• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

I'll just leave this here....

Wakeforest22890 said:
Our current system does not disincenvitize that behavior.

The most humane? Interesting.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. Being on long-term unemployment has better stability than being denied a 30th hour to your workweek to get around Obamacare.

The humanity argument borders on a truism. The best social program on Earth is an American job.
 
WakeandBake said:
The difference here that you fail to grasp is that the First Lady backs up her admonishments with her advocation of real-world economic solutions that would create opportunity for these folks, while you and Paul Ryan double-down on economic ideas that have proven to only worsen their plight while simultaneously blaming them. So your admonishments ring hollow, dig?

Bill Maher was just trolling his panel and you are eating it up.
Click to expand...

Bill Maher knew that his panelists were far more interested in scoring political points than actually solving problems. He was 100% right.

Please tell me more about how creating incentives to employ people and keep them off of your beloved, subsistence dependency programs is a proven failure. I'll put the finish school-plan your family well-work track record up against the alternative eight days a week. Your argument isn't with me, though. Tell Michelle I said hello and that she's got nice pipes.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I think we've been over this close to 10,000 times, but finishing your free public education (in your control), not starting your family until you get married (ditto) and working the best job you can (also mostly in your control at the entry level) is the single best way to avoid poverty statistically. People who do those things set themselves up for the best course in life. Our current system actually disincentivizes this behavior, and we're not even allowed to talk about it. Witness Paul Ryan. I'd like to do more than talk about it. I'd like to fix it by reversing the incentives so that we still begin rewarding working poor people with more aggressive EITCs and caps the time people can stay on long-term unemployment. It's not just by far the most logical and proven thing to do, but it's also the most humane.
Click to expand...

oh I see the jobs and opportunities are out there waiting to be filled, its just that the hapless blacks can't seem to see beyond the subsistence check the diabolical liberals dangle out there to keep them down...I see now.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Bill Maher knew that his panelists were far more interested in scoring political points than actually solving problems. He was 100% right.

Please tell me more about how creating incentives to employ people and keep them off of your beloved, subsistence dependency programs is a proven failure. I'll put the finish school-plan your family well-work track record up against the alternative eight days a week. Your argument isn't with me, though. Tell Michelle I said hello and that she's got nice pipes.
Click to expand...

fuck an incentive, how about a job? where's the trickle? Ask Paul Ryan when its gonna start for me
 
If the private sector created enough jobs for everyone to have one, the government wouldn't have to provide pesky little things like long-term unemployment benefits. Of course the private sector is far more interested in being as efficient as possible, committing widespread FLSA violations, making a profit at every turn, and fulfilling Ayn Rand's wet dream to care about small things like human decency. MOAR MONEY.
 
WakeandBake said:
oh I see the jobs and opportunities are out there waiting to be filled, its just that the hapless blacks can't seem to see beyond the subsistence check the diabolical liberals dangle out there to keep them down...I see now.
Click to expand...

We're back to this dance again?

Two candidates walk into your office to apply for a job: one has a high school degree and is available to work a full schedule, the other is a pregnant 17 year old that has been out school and work since 9th grade since she gave birth to her first child. Also, she can't work on snow days, sick days and has to leave every day at 3:00 even when everyone is healthy and the sun is shining. Your move, job creator.

WWW&BD?
 
jhmd2000 said:
We're back to this dance again?

Two candidates walk into your office to apply for a job: one has a high school degree and is available to work a full schedule, the other is a pregnant 17 year old that has been out school and work since 9th grade since she gave birth to her first child. Also, she can't work on snow days, sick days and has to leave every day at 3:00 even when everyone is healthy and the sun is shining. Your move, job creator.

WWW&BD?
Click to expand...

I hire the the high school degree available to work candidate.


That has nothing to do with real-world solutions to macroeconomic problems facing America.
 
jhmd2000 said:
We're back to this dance again?

Two candidates walk into your office to apply for a job: one has a high school degree and is available to work a full schedule, the other is a pregnant 17 year old that has been out school and work since 9th grade since she gave birth to her first child. Also, she can't work on snow days, sick days and has to leave every day at 3:00 even when everyone is healthy and the sun is shining. Your move, job creator.

WWW&BD?
Click to expand...

Can the 17 year old spell non sequitur?
 
So instead of making programs which incentivize making the 17 year old with a child and a 9th grade education more hireable, your sole platform is to strip all the incentives so her life is over at 17 years old because she got knocked up and now has no support from the freest nation in the world?

I'm just making sure we're drawing our lines clearly here.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Probably not.

So...will you hire her? If not, do you see the problem yet?
Click to expand...

Of course I see the problem. What I'm not seeing are your solutions. Stay in school, get a job, and work hard are advice not a plan or a solution.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
So instead of making programs which incentivize making the 17 year old with a child and a 9th grade education more hireable, your sole platform is to strip all the incentives so her life is over at 17 years old because she got knocked up and now has no support from the freest nation in the world?

I'm just making sure we're drawing our lines clearly here.
Click to expand...

No. My plan is to subsidize self-destructive behavior and just hope it goes away. Wait, that's your plan. Sorry to poach the credit for that wildly successful policy.

And here comes the neg rep for suggesting that people are less desirable employees when they get pregnant and didn't finish school. To that I can only say....
vw6rq.jpg
 
That's not my plan.

Nobody said that people aren't less desireable employees when they get pregnant and don't finish school. You just don't accept that these things will never go away and are acting like we can solve these problems. It's like saying the key to solving world hunger is to take away incentives in the form of foreign aid since it will encourage people to search harder for food, or not get hungry in the first place.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
That's not my plan.

Nobody said that people aren't less desireable employees when they get pregnant and don't finish school. You just don't accept that these things will never go away and are acting like we can solve these problems. It's like saying the key to solving world hunger is to take away incentives in the form of foreign aid since it will encourage people to search harder for food, or not get hungry in the first place.
Click to expand...

By analogy, what if we offered the third world sustenance equivalent of a recommended daily allowance, and people just stopped showing up for their daily ration? Would we encourage them to take advantage of the free resource that is entirely within their control (in the case of your analogy, a food program that doesn't exist, but in the case of the real world in America in 2014, the free public education that very much does), or would we try to re-solve that problem with a different, redundant solution?

Go read the pbs piece on the statistics of what dropping out does to your prospects. Tell me again that treating that part of the problem is just advice and not a solution.

Why can't we agree on this?
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
That's not my plan.

Nobody said that people aren't less desireable employees when they get pregnant and don't finish school. You just don't accept that these things will never go away and are acting like we can solve these problems. It's like saying the key to solving world hunger is to take away incentives in the form of foreign aid since it will encourage people to search harder for food, or not get hungry in the first place.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
“When it comes to getting an education, too many of our young people just can’t be bothered. They’re sitting on couches for hours playing video games, watching TV. Instead of dreaming of being a teacher or a lawyer or a business leader, they’re fantasizing about being a baller or a rapper.”

Is this speaker telling the truth? Trolling? Racist? Married to the President? Or all of the above? Perhaps I should all for the possibility that she is incorrect? Or are we just going to not address issue at all because beginning discussions at the (only) logical beginning point of personal responsibility makes us uncomfortable confessing that deep down inside we don't think they're "up to it", and instead of engaging just shoot the messenger?

Why can't we fix this, again?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top