort, got paid and restored their pride.
[/quote]
Better[/quote]
haha! Perhaps brevity is better.
[/quote]
Without wanting to drag this into PWI, my point was that government programms are unable to stimulate the economy, because the money is redirected from the private sector.
Since we know that the projects governments sponsor are not the peoples first choice because if they were whatever project the government undertakes would already have been built by the private market, make work programms necessarily reduce overall utility, or more precise, furure overall utility is lower than it would have been.
Flows logicaly from the idea of utility.
And that is before the waste and corruption that inevitably occur when people woek with other peoples money and have no stake whatsoever in the economic outcome.
So, if you want to sell it as some kind of work therapy, fine, but helping the economy it most decidedly did not.
[/quote]
What stimulates an economy? BUYING STUFF. Can you buy stuff without a job? No. The best way to stimulate an economy is to give the public buying power. A JOB is the best way to achieve that.
No, what stimulates an economy is MAKING stuff. That’s what creates buying power because you know, it creates wealth.
[quote]Silo101 wrote:
And DB stop playing devils advocate, the motorcycle example doesn’t apply. According to your logic if I was shot walking home from the gym because I know there may be a possibility of muggers on the road then I am wrong for being there. Applying the same logic to ANY circumstance where the result is unfavorable would yield the same result.[/quote]
I’m not playing devil’s advocate at all. You assume that each and every choice we make carries with it an equal amount of risk and an equal result of that risk. This is not the case. I assume that riding a motorcycle at a high rate of speed on a windy mountain road carries with it an inherent risk that walking down the street doesn’t. The motorcyclist assumes an unnecessary risk that carries with it a much higher degree of danger. How many people are disabled from muggings every year to the point where they are disabled for as long and as severely as even an average motorcycle accident victim? If I could find numbers on it, I’m sure we’d see that the motorcyclist is engaging in far more dangerous behavior, and it is unnecessary since we don’t NEED to ride motorcycles on the weekend for fun.
Also, if you live in a bad neighborhood or even if you live in a good neighborhood you really have no choice as to whether or not you walk through it and expose yourself to a possible mugging. At some point you MUST venture out into the real world and take that “risk”. Calling this a choice is akin to likening breathing to a choice. Yes, technically I have that choice, but the result of making the choice not to breath FAR outweighs any benefit I may get from that choice to the point where it is not a choice at all.
And this brings me to the crux of what I’ve been saying all along. It’s ridiculous to point to this fat ass and say that there is something wrong with fat people getting disability. There are all sorts of ways people can become disabled. There are all sorts of disabilities that can be suffered through for a variety of reasons. One person may be paralyzed for an entirely different reason than someone else. Essentially, what OctoberGirl has done is she’s placed a value on a particular “disability”.
But this is problematic because it’s impossible to dole out govt cheese based purely on who deserves what given their disability. We don’t even know why this woman is obese to begin with. There are reams and reams of medication out there for all sorts of psychological and physical conditions whose side effects include an inability to differentiate when someone has and has not had enough food to eat. I witnessed a friend gain 50 lbs in less than two months from this sort of medication. Perhaps this fat ass has some even more debilitating disability than obesity, like schizophrenia, and she has actually managed to combat it successfully without ANY govt assistance…except that her medication makes her obese.
Does she get more disability than an equally fat person who is obese simply because they’re a glutton? Right now, yes. I think THAT is what is wrong. Personally, I’m against these welfare programs for the most part, but they are there and they are probably here to stay in some way, shape or form. So if we’re going to have them at all, we may as well compromise by lowering the total payments drastically and handing them out on an entirely equal level, regardless of disability, because it’s impossible to determine what disability is more disabling than others and so forth.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
No, what stimulates an economy is MAKING stuff. That’s what creates buying power because you know, it creates wealth.[/quote]
is building not making? And to pay a citizen to BUILD/MAKE something adds to the economy because then that citizen has money to spend in the economy.
also, creating jobs does stimulate the economy
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Exactly! Those people put in their time and effort, got paid and restored their pride.
[/quote]
Better[/quote]
haha! Perhaps brevity is better.
[/quote]
Without wanting to drag this into PWI, my point was that government programms are unable to stimulate the economy, because the money is redirected from the private sector.
Since we know that the projects governments sponsor are not the peoples first choice because if they were whatever project the government undertakes would already have been built by the private market, make work programms necessarily reduce overall utility, or more precise, furure overall utility is lower than it would have been.
Flows logicaly from the idea of utility.
And that is before the waste and corruption that inevitably occur when people woek with other peoples money and have no stake whatsoever in the economic outcome.
So, if you want to sell it as some kind of work therapy, fine, but helping the economy it most decidedly did not.
[/quote]
What stimulates an economy? BUYING STUFF. Can you buy stuff without a job? No. The best way to stimulate an economy is to give the public buying power. A JOB is the best way to achieve that. [/quote]
To make it simple, government projects make people buy less stuff or at least stuff they want less or otherwise they would already have bought them.
Since the government project is not what they really want, the projects must either kept running indefinitely or the whole supporting industry crashes and the economy must readjust itself to real consumer demand.
So, first inefficient use of resources, then destruction of misallocated resources that were used to misallocate resources.
A one two punch if you will.
Senseless, but politically savvy because people can always look at a dam or a railroad and see that its there, what they do not see however are all the small and middle sized businesses that never came into existence because said dam was built and they would have produced what the people really wanted and where actually willing to spend their own money on.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
No, what stimulates an economy is MAKING stuff. That’s what creates buying power because you know, it creates wealth.[/quote]
is building not making? And to pay a citizen to BUILD/MAKE something adds to the economy because then that citizen has money to spend in the economy.
also, creating jobs does stimulate the economy
[/quote]
So, if I paid someone to dig a ditch in the morning and fill it up again in the afternoon, would I stimulate the economy?
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
No, what stimulates an economy is MAKING stuff. That’s what creates buying power because you know, it creates wealth.[/quote]
is building not making? And to pay a citizen to BUILD/MAKE something adds to the economy because then that citizen has money to spend in the economy.
also, creating jobs does stimulate the economy
[/quote]
No. Creating jobs that actually produce wanted goods stimulates the economy. Government jobs usually do not fall in this category simply because gov. doesn’t know what is wanted because it is alienated from the price system. Make work programs are almost always a waste of scarce resources and make everyone worse off.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
No, what stimulates an economy is MAKING stuff. That’s what creates buying power because you know, it creates wealth.[/quote]
is building not making? And to pay a citizen to BUILD/MAKE something adds to the economy because then that citizen has money to spend in the economy.
also, creating jobs does stimulate the economy
[/quote]
So, if I paid someone to dig a ditch in the morning and fill it up again in the afternoon, would I stimulate the economy?
[/quote]
In the sense that then that person would have money to spend out in the world and YES that would stimulate the economy.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
No, what stimulates an economy is MAKING stuff. That’s what creates buying power because you know, it creates wealth.[/quote]
is building not making? And to pay a citizen to BUILD/MAKE something adds to the economy because then that citizen has money to spend in the economy.
also, creating jobs does stimulate the economy
[/quote]
No. Creating jobs that actually produce wanted goods stimulates the economy. Government jobs usually do not fall in this category simply because gov. doesn’t know what is wanted because it is alienated from the price system. Make work programs are almost always a waste of scarce resources and make everyone worse off.
[/quote]
Prove that.
Spending money stimulates the economy. Having a job with excess monies to spend stimulates the economy.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
No, what stimulates an economy is MAKING stuff. That’s what creates buying power because you know, it creates wealth.[/quote]
is building not making? And to pay a citizen to BUILD/MAKE something adds to the economy because then that citizen has money to spend in the economy.
also, creating jobs does stimulate the economy
[/quote]
No. Creating jobs that actually produce wanted goods stimulates the economy. Government jobs usually do not fall in this category simply because gov. doesn’t know what is wanted because it is alienated from the price system. Make work programs are almost always a waste of scarce resources and make everyone worse off.
[/quote]
Prove that.
Spending money stimulates the economy. Having a job with excess monies to spend stimulates the economy.
[/quote]
You want me to write out a logical argument for why this is true or provide examples?