Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2810 »

ThePeteEffect: Jun 12, 2007; I'm just crackers about cheese!; Fun Shoe

ShiftyEyedRaccoon posted:

Found this one on Facebook this morning:

I pointed out that was making a number of bad assumptions including:

1.) That the companies would use the money they saved to hire new workers.

2.) That they would hire workers at anywhere near $70,000 per year

3.) That all the cost of regulations is shifted onto households.

4.) That the report is any way accurate (I only read the page he referenced).

He just deleted my response without comment, though. Do I get points for trying?

5.) That regulations are doing nothing.

6.) That side effects or market crashes or illness from the lack of regulations would not end up costing more.

7.) That regulators don't get paid.

# ? Oct 14, 2011 18:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 19:24

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

ShiftyEyedRaccoon posted:

He just deleted my response without comment, though. Do I get points for trying?

No. You will get points when you put a bullet in his skull during the social revolution (except they won't be called points, but Marks)

# ? Oct 14, 2011 18:07

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

ShiftyEyedRaccoon posted:

Found this one on Facebook this morning:

I pointed out that was making a number of bad assumptions including:

1.) That the companies would use the money they saved to hire new workers.

2.) That they would hire workers at anywhere near $70,000 per year

3.) That all the cost of regulations is shifted onto households.

4.) That the report is any way accurate (I only read the page he referenced).

He just deleted my response without comment, though. Do I get points for trying?

I think it also leaves out one critically important assumption, one that breaks down even if you accept that the 1.7 trillion figure is accurate:
5.) Half of all regulatory spending could be done away with without causing either any additional harm or any additional spending.

Both of these things seem to be obviously false. Think of all the things that must be included in this number: hard hats for construction workers, high-visibility vests for highway workers, soap for surgical works, etc etc etc. When did this notion that regulation is immediately and necessarily evil take hold? Wouldn't you rather have a surgeon with clean hands than $5 in your pocket?

# ? Oct 14, 2011 18:12

CellBlock: Oct 6, 2005; It just don't stop.

JohnClark posted:

I think it also leaves out one critically important assumption, one that breaks down even if you accept that the 1.7 trillion figure is accurate:
5.) Half of all regulatory spending could be done away with without causing either any additional harm or any additional spending.

Both of these things seem to be obviously false. Think of all the things that must be included in this number: hard hats for construction workers, high-visibility vests for highway workers, soap for surgical works, etc etc etc. When did this notion that regulation is immediately and necessarily evil take hold? Wouldn't you rather have a surgeon with clean hands than $5 in your pocket?

I'm not getting surgery, so I don't give a poo poo about surgeons' hands.

- OR -

The Free Market will make sure only surgeons with clean hands get paid because people will stop going to surgeons with dirty hands (because they'll die).

# ? Oct 14, 2011 18:26

chesh: Apr 19, 2004; That was terrible.

XyloJW posted:

47% of people* don't pay taxes.** Ergo, 53% do. They are the "53%."***

*includes children, the elderly, the unemployed, the disabled, and the retired.
**Only speaking of income taxes, after deductions and refunds. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and other taxes are not included.
***No, they're not.

...that is loving retarded. *sigh*

# ? Oct 14, 2011 19:55

Dr Christmas: Apr 24, 2010; Berninating the one percent,
Berninating the Wall St.
Berninating all the people
In their high rise penthouses!
🔥😱🔥🔫👴🏻

XyloJW posted:

47% of people* don't pay taxes.** Ergo, 53% do. They are the "53%."***

*includes children, the elderly, the unemployed, the disabled, and the retired.
**Only speaking of income taxes, after deductions and refunds. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and other taxes are not included.
***No, they're not.

I think many of the 53%ers actually are actually 47%ers, especially those who talk about barely making rent or not having health insurance. They just see something come out of their paycheck, so they assume it's income tax.

# ? Oct 14, 2011 20:27

JoshTheStampede: Sep 8, 2004; come at me bro

Dr Christmas posted:

I think many of the 53%ers actually are actually 47%ers, especially those who talk about barely making rent or not having health insurance. They just see something come out of their paycheck, so they assume it's income tax.

Yes, and then they ignore that they get a tax refund in April.

# ? Oct 14, 2011 20:30

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

Also $70,000 per worker actually means something in the ballpark of $45,000 salary. Maybe not even that. There are other costs associated with hiring new workers, payroll taxes, insurance, benefits, and even additional supplies required for them to do their job. That's why the whole "Stimulus is costing $200,000 a job" is BS. A company can't just go "Oh, here's a paycheck now generate us some revenue from thin air".

Besides, the problem isn't that companies don't have money. They just have no reason to hire. The only case for companies needing more money would be very small businesses who aren't meeting demand, but can't get a loan to hire more people. In which case the government should be making loans to businesses looking to hire, not getting rid of regulations for the sake of getting rid of regulations.

# ? Oct 14, 2011 21:09

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

Dr Christmas posted:

I think many of the 53%ers actually are actually 47%ers, especially those who talk about barely making rent or not having health insurance. They just see something come out of their paycheck, so they assume it's income tax.

They absolutely are. If you have a family and make Median income or less, you pay no income taxes. The deductions, exemptions and credits available to families pretty much ensure that. Hell, my family should have a marginal tax rate of 25%, but our effective tax last year was under 2%. We're only barely in the "53%".

# ? Oct 14, 2011 21:15

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

XyloJW posted:

47% of people* don't pay taxes.** Ergo, 53% do. They are the "53%."***

*includes children, the elderly, the unemployed, the disabled, and the retired.
**Only speaking of income taxes, after deductions and refunds. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and other taxes are not included.
***No, they're not.

It's households, not individuals. So the figure does not 'include children' in the sense that you are implying. Among elderly tax units, it's actually only 55.3% that owed no income tax, looking across all income levels.

You can see more detailed data here.

Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Oct 14, 2011

# ? Oct 14, 2011 21:49

JoshTheStampede: Sep 8, 2004; come at me bro

I'd like all politicians to refer to old people as "elderly tax units" from now on.

# ? Oct 14, 2011 21:55

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Yes, I agree.

# ? Oct 14, 2011 22:03

zeroprime: Mar 25, 2006; Words go here.; Fun Shoe

ShiftyEyedRaccoon posted:

Found this one on Facebook this morning:

So, he's suggesting they fire all the people who make sure workers don't fall into meat grinders and that neighbors don't get brain cancer from runoff? No, no, those jobs don't matter, let's get rid of them.

# ? Oct 15, 2011 03:23

Cacatua: Jan 17, 2006

ShiftyEyedRaccoon posted:

Found this one on Facebook this morning:

I pointed out that was making a number of bad assumptions including:

1.) That the companies would use the money they saved to hire new workers.

2.) That they would hire workers at anywhere near $70,000 per year

3.) That all the cost of regulations is shifted onto households.

4.) That the report is any way accurate (I only read the page he referenced).

He just deleted my response without comment, though. Do I get points for trying?

I've noticed that a lot of right wingers and libertarians really hate the fact that there are environmental and safety standards for industry in North America. It's weird - they must really have no clue what things are like in countries with poor industrial standards.

There are lots of reasons why that one facebook posting is stupid. For one thing, the money spent on compliance does go to funding a lot of jobs i.e. environmental biologists who conduct environmental impact assessments and monitoring, safety inspectors, etc. Someone also has to make and sell all of the safety equipment that workers use. The money spent by industry on compliance to safety and environmental standards really isn't just dumped into a pit somewhere and burned.

Also, a lot of that money is probably used by industry to clean up their own messes. I'm sure the effects of industrial spills like the BP oil spill would be worse if they were just left there and no one had to clean them up.

Cacatua fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Oct 15, 2011

# ? Oct 15, 2011 07:06

Dr Christmas: Apr 24, 2010; Berninating the one percent,
Berninating the Wall St.
Berninating all the people
In their high rise penthouses!
🔥😱🔥🔫👴🏻

ShiftyEyedRaccoon posted:

Found this one on Facebook this morning:

I pointed out that was making a number of bad assumptions including:

1.) That the companies would use the money they saved to hire new workers.

2.) That they would hire workers at anywhere near $70,000 per year

3.) That all the cost of regulations is shifted onto households.

4.) That the report is any way accurate (I only read the page he referenced).

He just deleted my response without comment, though. Do I get points for trying?

If you want a more sound-bitey approach, point out that BP and Massey energy are so under-regulated that their facilities exploded. Nothing kills your jobs like having your workplace explode.

But yeah, lost cause, nice try anyway :shobon:

# ? Oct 15, 2011 07:19

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Dr Christmas posted:

If you want a more sound-bitey approach, point out that BP and Massey energy are so under-regulated that their facilities exploded. Nothing kills your jobs like having your workplace explode.

But yeah, lost cause, nice try anyway

Hey man if consumers don't want their things to come from corporations whose facilities explode occasionally, then they'll just take their money somewhere else. It's the magic of the free market. :downs:

# ? Oct 15, 2011 07:36

modig: Aug 20, 2002

Dr Christmas posted:

If you want a more sound-bitey approach, point out that BP and Massey energy are so under-regulated that their facilities exploded. Nothing kills your jobs like having your workplace explode.

But yeah, lost cause, nice try anyway

Talk about a job creator, they hire 20-30 people a year now to replace their dead workers, imagine if they were hiring 1000 people a year? Jobs biatch, thats how the free market does it.

# ? Oct 15, 2011 15:41

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

modig posted:

Talk about a job creator, they hire 20-30 people a year now to replace their dead workers, imagine if they were hiring 1000 people a year? Jobs biatch, thats how the free market does it.

It's not just that. Think of:

* hundreds, if not thousands, of people participating in the efforts to close the oil well
* thousands of people cleaning up the spill both at sea and on the beaches
* hundreds of people employed to build a new drilling platform
* hundreds of medical professionals that would receive at least some more patients due to people being in close contact with oil
* hundreds of lawyers to handle the messier side of the accident

Drill, baby, drill!

# ? Oct 15, 2011 16:29

Gus Hobbleton: Dec 30, 2003; Can't post for 3 years!

Dr Christmas posted:

If you want a more sound-bitey approach, point out that BP and Massey energy are so under-regulated that their facilities exploded. Nothing kills your jobs like having your workplace explode.

But yeah, lost cause, nice try anyway

Except a lot of crazies probably think that government regulations forced them to let it explode even though they wanted to keep it from exploding.

# ? Oct 15, 2011 17:13

Dr Snofeld: Apr 30, 2009

Not strictly an email, but if you feel like wanting to punch someone today, the Daily Mail has you covered with a nice little number about OWS. Shame that itsyotsy got shut down, the Mail doesn't deserve the ad revenue.

# ? Oct 15, 2011 17:42

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Dr Snofeld posted:

Not strictly an email, but if you feel like wanting to punch someone today, the Daily Mail has you covered with a nice little number about OWS. Shame that itsyotsy got shut down, the Mail doesn't deserve the ad revenue.

Note that they are so proud of this pile of self-congratulatory feces that they had it be posted as the first and only story of some pseudonymous MOTUS

# ? Oct 15, 2011 18:28

gnome7: Oct 21, 2010; Who's this Little
Spaghetti?? ??

Dr Snofeld posted:

Not strictly an email, but if you feel like wanting to punch someone today, the Daily Mail has you covered with a nice little number about OWS. Shame that itsyotsy got shut down, the Mail doesn't deserve the ad revenue.

Wow, what a condescending rear end in a top hat. "How dare these people try to pursue their dreams or want to live in America! I hope they bring sanitizer when they leave!"

# ? Oct 15, 2011 19:00

Cheesus: Oct 17, 2002; Let us retract the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wirebrush of enlightenment.; Yam Slacker

This was forwarded by my grandmother, which was forwarded to her by her daugther-in-law, my own mother.

quote:

TWO DIFFERENT DOCTORS' OFFICES

Boy, if this doesn't hit the nail on the Head, I don't know what does!

Two patients limp into two different Medical clinics with the same complaint. Both have trouble walking And appear to require a hip replacement.

The FIRST patient is examined within the Hour, is x-rayed the same day and has a time booked for surgery the
Following week.

The SECOND sees his family doctor after Waiting 3 weeks for an
appointment, then waits 8 weeks to see a Specialist, then gets
an x-ray, which isn't reviewed for another week And finally has his surgery scheduled for 6 months from then.

Why the different treatment for the two Patients?

The FIRST is a Golden Retriever.
The SECOND is a Senior Citizen.

Next time take me to a vet!

Why am I livid?

I have never heard of her or my grandfather (when he was alive) complaining about the quality of healthcare they received under Medicare.
My mother's mother had a hip replacement done within in under a month.
Ignoring the comparison of out of pocket costs for pet doctors vs. the amount US seniors pay for care under Medicare.
Ignoring the fact many in this country can't even afford this horribly slow mythical treatment due to lack of money or insurance.

Finally, it serves as a cornerstone to "myth to truth" talking point ala Reagan's "welfare queen" speech. Everybody "knows" that story is true and therefore helps perpetuate the "popular view" that the safety net should be dismantled.

Basically, I want to punch the gently caress out of a 92 year old woman and a 61 year old woman.

Or deny them both Medicare (mom when she's eligible) and see how they like life.

# ? Oct 15, 2011 22:50

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Cheesus posted:

Basically, I want to punch the gently caress out of a 92 year old woman and a 61 year old woman.

You wouldn't say that if a golden retriever forwarded that e-mail to you.

# ? Oct 15, 2011 22:59

ArchRanger: Mar 19, 2007; I'm tired of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with 'em there.

Gus Hobbleton posted:

Except a lot of crazies probably think that government regulations forced them to let it explode even though they wanted to keep it from exploding.

I have unironically been told that if it weren't for government regulation the gulf spill wouldn't have happened. Because if the government hadn't been telling them what to do they would've found a more efficient way to inspect their equipment! :downs:

# ? Oct 15, 2011 23:07

U.T. Raptor: May 11, 2010; Are you a pack of imbeciles!?

Cacatua posted:

I've noticed that a lot of right wingers and libertarians really hate the fact that there are environmental and safety standards for industry in North America. It's weird - they must really have no clue what things are like in countries with poor industrial standards.

Or what it was like before our own country put those standards into effect.

I like my rivers not on fire, thank you :colbert:

# ? Oct 16, 2011 00:52

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Cacatua posted:

I've noticed that a lot of right wingers and libertarians really hate the fact that there are environmental and safety standards for industry in North America. It's weird - they must really have no clue what things are like in countries with poor industrial standards.

All the conservative types I know, which may not be a representative sample, accept the necessity of a court system to uphold the rule of law, a military to keep us from being invaded, possibly police, but gut the regulatory bureaus because they don't help us. I always want to know why it's good that the government keeps people safe from contract violation, or mugging, but it's bad that they keep my food/water/air/pills clean and pure-ish.

# ? Oct 16, 2011 01:21

modig: Aug 20, 2002

On facebook

# ? Oct 16, 2011 01:55

Push El Burrito: May 9, 2006; Soiled Meat

Cacatua posted:

I've noticed that a lot of right wingers and libertarians really hate the fact that there are environmental and safety standards for industry in North America. It's weird - they must really have no clue what things are like in countries with poor industrial standards.

Haiti Dominican Border.

# ? Oct 16, 2011 02:56

JoshTheStampede: Sep 8, 2004; come at me bro

Dr Snofeld posted:

Not strictly an email, but if you feel like wanting to punch someone today, the Daily Mail has you covered with a nice little number about OWS. Shame that itsyotsy got shut down, the Mail doesn't deserve the ad revenue.

Jesus this reads like some sort of Bizzaro SA frontpage update.

The best part is how they keep making fun of people for hating Bush and loving Obama when not a single one of the letters shown mentions either of them.

# ? Oct 16, 2011 03:24

ApathyGifted: Aug 30, 2004; Tomorrow?

modig posted:

On facebook

Response, maybe?

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ? Oct 16, 2011 03:26

Goatman Sacks: Apr 4, 2011; by FactsAreUseless

THE GAYEST POSTER posted:

Haiti Dominican Border.

idgi, is this because enviro regs in Haiti killed all the trees? I find it hard to believe environmental damage could be curtailed over something as arbitrary as a national border.

# ? Oct 16, 2011 03:50

Opinion Haver: Apr 9, 2007

Goatman Sacks posted:

idgi, is this because enviro regs in Haiti killed all the trees? I find it hard to believe environmental damage could be curtailed over something as arbitrary as a national border.

I think it's logging regulations or something.

# ? Oct 16, 2011 03:54

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Goatman Sacks posted:

idgi, is this because enviro regs in Haiti killed all the trees? I find it hard to believe environmental damage could be curtailed over something as arbitrary as a national border.

If the environmental regulation is specifically a logging regulation, it seems pretty plausible.

edit: Yup.

# ? Oct 16, 2011 03:54

JoshTheStampede: Sep 8, 2004; come at me bro

Goatman Sacks posted:

idgi, is this because enviro regs in Haiti killed all the trees? I find it hard to believe environmental damage could be curtailed over something as arbitrary as a national border.

Is this a real post or are you feigning facebook-conservative ignorance? Dominican Republic has regulations against logging, Haiti doesn't. So Haiti has no more trees.

# ? Oct 16, 2011 03:55

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

Dominion posted:

Is this a real post or are you feigning facebook-conservative ignorance? Dominican Republic has regulations against logging, Haiti doesn't. So Haiti has no more trees.

Naw I think he assumed that the damage was caused by factory smog or something, which a national border wouldn't just block the smog.

I actually thought smog did the damage too for a second, till I realized how idiotic that was.

# ? Oct 16, 2011 04:05

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Do not believe the lies. In reality, in Haiti, where only criminals have guns, beavers are a protected species. In Dominican Republic the vermin population is carefully controlled by responsible gun owners. There you see, environmentalists killing the environment!

# ? Oct 16, 2011 04:17

Goatman Sacks: Apr 4, 2011; by FactsAreUseless

I'M DUMB

# ? Oct 16, 2011 06:05

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

Cheesus posted:

This was forwarded by my grandmother, which was forwarded to her by her daugther-in-law, my own mother.

The second story actually sounds a lot like my girlfriend's experience when she had insurance through work. Eventually she had to quit her job and we had a big pile of bills.

Eventually she was able to get on Medicaid. The only complicated part was proving citizenship and eligibility, nothing at all was easy about that. After getting though that inital hurdle it's been the best insurance plan I've ever seen. She was assigned a doctor, no need spend all day calling around to different offices to see if they can accept new patients or if they accept insurance. The doctor then picked out the specialists and that was the end of it. She got the treatment she needed.

# ? Oct 16, 2011 07:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 19:24

Lady Gaga: Sep 20, 2009

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

The second story actually sounds a lot like my girlfriend's experience when she had insurance through work. Eventually she had to quit her job and we had a big pile of bills.

Eventually she was able to get on Medicaid. The only complicated part was proving citizenship and eligibility, nothing at all was easy about that. After getting though that inital hurdle it's been the best insurance plan I've ever seen. She was assigned a doctor, no need spend all day calling around to different offices to see if they can accept new patients or if they accept insurance. The doctor then picked out the specialists and that was the end of it. She got the treatment she needed.

Seriously my girlfriend's Medicaid is awesome. Her prescription coverage is better than my plan and I supposedly have one of those "Cadillac" health insurance plans. Heck she was able to get her wisdom teeth out a day after she started complaining they were hurting her. When I got mine out, I had to schedule my surgery a month in advance.

# ? Oct 17, 2011 06:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2810 »