|
Koirhor posted:Also Miami, Ohio That's why we pronounce it "Miamuh", Oklahoma to immediately reveal out-of-state interlopers when they say "Miami" (are you going back, oh god please take me with you) EvanSchenck posted:That's actually a coincidence. There were two different and unrelated Native American nations located in Ohio and Florida that both called themselves names that phonetically sound like "Miami." Ours is named after a Native American nation too but it's not a linguistic coincidence, more of an ethnic cleansing thing.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:That's actually a coincidence. There were two different and unrelated Native American nations located in Ohio and Florida that both called themselves names that phonetically sound like "Miami." I prefer to imagine that the tourism board of a city in Ohio got drunk one night and convinced everyone to change the name to Miami to trick people into coming there. That or they wanted to trick FSU into playing in their shithouse stadium.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I'm always amused by towns with French names, most of which are out east (in both Canada and the US) that Americans (and many non-francophone Canadians) don't even bother to try and pronounce correctly. Dubois (doo-boyz) Pennsylvania was an infuriating example, while way out west is Boise Idaho which was originally bwa-zay, meaning "wooded" in French because it's the only town in Idaho with any loving trees. Why would you pretend to speak French instead of using the English pronunciation? That's kind of dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I figured that you probably were, I was just making conversation to temporarily distract from the misery of falling further and further into a nightmarish capitalist dystopia. We're all doing it, but KS is doing it faster than most. Sorry, I am just grumpy because my family chose to settle in this state, so it's where I was born and raised. If it weren't for me loving my family, I would be out of here in a heartbeat since my career could take me anywhere in the U.S. Unfortunately, I feel like family is important.  It actually has beautiful country side and I love many parts of rural Kansas. Outside of a couple of blazingly hot months every summer, the weather is great. Watching massive thunderstorms roll across the plains is pretty cool. But god drat, the political climate is rough. I don't talk politics with anyone because it's futile outside of Lawrence or Johnson county. People here are staunch republicans for reasons they can't seem to articulate or even fully understand. There is no such thing as listening to reason or thinking about things rationally / critically. People here truly believe the extreme left is looking out for their best interests and that they represent the little guy, even though literally everything tea partiers do contradicts that. Of course, everyone hates those lazy, good for nothing welfare queens too. One of my friends has a B.S. in Business with an emphasis in Finance, and an MBA. He's a accountant and works for a very large organization, and he's one of the smartest people I know. He said he really respects Brownback because of the risks he was willing to take trying something new. My response was, what risks? Last I checked he was still a multi-millionaire and he is not negatively impacted by his own lovely policies. He and his very wealthy pals are doing great while everyone else carries the burden. What risks is Brownback taking when he actually has nothing to lose whether or not his policies work? It's easy to "take risks" when your risking everyone's rear end but your own. I didn't get much of a response. After Obama was re-elected in 2012, he also posted on his facebook, "Hope everyone likes having rice and water for dinner every night. Equality for all!". A statement that still bewilders me. I assume it's some kind of a dig at Obama being 'socialist' and redistribution of wealth. Of course, other Kansan's thought that post was great. It was just one of many, too. I work for a large, international company, and many employees come from out of state. We are just plain laughable to them, and it is borderline embarrassing to tell them I am from here. Alright, rant over...
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ours is named after a Native American nation too but it's not a linguistic coincidence, more of an ethnic cleansing thing. The Miami of Ohio/Oklahoma actually got a better deal than the Mayaimi of Florida, who I believe were exterminated for really no reason at all during the 18th century--nobody wanted their land or anything else they had, but European colonists killed or enslaved all of them, apparently out of pure shittiness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I'm always amused by towns with French names, most of which are out east (in both Canada and the US) that Americans (and many non-francophone Canadians) don't even bother to try and pronounce correctly. Dubois (doo-boyz) Pennsylvania was an infuriating example, while way out west is Boise Idaho which was originally bwa-zay, meaning "wooded" in French because it's the only town in Idaho with any loving trees. Do you correct English-speakers' pronunciation of "Paris" too?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
poo poo, just going off Native American place names, you have over a thousand languages to learn, many of them languages that use pitch and accent to differentiate words. Looks like you have hundreds of new consonants to learn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
This has probably been posted in here in the past, but it was recently posted in USPOL at request, and so it's probably worth a repost here for anyone who hasn't read it. It deals with the ACA in Kansas. https://www.thenation.com/article/life-and-death-red-america/
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
quote:At first, she didn’t feel that bad, and she had more pressing claims on her limited funds than the anti-inflammatory drugs she’d been prescribed. “You know how much the prescription was? $1,000 a month,”  Stryguy posted:After Obama was re-elected in 2012, he also posted on his facebook, "Hope everyone likes having rice and water for dinner every night. Equality for all!". A statement that still bewilders me. I assume it's some kind of a dig at Obama being 'socialist' and redistribution of wealth. Of course, other Kansan's thought that post was great. It was just one of many, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I prefer to imagine that the tourism board of a city in Ohio got drunk one night and convinced everyone to change the name to Miami to trick people into coming there. That or they wanted to trick FSU into playing in their shithouse stadium. Miami University in Oxford, Ohio is older than those Florida schools. Maumee iirc is also Miami but was transcribed differently back then, so there's a Great Miami River, Little Miami River, Miami County, Maumee (Miami) River and Maumee (Miami) city in Ohio.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
rscott posted:Wichita already has the worst public transportation system (and by extension lowest ridership rates) of any top 50 metro area God yes, I tried to read the bus schedules once and couldn't make heads or tails of them. For a long time none of the routes were marked street side, when I moved there were a handful of covered benches (the route and/or schedule was absent). Routes started at 6:30am and stopped by 7:00pm. Then there was the bus route that went to the airport, it was one of two routes that didn't go to the central bus station, so if you wanted to get to/from the airport, well you had to catch a connecting bus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:Miami University in Oxford, Ohio is older than those Florida schools. Maumee iirc is also Miami but was transcribed differently back then, so there's a Great Miami River, Little Miami River, Miami County, Maumee (Miami) River and Maumee (Miami) city in Ohio. The university was actually founded before the city in Florida. And the city in Florida was initially promoted and named by Clevelanders. Insert joke about Ohioans prediliction for retiring to Florida here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Poil posted:Holy poo poo. That's utterly insane. My anti-inflammatory medecine adds up to 1400 euros every two months, all paid up by the state, always effed up when I see people in America have to pay for this on their own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Yeah but you guys don't get to buy guns that match your Mossy Oak trucks so I guess having bad healthcare comes out in the wash
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Poil posted:Wouldn't redistributioning the wealth in the US allow everyone to afford steak with silver cutlery for every meal? Not necessarily quite that opulent but yes, it would most certainly not be rice and water and nothing else for everybody. Generally speaking people that argue against socialism that way just plain don't understand it or the point. The biggest assumption is that if you provide everybody's basic needs for free everybody will just quit working. Which is...just plain not true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The biggest assumption is that if you provide everybody's basic needs for free everybody will just quit working. But the thought of not being able to turn your nose up at the *ugh* janitor really grinds some peoples' gears.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
I for one am incredibly thankful for the janitor. Maybe they're the people that spray diarrhea on the ceiling in public bathrooms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Yeah, like the poo poo jobs being a cashier or bagboy might actually go back to teenagers, while others pursue higher education or personal goals (like being in better shape, training for marathons, painting, becoming YouTube stars or writers or filmmakers). It isn't just turning their nose up when you say "everybody gets to not go hungry" they can think of at least one demographic that they want to see suffer. It also puts an end to systemic racism which is, to far too many people, absolutely unthinkable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Not necessarily quite that opulent but yes, it would most certainly not be rice and water and nothing else for everybody. Generally speaking people that argue against socialism that way just plain don't understand it or the point. The biggest assumption is that if you provide everybody's basic needs for free everybody will just quit working. I always wonder what they think is getting all the CEOs, famous actors, politicians, and sundry other rich people out of bed in the morning if the imminent loss of food, clothing, and shelter are the only things keeping the poor from doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I always wonder what they think is getting all the CEOs, famous actors, politicians, and sundry other rich people out of bed in the morning if the imminent loss of food, clothing, and shelter are the only things keeping the poor from doing nothing. Well you see those people get out of bed in the morning because they know the value of hard work and sacrifice. That's why they're rich. Those poors are lazy and need to be forced to do anything. If they were harder working they wouldn't be poor. QED, libtard. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Well you see those people get out of bed in the morning because they know the value of hard work and sacrifice. That's why they're rich. lol working is so much harder when youre going hungry. i wouldnt wish going hungry on my worst enemy but then again thats why im a dirty pinko
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
mrbradlymrmartin posted:lol working is so much harder when youre going hungry. i wouldnt wish going hungry on my worst enemy but then again thats why im a dirty pinko Yeah the hardest I ever worked was when I lived in poverty. I used to work two jobs off and on; sometimes two full time ones. I'm talking swing shifts in a restaurant, then overnight in a convenience store kind of life. Now that I'm a programmer I have it so comparatively easy it just feels absurd. I sure as hell wouldn't wish the horrifying hours and bug gently caress crazy schedules from those days on anybody either. Poverty is awful; worse when you have to do unpleasant things just to maintain it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Also, there's a lot of people that are just not competent to hold even a basic job and do it without loving up. I don't want those people to starve, but I also don't want to have to deal with them loving up things when I interact with them. Therefore, giving them a minimum income will improve my life because I don't have to deal with people who are too incompetent to handle the demands of a basic service position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
I don't think that a basic income is the ideal solution. If you give money to people that need it, the money can then be claimed by debt collectors, stolen by criminals, or squandered on poor decisions (drugs, gambling, beanie babies, whatever). This leaves people without the necessities that the money was intended for. I believe that a better solution would be to distribute basic necessities to all people, without charging them directly. I would include a small living space, nutritious food, simple clothing, and healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Lord_Pigeonbane posted:I don't think that a basic income is the ideal solution. If you give money to people that need it, the money can then be claimed by debt collectors, stolen by criminals, or squandered on poor decisions (drugs, gambling, beanie babies, whatever). This leaves people without the necessities that the money was intended for. If some people are going to be insistent on squandering their money, we should just let it happen. A direct cash situation costs the least to administer, and thus means you can give the most benefit for the amount of funds put in. Emergency supplies can be set up to get people who insist on loving up to not immediately die, without the massive wasteful costs of things like delivering all food/clothing to the poor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
I was picturing something more like public cafeterias. I'd rather not have to monitor everyone to see who needs emergency supplies, and I don't want anyone to starve as a result of being a dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Lord_Pigeonbane posted:I was picturing something more like public cafeterias. I'd rather not have to monitor everyone to see who needs emergency supplies, and I don't want anyone to starve as a result of being a dumbass. So do you really not get that your scenario is extremely unlikely, while building and staffing public cafeterias would be even more expensive than delivering food to everyone (on top of the fact that you'd need to be able to get to the cafeterias int he first place)? Like for real, people buy food when they get hungry. And you can live like a week or two with very little food, if you screwed up and used all your minimum income on buying a gold plated hat or whatever. It's the kind of mistake people aren't going to repeatedly make unless they're mentally impaired enough that they shouldn't live alone in the first place. Also no "monitoring" is needed, the person could call up or otherwise contact the appropriate authorities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
I never said that I thought that the plan that I described was going to happen. Honestly, I doubt that it'll ever happen in any society with a population bigger than a few hundred. I do think that it would lead to fewer people going hungry, and I think that it would be less vulnerable to abuse than simply handing out money. Your description of a person wasting money on gold-plated hats makes me think that a basic income would lead to a new version of the mythical welfare queen: people wasting every BI check, while subsisting on government cheese.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Lord_Pigeonbane posted:I never said that I thought that the plan that I described was going to happen. Honestly, I doubt that it'll ever happen in any society with a population bigger than a few hundred. See forum title. The great thing about mincome is that it provides a level of security for all who'll have it, while also respecting individual autonomy. Your system doesn't do that. Even most leftish Americans wouldn't go for such a nannying approach.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:See forum title. Well, yeah. I am a dumbass. I don't think that your insults make me wrong, though. I agree that the system that I described isn't going to happen. I'd like to stop restating that, and move on. I still think that the system that I described would be a more effective way to ensure that people get the goods and services that they need. Not just food, but housing, healthcare, etc. Healthcare is a big one. I really doubt that any nation is going to offer a large enough basic income to pay for proper healthcare, and leave money for food and shelter. The system that I'm talking about would be much more expensive, and much more comprehensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Lord_Pigeonbane posted:I still think that the system that I described would be a more effective way to ensure that people get the goods and services that they need. Not just food, but housing, healthcare, etc. Healthcare is a big one. I really doubt that any nation is going to offer a large enough basic income to pay for proper healthcare, and leave money for food and shelter. The system that I'm talking about would be much more expensive, and much more comprehensive. Part of the purpose of a GMI is to shove that money back into the economy. You want people buying poo poo, including luxury items if they can somehow manage to budget it. What you're describing also removes the "smoothing" effect that something like a GMI provides. You don't want people to suddenly get kicked out of their apartment and move into government housing because they lost their job, you want them to keep spending and consuming until they get back on their feet. Safety nets aren't supposed to be punishments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Lord_Pigeonbane posted:I still think that the system that I described would be a more effective way to ensure that people get the goods and services that they need. Not just food, but housing, healthcare, etc. Healthcare is a big one. I really doubt that any nation is going to offer a large enough basic income to pay for proper healthcare, and leave money for food and shelter. The system that I'm talking about would be much more expensive, and much more comprehensive. The personal cost of healthcare in many countries is $0, so that one seems solvable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Lord_Pigeonbane posted:Well, yeah. I am a dumbass. I don't think that your insults make me wrong, though. That wasn't what I was saying. Rather, that being a dumbass is a fundamental right -- in fact, the right to idiocy is more than constitutional, it is natural. If any of my countrymen want to use their mincome money to live in a closet with a hot plate, sustaining themselves entirely on ramen, while spending the remainder on gold plated hats and amphetamines, that's fine with me. It's about respecting individual autonomy. Providing food at public cafeterias -- leaving aside for a moment how wildly unfeasible that is -- doesn't do that. For a non-absurd example, say I just finished my degree and got a kickass job offer while on public assistance. Under GMI, I can splurge just this once and take my SO out to a nice meal to celebrate. Under your system, we're having dinner at the public dining hall, again. Your critique actually reminds me of those rightist email forwards about people using their EBT cards to buy ~lobster~ and ~filet mignon~. Not that any of the stories in those emails ever happened, but even if they did, so what? I'm content leaving people to budget their public assistance however they please. If they do so stupidly, well, see forum title. A lot of people aren't OK with this, of course. But you'll overcome that problem of public opinion waaaaaaaay before you get anybody to support a suspiciously Soviet-seeming system of public distribution of necessities. Lord_Pigeonbane posted:Healthcare is a big one. I really doubt that any nation is going to offer a large enough basic income to pay for proper healthcare, and leave money for food and shelter. The system that I'm talking about would be much more expensive, and much more comprehensive. I half agree, and half think that this is kind of an artificial problem because of how terrible the US healthcare system is. There's nothing contradictory about supporting single-payer and GMI.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Gounads posted:The personal cost of healthcare in many countries is $0, so that one seems solvable. Yeah. As far as the U.S. is concerned, that would be a tremendous step in the right direction. I'd like to see other public needs follow a similar path. Paradoxish posted:Part of the purpose of a GMI is to shove that money back into the economy. You want people buying poo poo, including luxury items if they can somehow manage to budget it. I figure that the immediate economic backlash is the main reason that my plan would never actually happen. Over time, I think that things might smooth out, but it would be rough for quite a while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Lord_Pigeonbane posted:Yeah. As far as the U.S. is concerned, that would be a tremendous step in the right direction. I'd like to see other public needs follow a similar path. But why is distribution of necessities actually better than just giving people money? If people have money, they spend it in the "real" economy and help bolster the economy permanently. Like, that's not a benefit that goes away over time. It means that the unemployed or underemployed have more money to consume at all times and consumption is the entire basis of modern first world economies (other than petrostates, I guess). People with good jobs know they have a cushion of $x and can spend more freely too. If people choose to literally starve themselves to death to buy televisions then we'll let our mental health services take care of it, because that's not something a normal, healthy individual does. Edit- I mean, I guess your way is better if your goal is FULL COMMUNISM NOW, but GMI is about the best patch that can be made to modern capitalism. And I say this as someone who's not actually a huge fan of GMI in general. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:That wasn't what I was saying. Rather, that being a dumbass is a fundamental right -- in fact, the right to idiocy is more than constitutional, it is natural. If any of my countrymen want to use their mincome money to live in a closet with a hot plate, sustaining themselves entirely on ramen, while spending the remainder on gold plated hats and amphetamines, that's fine with me. It's about respecting individual autonomy. Providing food at public cafeterias -- leaving aside for a moment how wildly unfeasible that is -- doesn't do that. For a non-absurd example, say I just finished my degree and got a kickass job offer while on public assistance. Under GMI, I can splurge just this once and take my SO out to a nice meal to celebrate. Under your system, we're having dinner at the public dining hall, again. I apologize. I shouldn't be so quick to assume that people are attacking me personally. It's absolutely true that my plan doesn't give much wiggle room for people's freedoms as far as the basics are concerned. Also, I figure that human greed and ambition will need an outlet. I'd let all non-essential industries continue to run in a very capitalistic manner, which would provide those people with a place to do their thing. They could provide fancy meals, houses, cars, entertainment, and luxury items to other people that are willing to work for these things. These may not be things that you can afford straight out of college, but that's also true for the current system. Basic income wins that round. I don't feel like I need to make allowances for people to be allowed to do dumb things. The freedom to hurt yourself is already limited, and that's not a bad thing. However, all the seatbelt laws in the world can't stop a real dumbass. Stupid always finds a way. I think that we were thinking of the same EBT abuse story! I was kinda picturing that turning into a guy that had a room full of gold-plated hats, and a bad case of malnutrition. As for healthcare... Yeah. You're right. Healthcare reform would be great, regardless of how you feel about the rest of all this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:But why is distribution of necessities actually better than just giving people money? If people have money, they spend it in the "real" economy and help bolster the economy permanently. Like, that's not a benefit that goes away over time. It means that the unemployed or underemployed have more money to consume at all times and consumption is the entire basis of modern first world economies (other than petrostates, I guess). People with good jobs know they have a cushion of $x and can spend more freely too. I feel like it's closer to HALF COMMUNISM GMI is definitely a better way to go, if you want to keep capitalism as intact as possible. That's just not a priority for me. Lord_Pigeonbane fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Lord_Pigeonbane posted:I feel like it's closer to HALF COMMUNISM Why? People dying due to the systematic inability to provide for themselves is morally wrong, but those who are given the means and chose not to are doing so under their own ambition so assuming that choice doesn't stem from mental illness, there's nothing tragic about their death. You also assume that a market would not exist just within the confines of your feed lots, which would likely not be the case given that markets in one form or the other are as old as agriculture. Also, as a curiosity, if people won't go to your feedlots will they be brought in with force?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
As others have said, if you end up starving to death or even going hungry, or homeless, while having an adequate income (government-provided or otherwise) to afford food and housing, you need mental help because you either have an addiction or some other mental illness that needs treatment. Adults should be treated like adults -- allowed to make their own choices of how to spend their money, no matter where that money comes from. Restrictions on welfare or a hypothetical basic income are bad, and only further hurt the poor. Poor people aren't children.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
If people really want to die, I guess that they can do that, but I doubt that starvation would be their first choice. Either way, I'm not going to force anyone to eat.PT6A posted:As others have said, if you end up starving to death or even going hungry, or homeless, while having an adequate income (government-provided or otherwise) to afford food and housing, you need mental help because you either have an addiction or some other mental illness that needs treatment. Adults should be treated like adults -- allowed to make their own choices of how to spend their money, no matter where that money comes from. Restrictions on welfare or a hypothetical basic income are bad, and only further hurt the poor. Poor people aren't children. Are you assuming that mental health care is free? Even if it is, should I force these people to get treatment? I'm not willing to let them die as the price of people's pride. I almost said "independence" instead of "pride", but I can't honestly say that poor people living under either of these options are anything but "dependent". Besides, spending money on meth or food isn't the only choice here. People can be victims of crime. People can bad purchasing decisions that will take years to pay off. People can have unexpected expenses. People can unexpectedly lose their jobs, and be left with debt that they can't pay. Hypothetical situation: A well-off working person is badly injured. They're unable to work, and as such, their income is reduced to Basic Income only. Once their savings are depleted, they're unable to pay their mortgage, auto loan, medical bills, etc. The banks put a lien on their basic income. The person now has an effective income well below minimum poverty level, while their bank is now receiving a government subsidy. I don't think that there's anything wrong with protecting people from situations like this, even if it means that I'm not treating them like an adult.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:54
|
|