Shoot The Breeze

[Peter Gibbons]

I completely forgot about my favorite NY law that bans the auto lock on gas pumps because the State of New York likes to remind you who's in charge and make you manually hold the gas pump while freezing your balls off in subzero temps. But hey, at least they protect us from rogue gas pumps malfunctioning and flooding the whole town with gasoline even though I've never heard of that happening.

Good thing I'm a rebel and risk being charged confiscatory taxes in the form of a ticket by shoving my gas cap in there to really stick it to the man.

Okay, so you are missing the forest for the trees here by getting outraged over your window tint and the inconvenience of having to actually hold a gas pump,and not looking at the larger issue. Not very free thinking of you. The left is constantly being accused of taking part in outrage culture and being triggered etc and here we are talking about your minor inconvenience of fueling your car.

I agree, feel good measures like that are ridiculous and somewhat counterproductive, and new York is very bad about such things. No arguments from me there, Particularly when it comes to environmental issues passing the buck off on me and you to use less plastic plastic straws in my pumpkin spice unicorn frap and not spilling a quart of gas when the US navy is one of the biggest polluters in the world and we not only give giant corporations a pass on environmental disasters and destruction, we actively encourage it and offer them tax breaks (while you bitch and moan about pennies, respectively). That's just scratching the surface on a host of other issues I have with how things work in our society.

Same with guns, I agree wholeheartedly the feel good "scary black plastic gun bad" measures are retarded when I can buy a mini 14 and achieve the same results and it's not bad because it has a wooden stock and no flash hider, but that's neither here nor there in the current discussion.

My question is as a libertarian, why do you think deregulation of all that shit and further empowering the super wealthy and large corporations to do further harm (as they've already shown they are perfectly willing and capable to do to turn a buck) is going to empower you to be more economically and socially free, particularly in an age where money directly equals speech and these people and corporations can effectively and legally buy politicians and force legislation, even more so when you consider the realities of the future economy with automation, widening of the wage gap, the disappearing middle class, so on and so forth brought up by me and others in this conversation?

I mean how can you possibly think you somehow are going to get a better life by further enabling all that? Strict capitalism and relying on individuals to just do the right thing obviously isn't working, and won't work in the future because of human nature. That's not to say neoliberalism is the answer, because all that is is feel good half measures meant to propogate the system that isn't working already, I agree with that, no argument, that's just as harmful because yes, now you and I are suffering more and nothing gets accomplished. I'm just not as fatalistic about the future and want the world to be better for more than just myself I guess.

I just don't see how you or anyone else can be convinced giving the moneyed and powerful more money and power is going to fix anything.

 

[ONE]

TRIGGER WARNING HOT TAKE INCOMING: Look, FDR was wrong then and he's wrong now. You can't change the basic laws of economics, which I have already covered in previous posts. I'm sorry to say it but if you can't obtain enough skills to get a steady job to even provide enough for yourself, you most certainly shouldn't reproduce and bring kids into a shitty situation. I make decent money and even I don't think I can support a 2 child family adequately on my income, at least not without feeling like I was poor and living pay check to pay check. Why should I hold off on having kids until I feel like I could adequately support them but pay a fuck ton in taxes to subsidize the lifestyle and poor choices of Steve, the lead fry cook down at McBurger N the Box? Bad news for me is Steve fucks like a porn star and when he realizes he done messed up and knocked up his drug addict girlfriend twice, he realizes responsibilities suck and dips out so now we all get to pay to raise Steve's kids already. I'm not sorry that I don't want to take responsibility for Steve and his high school dropout gf that was dumb enough to get in bed with him.

Ironically, it would be much easier for people to support themselves and a family if taxes weren't so high, the Fed wasn't debasing the currency, and banks paid a historically normal rate of interest (say 5%). There used to be a time when people could just go to high school, graduate and get a job, and be the sole income provider for his family with 5 kids and live a decent middle class lifestyle. My grandfather did it, as well as many others like him. That is basically impossible to do today. You have to ask yourself what has changed since then, and no the answer isn't that the minimum wage hasn't kept up because it's not like my they my grandpa or others were making minimum wage supporting their families. The answer lies in the Fed and sound money and all of the central government planning that has destroyed this country the ability for people's standard of living to keep up with real inflation, not the phony numbers the government produces. It lies in the higher taxes levied to pay for all this wonderful government with its ever expanding laws, regulations, corruption, and fat salaries and benefits for its workers. The private citizens have been getting squeezed for the last century but it's never been more apparent than right now. Any well intentioned law you think would fix the problems we have today would only exacerbate it.

What's hilarious is that this guy is blaming his high taxes on not the corporations that used billions to lobby for tax cuts and phony COVID relief funds, but instead blames the guy who probably gets like $100 of food a week from the food bank lol. Like he's so close to realizing where his problems are coming from but still misses the mark. Also hits the "government worker benefits are bad!" button when ATCs have some of the nicest retirement packages as well.

OKC could have been one of the nicest cities in the U.S. if the big oil didn't lobby OK into paying <1% of their profit from "new oil investments" as taxes. That could have gone into schools, infrastructure, and actually making the city a great place to live instead of the equivalent of a strip-mined state.

Instead we got the Thunderdome and that's basically the only (positive) thing OKC is known for, the Thunders.

Defending the ultra rich isn't going to make you one, you know. You are literally arguing against your own existence

Edit: Taxes are also used to disincentivize behavior. You know why the gas tax in NY is so high? Because NY doesn't want any more fuckers in cars in NYC, which is where the majority of state income comes from. Raise the gas tax high enough and less people will drive cars. Soda tax to make your populace healthier. Tax on cigarettes to improve health.

 

[AB19]

Is anyone else watching Borat Subsequent Moviefilm

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Is anyone else watching Borat Subsequent Moviefilm

That's my plan for this evening after this swing shift. No spoilers!

 

[AB19]

That's my plan for this evening after this swing shift. No spoilers!

Shit is funny as fuck

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Shit is funny as fuck

Not gonna lie the first one caused me to examine myself and my attitude about things quite a bit for a dumb comedy movie. I'm really looking forward to watching the followup.

 

[AB19]

Not gonna lie the first one caused me to examine myself and my attitude about things quite a bit for a dumb comedy movie. I'm really looking forward to watching the followup.

This one is a real eye opener lol

 

[Peter Gibbons]

What's hilarious is that this guy is blaming his high taxes on not the corporations that used billions to lobby for tax cuts and phony COVID relief funds, but instead blames the guy who probably gets like $100 of food a week from the food bank lol. Like he's so close to realizing where his problems are coming from but still misses the mark. Also hits the "government worker benefits are bad!" button when ATCs have some of the nicest retirement packages as well.

OKC could have been one of the nicest cities in the U.S. if the big oil didn't lobby OK into paying <1% of their profit from "new oil investments" as taxes. That could have gone into schools, infrastructure, and actually making the city a great place to live instead of the equivalent of a strip-mined state.

Instead we got the Thunderdome and that's basically the only thing OKC is known for, the Thunders.

Defending the ultra rich isn't going to make you one, you know. You are literally arguing against your own existence

Edit: Taxes are also used to disincentivize behavior. You know why the gas tax in NY is so high? Because NY doesn't want any more fuckers in cars in NYC, which is where the majority of state income comes from. Raise the gas tax high enough and less people will drive cars. Soda tax to make your populace healthier. Tax on cigarettes to improve health.

We got a long way to go but things are looking up, but ya it's gonna take the people realizing we don't have to be slaves to the fossil fuel industry here before things get really great. I agree with the rest of that analysis of okc though.

That and investment in education.

 

[AB19]

Definitely not as good as the original borat

 

[Homsar]

At the end of the day you still need people to make the burgers. That’s the fundamental problem. If the burger people can afford to pay rent and buy things the whole economy. (Well thé middle class) is much better off.

Yeah, and those people flipping burgers will be new people in the workforce, working on their education to move up to better positions. As population increases, the workforce available to fill these lowest-tier jobs will always be there, and increase. The message should be that these jobs should be temporary as you work up, not a career, and removing the cost-for-education barrier to graduate from these jobs should be the top priority. The message counter to this is “people should be able to make a comfortable living flipping burgers, so let’s pay them more,” which is ridiculous. They should be able to pay for basic needs, but some jobs need to be seen as transitional, not permanent. They should only be permanent by choice.

 

[32andBelow]

Is anyone else watching Borat Subsequent Moviefilm

I’m at the Guilliani part!

 

[Termine]

TRIGGER WARNING HOT TAKE INCOMING: Look, FDR was wrong then and he's wrong now.

I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People

Our disagreement is not merely political, but a fundamental divide on what it means to live in a society.

www.huffpost.com

Yeah, and those people flipping burgers will be new people in the workforce, working on their education to move up to better positions. As population increases, the workforce available to fill these lowest-tier jobs will always be there, and increase.

Interesting theory. Not true. Still not true. Nopedy nopedy nope. Especially during recessions, but really at any point, older workers are having to work more jobs to keep their families afloat. Who do you think is flipping your burger at 1pm on a Tuesday? Some recent high school grad who doesn't deserve to make $20k a year, I suppose? Or a middle-aged mother who doesn't deserve to make $20k per year? When the federal minimum wage is barely enough to put a single-person family over the poverty line (never mind someone trying to support a child) the system is broken.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Yeah, and those people flipping burgers will be new people in the workforce, working on their education to move up to better positions. As population increases, the workforce available to fill these lowest-tier jobs will always be there, and increase. The message should be that these jobs should be temporary as you work up, not a career, and removing the cost-for-education barrier to graduate from these jobs should be the top priority. The message counter to this is “people should be able to make a comfortable living flipping burgers, so let’s pay them more,” which is ridiculous. They should be able to pay for basic needs, but some jobs need to be seen as transitional, not permanent. They should only be permanent by choice.

I don't disagree with any of that, but fact of the matter is even if it is a transitional job, as of right now in most if not all areas minimum wage doesn't equate to minimum living conditions, and in the future as discussed, those jobs to move up to are going to be more scarce, especially without a means to learn valuable technical skills. As that becomes the case, more and more of these "transitional" jobs are just going to become "jobs" for more and more people.

That kind of wealth divide isn't going to be healthy for society, its coming sooner rather than later, and it's something we need to start handling now.

 

[Homsar]

I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People

Our disagreement is not merely political, but a fundamental divide on what it means to live in a society.

www.huffpost.com

Interesting theory. Not true. Still not true. Nopedy nopedy nope. Especially during recessions, but really at any point, older workers are having to work more jobs to keep their families afloat. Who do you think is flipping your burger at 1pm on a Tuesday? Some recent high school grad who doesn't deserve to make $20k a year, I suppose? Or a middle-aged mother who doesn't deserve to make $20k per year? When the federal minimum wage is barely enough to put a single-person family over the poverty line (never mind someone trying to support a child) the system is broken.

You have sources that say system as it is now doesn’t work?



Of course it doesn’t work now, that’s why I pushed for education reform in my post. Re-read them, please.

I don't disagree with any of that, but fact of the matter is even if it is a transitional job, as of right now in most if not all areas minimum wage doesn't equate to minimum living conditions, and in the future as discussed, those jobs to move up to are going to be more scarce, especially without a means to learn valuable technical skills. As that becomes the case, more and more of these "transitional" jobs are just going to become "jobs" for more and more people.

That kind of wealth divide isn't going to be healthy for society, its coming sooner rather than later, and it's something we need to start handling now.

Minimum wage should definitely result in minimum living conditions, but I feel that the definition of that term isn’t going to be agreed upon by a lot of people.

Government needs to step in and provide a path to help people succeed. States try to do this with more minimum wage than the federal standard, but perhaps that’s not enough. I want a system that encourages hard work through realistic benefits and opportunities, not a system that encourages complacency.

 

[32andBelow]

So a Biden plan is to forgive 10k a year in student loans up to 5 years for each year of government service. Yes please!!!!!

 

[ShortGuy]

So a Biden plan is to forgive 10k a year in student loans up to 5 years for each year of government service. Yes please!!!!!

Can my fiancée benefit from this when I marry her? I have no student loans but she doesn’t work for the government.

 

[32andBelow]

Can my fiancée benefit from this when I marry her? I have no student loans but she doesn’t work for the government.

Idk. Prolly not. Unless she gets a public service job

 

[Peter Gibbons]

You have sources that say system as it is now doesn’t work?

View attachment 5014

Of course it doesn’t work now, that’s why I pushed for education reform in my post. Re-read them, please.



Minimum wage should definitely result in minimum living conditions, but I feel that the definition of that term isn’t going to be agreed upon by a lot of people.

Government needs to step in and provide a path to help people succeed. States try to do this with more minimum wage than the federal standard, but perhaps that’s not enough. I want a system that encourages hard work through realistic benefits and opportunities, not a system that encourages complacency.

I mean that's all good and fine, I again agree with that under current circumstances.

Just looking back on history though, humans develop tech so we can do other things with our time and produce things. Oh hey, ugg invented the spear, now grug doesn't also have to go hunting, they both have more free time, now we have time to grow crops too. Oh, Samuel invented the wheat thresher, we Now only need 5 people to work this farm instead of 50, the other 45 can go work in a factory, oh Eli invented the cotton gin, now 30 of those people can make bespoke luxury goods and so on.

We are fast getting to a point (already there with goods really) where the innovation and tech is eliminating our need to be the primary producers of things, and even in the service and logistics industry things are quickly going that way. It's not going to be tomorrow, or next year, or probably even a decade from now, but 20, 50 years? Ya gonna be an issue.

So the question is when your entire economy, culture and society is based around A) providing a good or service, being a "producer", be it of things or doing something for someone else in exchange for what you need to live, or B) being the person who lords over group A and reaps the benefits of their labor, and that need for group A by and large slowly disappears, what are the people in group A left with, and how do they have any hope of ever being true equals to group B on any front when they don't have the means to elevate themselves anymore?

That's really I think the crux of the issue as I see it. It's not about enabling leeches on society or thinking people are owed anything, it's just the reality of human advancement, and ya at the same time maybe some harm reduction in the present.

 

[Homsar]

I mean that's all good and fine, I again agree with that under current circumstances.

Just looking back on history though, humans develop tech so we can do other things with our time and produce things. Oh hey, ugg invented the spear, now grug doesn't also have to go hunting, they both have more free time, now we have time to grow crops too. Oh, Samuel invented the wheat thresher, we Now only need 5 people to work this farm instead of 50, the other 45 can go work in a factory and so on.

We are fast getting to a point (already there with goods really) where the innovation and tech is eliminating our need to be the primary producers of things, and even in the service and logistics industry things are quickly going that way. It's not going to be tomorrow, or next year, or probably even a decade from now, but 20, 50 years? Ya gonna be an issue.

So the question is when your entire economy, culture and society is based around A) providing a good or service, being a "producer", be it of things or doing something for someone else in exchange for what you need to live, or B) being the person who lords over group A and reaps the benefits of their labor, and that need for group A by and large slowly disappears, what are the people in group A left with, and how do they have any hope of ever being true equals to group B on any front when they don't have the means to elevate themselves anymore?

That's really I think the crux of the issue as I see it. It's not about enabling leeches on society or thinking people are owed anything, it's just the reality of human advancement, and ya at the same time maybe some harm reduction in the present.

I don’t disagree with any of that, but as automation increases, people who are needed to maintain that automation increases as well, even if they don’t completely equal the labor needed before the automation occurred. Regardless of any automation, the drive to become better than how you are now needs to be promoted and encouraged, by government subsidy if necessary.

 

[32andBelow]

I don’t disagree with any of that, but as automation increases, people who are needed to maintain that automation increases as well, even if they don’t completely equal the labor needed before the automation occurred. Regardless of any automation, the drive to become better than how you are now needs to be promoted and encouraged, by government subsidy if necessary.

Why do you need to force people to do jobs that don’t exist? How is that efficient?