491–500 of 612 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is caused slavery, government mandated slavery. I don't see how so many people can be okay with this happening. Why are we not outraged?
Can we just call it bad without lying about what it actually is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it is that it isn't understood that people make different lifestyle and economic decisions and we all pay for our decisions somehow no matter what they are; The sensationalism, victimization blaming, and "woe is me" that a small minority and media raise. No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses. It is a "take the lump, become stronger, make a plan for now and later, a…
Nobody is entitled to a job. But if you work you are entitled to pay. The truly egregious thing here is all the people that are required to work without pay, preventing them from getting a different job.
They're just required to work [without being paid immediately] if they want to keep the job, with the promise that they'll be paid later.
Edit: Except for the Coast Guard, for whom the current situation really sucks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The modern welfare state, where millions of people are immediately hurt by the federal system grinding to a halt and stopping, would have been anathema to the framers. So too would have been the dominance of corporate interests in the political system. But here we are.
So too would women, blacks, Asians, and the poor having the right to vote be anathema to them. Why again do we really care about parsing exactly what the Founders would say about the modern world?
Anyway, extending the franchise doesn’t really have anything to do with the prominence of the federal government, whereas the increasing power of corporations does.
I hope not too off topic, but I'm puzzled by shutdowns. Every other country I can think of has a system where if the finance is not agreed, the previous budget just continues. The budget sets the yearly amount for each department and it runs on until another budget changes how much everyone gets. Sometimes a new department gets created, sometimes something is abolished. Everyone gets their salary and services run on.…
In Canada it triggers a new election
And in the US, I could see that tactic succeeding, unless the voters were willing to punish gaming the system that way. I see no evidence that US voters are responsible enough to do so, however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if they can't quit because of the wage-slave capitalist culture brought about by the US government?
Then we've diluted the term "slavery" enough that it's no longer usable in a reasonable discussion.
Wage slavery is a very old term. Please do your research before making such bold statements.
As a non US citizen, I don’t understand what’s that shutdown even about, seems like absurd thing to do. Is it all because of Trump or he is not the only one to blame? I remember there was some shutdown when Obama was there too? Or am I mistaken? Edit: downvoted for asking a question?
It seems like in the US the two legislative branches and the executive branch of government have to all agree each year on a budget, or else everything shuts down? It's a curious system, I think in most countries not being able to pass a budget would bring down the government and cause a new election. It seems to rely very strongly on politicians seeking compromise, which is ambitious! A question to American posters:…
The executive makes a budget, but it's just advisory. Officially the House is the source of the budget, which gets passed by the senate, then signed by the president. But as a practical matter there's much negotiation before and during the whole process, of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's interesting about your statement is, I believe, that's one of the reasons why Trump was elected. There are a certain demographic of people who want our country to be run more like a business. These people likely thought Trump would be able to do so, given his "business acumen". I'm not sure what the current situation says about this concept, if anything. Maybe the government is its own beast and can't be run l…
The government could be run like a business but it never will be for two reasons. First, it can make its own rules. And second, there's no competition. If you don't like what it doesn't you can't find a competitor, unless you leave the country. Yes, you can vote, but voting only changes so much. If you're changing CEOs and radically changing direction ever 4 or 8 years, it's not likely any large scale reform will eve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of Mitt Romney's comments in 2012 about borrowing money from your parents: > “We’ve always encouraged young people, take — take a shot, go for it. Take a risk. Get the education. Borrow money, if you have to, from your parents. Start a business.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/romn...
After being in the US for so many years now, earlier i used to feel such comments were blatant lies that obviously people with their own agendas do. However now i feel that some people really live in such a bubble that they do not have a basic understanding of the society they are living in and what 'average', 'above average','middle class' etc. means
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it is that it isn't understood that people make different lifestyle and economic decisions and we all pay for our decisions somehow no matter what they are; The sensationalism, victimization blaming, and "woe is me" that a small minority and media raise. No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses. It is a "take the lump, become stronger, make a plan for now and later, a…
No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses That is an assertion, not a statement of fact. Christian values actually teach the exact opposite, and that's why Jesus said that one cannot serve God and Mammon at the same time.
Christianity always only talks about what you need to give, and never says anything about what you need to get, including anything you get from God, which is always undeserved and only happens through His mercy and generosity.
This is even acknowledged obliquely when Christ states that we will always have the poor. By saying that we can't serve God and Mammon, He's saying that we cannot make money for money's sake, but must use it justly in the service of God.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing that really bothers me about that "They should have savings" logic, is the expectation that they should have to use them. Yes. They should have savings. EVERYONE should have min 3 months of income in savings. No one should be expected to use it.
> EVERYONE should have min 3 months of income in savings. It surprises me how few do though. I do. Six months or more in fact. I'm in a relatively well-paid job (senior-developer-come-local-database-export) as of course are many of the people around me, in fact some should be much better off, but there are those among them who get edgy if a mistake makes our pay late by a day because they have bills payments going ou…
Oh, I just got a raise, a new car would be useful, or maybe I should do some upgrades around the house.
The average american is two paychecks for losing everything in their life.