Sure, if you commit a crime while on welfare, out you go.
Of course I was being facetious. The easiest solution is to end welfare programs like snap. Get a job, or take a shot at some charity helping you out, and hope they do or you starve.
If the amendment is passed properly, they can't cite a now repealed amendment to throw out the new one. What you suggest would clearly not be allowed since that logic could be used to throw out any law passed. They can't rule on anything without a case before them, and the case required would only be possible after the new amendment passed.
I have thought it through; I want the government to pay zero. People that want to live on charity can do so and go to an actual charity, and we can eliminate the government coercion and redistributions.
Ya, your post is nonsense. I've known and have seen plenty of people with new trucks, the latest iphone, complaining they should get more food stamps in February because how are they supposed to have enough food for the Superbowl party they are hosting.
And stop acting like its feed people or the crime rate goes up, there are lots of other ways to handle this. I'd be fine shipping people to Finland for example.
I think its immoral for one free person to demand that another free person take care of them. Being compelled to do so by force is considered slavery. The system today is pretty indirect; you can pick your job, and you could just stop working to go on the take yourself, but if you choose to work some of your effort is forcefully taken away and given to someone that just doesn't want to work. For me that's discouraging. Others mentioned the social contract as justification as to why we all pay for roads and police, but where is the part where we expect everyone who is able to actually contribute something back to society? Why do some simply get to take?
I don't mind helping people. I do mind being forced to with threat of violence. I'm not against paying taxes for roads and fire departments, I'm against paying for someone's six pack while they do nothing but watch judge judy all day.
Fortunately we'll get see the results of your line of thinking in Finland soon enough. Of course it never occurs to you Europe might be having a harder time recovering (still!) because all of their entitlement programs.
It depends on how common the skill is and how easy it is to acquire. In your scenario yes, that's exactly what happens. It doesn't though because the skills required to be a good programmer are not easy to learn or master. That's why there's a labor shortage in that field. I remember a bunch of people in my first year of my CS degree that flunked out because they thought it'd be easy money.
The more training and knowledge you need to perform a job, the smaller the labor pool. To a point, once wages get high enough, more people will enter driving the wages down, but the market will tend to even out the supply to be roughly the demand.
Where do you get this crap? The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land which the court must follow, so there is exactly zero legal way for them to invalidate an amendment. If an amendment went in making slavery legal again, and nullified the amendments used for equal protection and such, the CANNOT invalidate it.
Stop it. The OP doesn't have a problem with taxes in general (nor do i, i like roads and fire departments), he specify doesn't like working to provide from himself then being forced to give it to someone that could but chooses not to.
People already move from NY and NH SOLEY because VT has more generous and less restrictive social programs. And unsurprisingly, NH has a stronger economy.
Agreed, in the end more jobs will be created. The issue is that the jobs will require more skill, which is not a problem in itself, but people are lazy and would rather take a handout then learn the skills needed for the jobs available. There are lots of jobs today which are good paying but have a shortage of workers.
until the economy goes downhill and tax revenues dry up. Then where does the money come from? are you in the states? did you not see the budget crises most of the state governments had, and how many local governments when completely bankrupt?
Oh and the rest of your post is why this is a bad idea. Clearly there is not enough demand and / or you don't have enough skill building musical instruments. Society isn't in need of what you like to do, and your current job is more valuable to society than what you'd like to do. That's why giving people what they need to survive is bad; they'll choose to go off and do what they want, not necessarily what is needed.
> I want to work. I DON'T want to work at drudgery! Who does? No one
I suspect as pay for the tedious job goes up, the number of people willing to do it does as well. For example, not a lot of people want to be trash men, and its reflected by the fact that starting wage for that job is above minimum and includes health, dental, vision and 401(k).
> The question is, is the group of people who are happy-not-working large enough to bankrupt the group of people who would keep working?
Likely yes. And at any rate, if someone chooses to nothing but sit at home and watch tv all day, how does it make sense to force me to support his lifestyle choice, just because I want more out of life? Just like your right to swing your face ends at my face, your right to do nothing ends at my wallet.
> There's a tiny percentage of the population who might end up just living on their dole, but I'd rather see them have shelter and food than have them begging in the street.
Why? why should anyone just be given something when they choose not to contribute in any way? Why should people doing the right thing by producing something of value and taking care of themselves ALSO shoulder the burden of taking care of someone else?
I think you seriously underestimate the number of people that would choose to be nothing more but parasites and dead weight.
And what's the problem here? If his job required so little skill that his subordinates quickly replaced him, he was probably being overpaid to begin with. Just like the city worker above that made $15/hr. He probably made that nit because it required any real skill to do the jib, but rather the union forced pay to be way over what the market would pay.
Show me where Sony advertised it. Thus far all anyone has done is link to BLOGS not controlled by sony, and the MANUAL for the other os feature. So please, show me something where they were courting the scientific community.
Everytime this comes up, I ask to see where sony advertised it. Not once has anyone ever done anything but link to 3rd party blogs, and the online manual for the other os feature.
None of that is advertising. One is a blog, btw, which just points to your second link. The second link is nothing more than a manual, aimed at discussing a feature to an end user who already purchased the PS3... not an advertisment. An ad would be something you see on TV or in print, hear on the radio, or on the marketing for the PS3 online.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, if you commit a crime while on welfare, out you go.
Of course I was being facetious. The easiest solution is to end welfare programs like snap. Get a job, or take a shot at some charity helping you out, and hope they do or you starve.
If the amendment is passed properly, they can't cite a now repealed amendment to throw out the new one. What you suggest would clearly not be allowed since that logic could be used to throw out any law passed. They can't rule on anything without a case before them, and the case required would only be possible after the new amendment passed.
Nice try, but thanks for playing.
They can try to rob me, but a bullet to the head should stop that. It 's not like i'm not allowed to defend myself.
I have thought it through; I want the government to pay zero. People that want to live on charity can do so and go to an actual charity, and we can eliminate the government coercion and redistributions.
Ya, your post is nonsense. I've known and have seen plenty of people with new trucks, the latest iphone, complaining they should get more food stamps in February because how are they supposed to have enough food for the Superbowl party they are hosting.
And stop acting like its feed people or the crime rate goes up, there are lots of other ways to handle this. I'd be fine shipping people to Finland for example.
I think its immoral for one free person to demand that another free person take care of them. Being compelled to do so by force is considered slavery. The system today is pretty indirect; you can pick your job, and you could just stop working to go on the take yourself, but if you choose to work some of your effort is forcefully taken away and given to someone that just doesn't want to work. For me that's discouraging. Others mentioned the social contract as justification as to why we all pay for roads and police, but where is the part where we expect everyone who is able to actually contribute something back to society? Why do some simply get to take?
I don't mind helping people. I do mind being forced to with threat of violence. I'm not against paying taxes for roads and fire departments, I'm against paying for someone's six pack while they do nothing but watch judge judy all day.
Fortunately we'll get see the results of your line of thinking in Finland soon enough. Of course it never occurs to you Europe might be having a harder time recovering (still!) because all of their entitlement programs.
It depends on how common the skill is and how easy it is to acquire. In your scenario yes, that's exactly what happens. It doesn't though because the skills required to be a good programmer are not easy to learn or master. That's why there's a labor shortage in that field. I remember a bunch of people in my first year of my CS degree that flunked out because they thought it'd be easy money.
The more training and knowledge you need to perform a job, the smaller the labor pool. To a point, once wages get high enough, more people will enter driving the wages down, but the market will tend to even out the supply to be roughly the demand.
Or instead of welfare we could force out those that don't want to work and remove them from society. Perhaps send them to Finland, for example.
Where do you get this crap? The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land which the court must follow, so there is exactly zero legal way for them to invalidate an amendment. If an amendment went in making slavery legal again, and nullified the amendments used for equal protection and such, the CANNOT invalidate it.
You don't seem to get it. If the will of the people is strong enough, we could repeal the 13th Amendment and get slavery back.
So you're argument of just accepting it is nonsense. Majority rule is mob rule, and that's exactly why we have things like the electoral college.
It depends on what the taxes are used for. It doesn't benefit me at all to give my tax money to someone else so they can do nothing but watch TV.
Stop it. The OP doesn't have a problem with taxes in general (nor do i, i like roads and fire departments), he specify doesn't like working to provide from himself then being forced to give it to someone that could but chooses not to.
But why shouldn't the game console just be free too? i mean they're already getting food for free, aren't they entitled to more?
People already move from NY and NH SOLEY because VT has more generous and less restrictive social programs. And unsurprisingly, NH has a stronger economy.
Agreed, in the end more jobs will be created. The issue is that the jobs will require more skill, which is not a problem in itself, but people are lazy and would rather take a handout then learn the skills needed for the jobs available. There are lots of jobs today which are good paying but have a shortage of workers.
> as most people want more than the minimum income needed to survive.
Ya they may want it, but very few want to put in the effort required to do so. And that's the problem here, people want to take but give nothing back.
until the economy goes downhill and tax revenues dry up. Then where does the money come from? are you in the states? did you not see the budget crises most of the state governments had, and how many local governments when completely bankrupt?
Oh and the rest of your post is why this is a bad idea. Clearly there is not enough demand and / or you don't have enough skill building musical instruments. Society isn't in need of what you like to do, and your current job is more valuable to society than what you'd like to do. That's why giving people what they need to survive is bad; they'll choose to go off and do what they want, not necessarily what is needed.
> I want to work. I DON'T want to work at drudgery! Who does? No one
I suspect as pay for the tedious job goes up, the number of people willing to do it does as well. For example, not a lot of people want to be trash men, and its reflected by the fact that starting wage for that job is above minimum and includes health, dental, vision and 401(k).
> The question is, is the group of people who are happy-not-working large enough to bankrupt the group of people who would keep working?
Likely yes. And at any rate, if someone chooses to nothing but sit at home and watch tv all day, how does it make sense to force me to support his lifestyle choice, just because I want more out of life? Just like your right to swing your face ends at my face, your right to do nothing ends at my wallet.
> There's a tiny percentage of the population who might end up just living on their dole, but I'd rather see them have shelter and food than have them begging in the street.
Why? why should anyone just be given something when they choose not to contribute in any way? Why should people doing the right thing by producing something of value and taking care of themselves ALSO shoulder the burden of taking care of someone else?
I think you seriously underestimate the number of people that would choose to be nothing more but parasites and dead weight.
And what's the problem here? If his job required so little skill that his subordinates quickly replaced him, he was probably being overpaid to begin with. Just like the city worker above that made $15/hr. He probably made that nit because it required any real skill to do the jib, but rather the union forced pay to be way over what the market would pay.
Show me where Sony advertised it. Thus far all anyone has done is link to BLOGS not controlled by sony, and the MANUAL for the other os feature. So please, show me something where they were courting the scientific community.
Everytime this comes up, I ask to see where sony advertised it. Not once has anyone ever done anything but link to 3rd party blogs, and the online manual for the other os feature.
That is a link to a manual telling people about a feature of the ps3, its not something aimed at getting people to buy a PS3.
None of that is advertising. One is a blog, btw, which just points to your second link. The second link is nothing more than a manual, aimed at discussing a feature to an end user who already purchased the PS3... not an advertisment. An ad would be something you see on TV or in print, hear on the radio, or on the marketing for the PS3 online.
Here's what advertising is, since you don't seem to understand the difference between an ad and a manual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising