Upload
Login or register

nanananapotato

Last status update:
-
Gender: female
Age: 19
Date Signed Up:7/26/2012
Last Login:8/29/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#30193
Highest Content Rank:#6494
Highest Comment Rank:#15007
Content Thumbs: 344 total,  524 ,  180
Comment Thumbs: 33 total,  53 ,  20
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 34 Content: Peasant → Level 35 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 61.81% (34/55)
Level 0 Comments: Untouched account → Level 1 Comments: New Here
Subscribers:0
Content Views:44931
Times Content Favorited:21 times
Total Comments Made:61
FJ Points:371
Hello~

  • Views: 2658
    Thumbs Up 19 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +16
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 08/23/15
    Well then... Well then...

latest user's comments

#70 - I also love mindbreak NTR, its the best <: 08/20/2016 on Also exclude Dirty old man -1
#116 - LOL, that is very true 02/07/2016 on it kills me 0
#75 - All these comments saying that it's the worst tag ever and i'm…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/07/2016 on it kills me 0
#96 - justtocomment (02/07/2016) [-]
This website uses the word cuck as a top-tier insult. How could you not see NTR being a problem with them?
User avatar
#116 - nanananapotato (02/07/2016) [-]
LOL, that is very true
#194 - -He's a socialist which for some reason some people are glorif…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/04/2016 on Iowa was rigged 0
User avatar
#265 - zindarato (02/05/2016) [-]
Ah, ok. I hadn't heard some of these. Real quick though, didn't he say that he was a Democratic Socialist, not a traditional Socialist? And isn't there a significant difference in economic and social policies between the two? I've always thought that democratic socialism could be a good system, but never has and never will be implemented correctly.

That does suck that he doesn't want to fund NASA though...
#193 - Socialism was the starting point of what went wrong with Venez…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/04/2016 on Iowa was rigged 0
User avatar
#234 - questionableferret (02/04/2016) [-]
> Why should I pay?

Because you benefit immensely from a country filled with an educated workforce that is not stymied by crippling debt right out of the gate, as does the economy.

Because in every instance public healthcare is cheaper on the whole than private healthcare, and on balance is also more effective.

I hope this easily available information helps you better understand what you are complaining about.
#190 - This is a source for the amount of people are taxed, my b…  [+] (29 new replies) 02/04/2016 on Iowa was rigged -2
#197 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
by looking at what happens when tax cuts for the rich are implemented. we can look at the US economy for this.

it can be summed up in this graphic.

in every single state where tax cuts are given to the rich, said states are in debt, and their poor are poorer than in states where those cuts do not exist.

the reason why these tax cuts are unjust is because the tax burden created by cutting taxes on the rich must be mitigated through other taxes. because corporate taxes are so low (companies like exxon actually pay negative tax dollars, i.e. they recieve more in entitlements than they pay in taxes) and with the effective tax rate for the rich being so low, (warren buffett pays the same in taxes as his secretary) the middle class, which should be the single largest consumer block (thus stimulating economic growth from the demand side) are instead bogged down with tax burdens, as are small businesses.

the unfairness can be summed up here:

poor man has $10 taxable income.
middle class man has $40 taxable income.
rich man has $10,000 taxable income.

if we take a 35% tax from the poor and the middle, and a 20% tax from the rich, then:

poor man has $6.50 to spend. this will be hoarded for absolute necessities.
middle man has $26 to spend. maybe his kid gets a PS4.
rich man has $8,000 to spend. but hes not going to buy 100 PS4s. hes going to reinvest, or spend it in housing (investing) or on a yacht (slow-drain savings). that money is not re-entered back into the economy because the rich man doesnt have to spend as much of his income to survive.

taxing the rich man at 40% still leaves him with more than enough money ($6000) to buy everything he could need, except maybe a little smaller.
taxing the middle and poor people at 20% allows the middle class to spend more as a collective block on consumer goods, stimulating business as a unit more than the wealthy. meanwhile, the poor man has an extra $1.5 to hold on to so that when unexpected costs like an ER visit come up, he is not bankrupted, becoming homeless and living 100% off of the middle and upper class tax dollars.

tl;dr

poor people dont have enough money after taxes to do anything but survive. the middle class, who should be buying the most consumer shit to drive economic growth, doesnt have enough after taxes to purchase as they should. the richest people should pay more, because they have proportionally more money after expenses and discretionary spending.

heres a link with more info
apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
#219 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
I hope this becomes copypasta.
User avatar
#220 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
in what sense?
#221 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
That it is factually correct and well explained. Hope more people see this.
User avatar
#223 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
feel free to spread it around, just credit me if you post it on FJ

i make a habit of not speaking out of my ass
#224 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
Good habit to have.
User avatar
#229 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
funnyjunk before the exodus of the left and the invasion of /pol/ was a place where logic and facts ruled. today its ad hom this, cuck that, muh trump cuz muslims and shit.

this is my home, and it was my home through multiple bouts of homelessness. it was my home when admin was banhappy, and when we almost lost the site. i refuse to leave; i will be a voice for the moderate when the moderate are afraid to speak.
User avatar
#247 - questionableferret (02/04/2016) [-]
I try to be the same, but I am only a voter. My knowledge and understanding of the situation isn't total. I know that unchecked authoritarian economics is a bad thing, as is unchecked libertarian economics. That the free-market is a fallacy based on the assumption that sweeping change will happen reliably to fix a broken system, and in the intervals between that irregular change there is nothing to reasonably curtail abuse of the market.

But I'm not good at the minutia, nor at the examples. *shrug* It's hard to be informed when everything on the internet is a lie.
User avatar
#250 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
you just have to look at the hard raw data, and make your mind up as best you can. i know for a fact youre smart enough to do so. i didnt become informed overnight; ive put thousands of hours of research over a dozen years to justify my left-centrist, anti corruption, anti-radfem, pro equality and pro meritocracy views.

i was there when the trans-SJW crowd was born. i literally watched their first gathering with my own eyes.

i was there when my father, who worked for AIG in 08, explained the difference between a bailout (media explanation) and a forced predatory loan (what actually happened) and why the stock market crashed (my other dad was in real estate)

yes, i was raised by two gay men who adopted me off the streets; no i was not butt tickled or dick pickled or faggotized or any other manner of fuckery

i was there when i saw the VA system fail my homeless uncle, and watched him die of spider bites because the VA considered the surgery to remove the necrosis "and elective surgery" and i watch still as my other uncle, also a homeless vet, has suffered with a hernia for 5 years, but the VA wont treat him because it isnt immediately threatening.

i was there when eric alva, a gay man, returned home from the hospital after becoming the first casualty in the iraq war.

i was lucky enough to grow up in a household where knowledge and awareness were valued, but i still had to find my own way.
User avatar
#254 - questionableferret (02/04/2016) [-]
I've seen the data but I'm bad at putting it into compelling words. Moralistically I am very strong. I can easily deconstruct defunct morals like corporatism, and I can easily explain the logical flaws in free-market capitalism, but economically I've never been fond of numbers on that scale.

Still, what's your opinion on the national living allowance? I mean, it's probably going to become a necessity in the next few decades as the next wave of mechanisation makes yet more low-skill jobs obsolete. I mean, on the one hand it seems like a nice idea that would make work optional for survival, instead of mandatory, and would shift the dynamic of market from the people needing employment to the employment needing the people, but on the other hand it is incredibly exploitable and would require a very robust taxation system.

Trouble is I don't really see any alternative to it. When it is already the case that the number of jobs and the number of people that want jobs are dangerously close (if not dangerously imbalanced in the wrong way, like in the UK) it seems unreasonable to assume everyone should be employed in a workforce where there isn't room for everyone.

It necessitates either severe economic control or severe population control.
User avatar
#257 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
while it is true that living allowances will become a requirement, they arent inherently bad. if the living allowance only covers the basic necessities, then the poor wont resort to crime. costs spent on incarceration will be reduced, and the beneficiaries of those funds will be free to seek jobs, etc if they want more than the bare minimum quality of life.

it is important to remember that at this point in our cultural and scientific evolution, our primary focus should be on colonizing the moon, and later mars. if our governments are mired down in dealing with wars and poverty-induced crime all the time, we will not make it off this planet in time. establishing a higher baseline for the average citizen allows industry to look up at the stars instead of down at the masses.
User avatar
#259 - questionableferret (02/04/2016) [-]
Fuck... I thought I was on funnyjunk but instead I seem to be playing some advanced game of Civilisation and chatting to one of my advisors. What are we gonna do about Ghandi's space-base moon-laser?

Anyway, yeah, I've held that belief for a while. To be honest I think it should already be the case. The notion that 'Everyone should work for a living' is cool and all, but it is as much of a fallacy as the free market because not everyone can earn a living off of their work.

Once the barrier of 'how' you earn your living wage is removed, the options for what you do with your life are drastically increased. I reckon post-implementation we would see a spike in the artistic fields, as well as a spike in start-up businesses as the minimum-wage is rendered functionally redundant.

The trouble really though is how you tax such a system. It is possible, because functionally the system doesn't alter the amount of wealth in the nation and there should reasonably already be enough wealth in the nation for people to survive off of (otherwise even the current economic system would implode) but it places the burden of that wealth squarely on the shoulders of the government, whereas in the current system the burden is on the markets, so corruption would probably bring far harsher ramifications.

I figure the Baby Boomers will need to die before that could happen though.
User avatar
#260 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
youre right on all accounts; the way to combat government corruption is forced transparency, and community access to all government documents (even classified military ones immediately post-op). if the government knows its actions will be known publicly, it wont act out.

as for gandhi, we are going to have to nuke that warmongering motherfucker. stupid fucking gandhi thinking he can designate and culture into space
User avatar
#262 - questionableferret (02/04/2016) [-]
I'd argue that it is more than just transparency that is the issue. We already have enough information as-is to hold the government accountable, but the current systems for transmitting that information to the people are highly corrupted themselves. The Internet has brought a new age of fire to the government's feet but it isn't enough yet.

What is more, we are dealing with the fundamental failing of democracy when it comes to issues like these, namely that no matter how good the change is it only matters if people 'think' it is good, otherwise you can't guarantee it won't be repealed by another party during the next election cycle, making large-scale planning for the future next to impossible in a system where people are so polar-opposed to one-another.

So transparency would be good, but there is a more problematic corruption to be dealt with at the same time and that should be that there needs to be a structure put in place to prevent news organisations from distorting the truth or presenting outright lies.

Democracy is the same fallacy as the free market. The idea that everyone will do the right thing, however those individuals are consumed by misinformation and bias and it leads to a system far less ideal in practice than it is in theory.

I'm not arguing against democracy, just that before we can make any meaningful strides forwards there will need to be a fundamental change in how we approach the transmission of information within the system, and how we penalise misinformation, and if it is even fair to do so.

We also need to fix the current vastly misrepresentative 'one vote per person' voting system that is the default democratic system around the world to one that is more representative of the cultural zeitgeist, like having the option to vote for as many of the candidates as you like and rather than the most popular getting in, it is the least popular being left out, thus also eliminating the need for tactical voting.

But before even that there is campaign finance reform that needs to come. The USA has it lucky as there are already groups such as Wolf-Pac that are pushing for an amendment to the constitution outside of the house/senate's power, however not as many nations have as much agency in their politics as the people of the US have in that regard, and so will need to go through more direct means to fix the corporatist corruption within their systems.

Ultimately we're faced with a situation where every good bit of progress that needs to be made comes at the end of a long line of hurdles that are not easily leapt. Thankfully the internet is making these hurdles visible to more people but we've still got a long way to go and, sadly, we've got a timer as to how long we have to effect that change, due to our treatment of the climate.

*sigh* It all seems a bit insurmountable, really, but hey-ho, what's idle woe ever gotten us?
#235 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
I have no strong feelings about this site. I like it more than others but thats about it. But it seems moderates are losing. (on the internet at least)
I study polsci so it's hard for me to look at these discussions.
#239 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
i studied economics, government and logic/philosophy

tfw when you watch intellectual discourse among informed youth die
#243 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
offtopic but a teacher of mine said to visit some philosophy courses. It is supposed to help with writing papers a lot.
User avatar
#245 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
would advise, especially one with a detailed course-load in logic and forensics. not every argument topic has evidence; the ability to eloquate is vital for communication.
#210 - kanyesfishsticks (02/04/2016) [-]
I'm a conservative, and even I think George Bush is one of the worst presidents in history
#246 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
Im not a us citizen so I may not understand it fully but I think it's really weird to put so much faith/power in one person. America could really benefit from a parliamentarian democracy.
User avatar
#252 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
we were supposed to have one (albeit as a congress) but exxon, haliburton, and big banks bought them all from us.
#253 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
Nope. Even before big business 2 parties were the norm
User avatar
#255 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
but once big business entered the picture (think rockefellers) politicians started walking around with for sale signs and the super-rich jumped on an opportunity.
#256 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
While this is true it implies that only dishonest and greedy people are politicians. Imo many politicians genuinely care about their people but are being forced into a system where they have to compete for indorsements from big business so they can campaign. Then they make compromise after compromise and change so much that they have nothing in common with the person they were before.
User avatar
#258 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
youve hit the nail on the head. a few corrupt people a hundred years ago created a system that corrupts most who are too weak willed to resist it.
#249 - kanyesfishsticks (02/04/2016) [-]
Presidents actually don't have as much power as you would expect.
User avatar
#214 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
it isnt about his presidency, its about reaganomics and the way that national debt and tax cuts for the rich (especially when combined with legal purchase of politicians) affects the nation
#230 - kanyesfishsticks (02/04/2016) [-]
I know, it was just a side note.
#233 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
truth, my breddah
#151 - Bernie Sanders is probably the worst candidate out of every si…  [+] (38 new replies) 02/04/2016 on Iowa was rigged -5
User avatar
#172 - ericzxvc (02/04/2016) [-]
>Acting like "socialism" is what destroyed Venezuela and Cuba and not mass corruption and other problems.
Bad people will take advantage of whatever political system is in place.

The other developed countries with single payer healthcare and free/reduced tuition are doing so much worse than America, eh?
User avatar
#193 - nanananapotato (02/04/2016) [-]
Socialism was the starting point of what went wrong with Venezuela and Cuba, I acknowledge that of course, it's not the only thing that went wrong with them that's obvious but it definitely was the starting point and if the US becomes a socialist country what happened in Venezuela and Cuba will happen to us. History repeats itself and just because "It's 2016" wont change a damn thing.

The countried with free/reduced tuition have super high taxes and that's what apparently people don't understand apparently. The more 'free' (Which they aren't) programs there are the higher the taxes. The thing with 'free' colleges and universities is that people who aren't even going to college or uni or are even done with it STILL have to pay for it. What if I don't want to go to university, why should I have to pay for it, why should I pay for a system or program that i'm not even going to use.
User avatar
#234 - questionableferret (02/04/2016) [-]
> Why should I pay?

Because you benefit immensely from a country filled with an educated workforce that is not stymied by crippling debt right out of the gate, as does the economy.

Because in every instance public healthcare is cheaper on the whole than private healthcare, and on balance is also more effective.

I hope this easily available information helps you better understand what you are complaining about.
User avatar
#153 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
im going to need you to source your numeric claims

and your entire argument can be dismembered when someone looks at europe. sociopolitical strife aside, countries like norway and sweden have balanced budgets, low crime, low unemployment, and happier citizens.

american policies of cutting taxes, especially for the rich, dont work. reaganomics doesnt work.

User avatar
#227 - assbandit (02/04/2016) [-]
Scandinavian countries aren't great examples of socialism working. In previous decades, they have prospered due to their population, homogeneity, and relative isolation. These factors have allowed them to ride out the recent recessions unlike other countries. However, recent studies have indicated that Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, are headed toward troubling times because of economic instability.

source: www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-13/nordic-crisis-waiting-to-happen-puzzles-krugman-assessing-debts

But let's look at the socialist European countries. Why didn't you mention Greece, Turkey, or Czech? Or let's look at arguably the most successful European country, Germany, which is also the most capitalist out of the lot of them. Where socialism stifles growth, capitalism encourages it. Its as simple as that.
User avatar
#244 - questionableferret (02/04/2016) [-]
You're wrong about the notion of stifling/encouraging growth. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive, and elements of both are necessary for either structure to function efficiently. And socialism and capitalism both encourage/stifle growth when used wisely/recklessly.

In the UK the government imposes regulations whereby all internet cables placed down are public access, so it is far easier for new competition to start into the ISP market without the costly fees of setting cables, without continually disrupting traffic to set competing cables, etc. The company that set the cables can charge a small toll for other companies using the cable, but they can not ban usage.

This is a regulation that improves the growth of a market by reducing the bar for entry.

The Banking sector, if left unregulated, destroys itself as unchecked greed has led to a vicious, almost cancerous level of growth that is now so large and so linked to everything within the economy of the nation that if it were to fail (as it has done before) it would destroy the economy. There is no way to reasonably compete in the banking sector in such a way that this monopoly will be destroyed this side of the century. Capitalism has failed to fix this issue and thus regulation must step in to destroy the banks and then regulate their growth and risk-taking, so that they do not crash the economy.

Free-market capitalism, which is the purest form of capitalism, is a fallacy that relies upon the arrival of sweeping, previously unseen change to alter the playing field and prevent monopolies. This is not a sustainable form of economics, because there is no reliable way to guarantee that sweeping change.

Capitalism is only effective when operating within a set of rules. It is a system of living that is much akin to a game, and like all games, there must be rules as to how the game is played.
User avatar
#251 - assbandit (02/04/2016) [-]
The example you used with the internet cables wasn't so much an example of socialism, but rather an example of a regulation. And I'm not sure if you're aware of this but every government has regulations, socialist, capitalist, it doesn't matter.

Your example with the banking system is also iffy. What you're describing is corporatism, which I do not agree with. That also falls under the premise of lobbyism and I don't have enough free time to shitpost about why that's bad.

I agree with what you said about unregulated capitalism. Everything needs to have limits.
User avatar
#231 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
implementing a fair tax system doesnt make a country socialist. imposing "regulations" like a living wage and union protections doesnt make a country socialist.

it makes that country less oligarchical, less corporatist, and more democratic, as a majority of people can stop worrying so much about where the next meal is coming from, and can look up and get involved in the world around them
User avatar
#190 - nanananapotato (02/04/2016) [-]
taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
This is a source for the amount of people are taxed, my bad btw the top 50% pay 97.2% of the taxes and the bottom 50% pay only 2.8%, tell me how that is fundamentally fair without involving the argument that the poor are poor and the rich are rich.
The economy of europe is not in the best of states (Don't want to say much of it because i'm not the most informed about that subject matter but I do know it's not doing very well) and the taxes are EXTREMELY high
www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26327114
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe
financesonline.com/top-ten-countries-with-highest-tax-rates/
You basically take home HALF of the money that you earned and the government does whatever it wants to do with it. It's your money you worked hard for it, government shouldn't take so much of it
Please explain to me how the cutting of taxes for the rich, doesn't work. Please explain it to me I really want to know.
#197 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
by looking at what happens when tax cuts for the rich are implemented. we can look at the US economy for this.

it can be summed up in this graphic.

in every single state where tax cuts are given to the rich, said states are in debt, and their poor are poorer than in states where those cuts do not exist.

the reason why these tax cuts are unjust is because the tax burden created by cutting taxes on the rich must be mitigated through other taxes. because corporate taxes are so low (companies like exxon actually pay negative tax dollars, i.e. they recieve more in entitlements than they pay in taxes) and with the effective tax rate for the rich being so low, (warren buffett pays the same in taxes as his secretary) the middle class, which should be the single largest consumer block (thus stimulating economic growth from the demand side) are instead bogged down with tax burdens, as are small businesses.

the unfairness can be summed up here:

poor man has $10 taxable income.
middle class man has $40 taxable income.
rich man has $10,000 taxable income.

if we take a 35% tax from the poor and the middle, and a 20% tax from the rich, then:

poor man has $6.50 to spend. this will be hoarded for absolute necessities.
middle man has $26 to spend. maybe his kid gets a PS4.
rich man has $8,000 to spend. but hes not going to buy 100 PS4s. hes going to reinvest, or spend it in housing (investing) or on a yacht (slow-drain savings). that money is not re-entered back into the economy because the rich man doesnt have to spend as much of his income to survive.

taxing the rich man at 40% still leaves him with more than enough money ($6000) to buy everything he could need, except maybe a little smaller.
taxing the middle and poor people at 20% allows the middle class to spend more as a collective block on consumer goods, stimulating business as a unit more than the wealthy. meanwhile, the poor man has an extra $1.5 to hold on to so that when unexpected costs like an ER visit come up, he is not bankrupted, becoming homeless and living 100% off of the middle and upper class tax dollars.

tl;dr

poor people dont have enough money after taxes to do anything but survive. the middle class, who should be buying the most consumer shit to drive economic growth, doesnt have enough after taxes to purchase as they should. the richest people should pay more, because they have proportionally more money after expenses and discretionary spending.

heres a link with more info
apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
#219 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
I hope this becomes copypasta.
User avatar
#220 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
in what sense?
#221 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
That it is factually correct and well explained. Hope more people see this.
User avatar
#223 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
feel free to spread it around, just credit me if you post it on FJ

i make a habit of not speaking out of my ass
#224 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
Good habit to have.
User avatar
#229 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
funnyjunk before the exodus of the left and the invasion of /pol/ was a place where logic and facts ruled. today its ad hom this, cuck that, muh trump cuz muslims and shit.

this is my home, and it was my home through multiple bouts of homelessness. it was my home when admin was banhappy, and when we almost lost the site. i refuse to leave; i will be a voice for the moderate when the moderate are afraid to speak.
User avatar
#247 - questionableferret (02/04/2016) [-]
I try to be the same, but I am only a voter. My knowledge and understanding of the situation isn't total. I know that unchecked authoritarian economics is a bad thing, as is unchecked libertarian economics. That the free-market is a fallacy based on the assumption that sweeping change will happen reliably to fix a broken system, and in the intervals between that irregular change there is nothing to reasonably curtail abuse of the market.

But I'm not good at the minutia, nor at the examples. *shrug* It's hard to be informed when everything on the internet is a lie.
User avatar
#250 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
you just have to look at the hard raw data, and make your mind up as best you can. i know for a fact youre smart enough to do so. i didnt become informed overnight; ive put thousands of hours of research over a dozen years to justify my left-centrist, anti corruption, anti-radfem, pro equality and pro meritocracy views.

i was there when the trans-SJW crowd was born. i literally watched their first gathering with my own eyes.

i was there when my father, who worked for AIG in 08, explained the difference between a bailout (media explanation) and a forced predatory loan (what actually happened) and why the stock market crashed (my other dad was in real estate)

yes, i was raised by two gay men who adopted me off the streets; no i was not butt tickled or dick pickled or faggotized or any other manner of fuckery

i was there when i saw the VA system fail my homeless uncle, and watched him die of spider bites because the VA considered the surgery to remove the necrosis "and elective surgery" and i watch still as my other uncle, also a homeless vet, has suffered with a hernia for 5 years, but the VA wont treat him because it isnt immediately threatening.

i was there when eric alva, a gay man, returned home from the hospital after becoming the first casualty in the iraq war.

i was lucky enough to grow up in a household where knowledge and awareness were valued, but i still had to find my own way.
User avatar
#254 - questionableferret (02/04/2016) [-]
I've seen the data but I'm bad at putting it into compelling words. Moralistically I am very strong. I can easily deconstruct defunct morals like corporatism, and I can easily explain the logical flaws in free-market capitalism, but economically I've never been fond of numbers on that scale.

Still, what's your opinion on the national living allowance? I mean, it's probably going to become a necessity in the next few decades as the next wave of mechanisation makes yet more low-skill jobs obsolete. I mean, on the one hand it seems like a nice idea that would make work optional for survival, instead of mandatory, and would shift the dynamic of market from the people needing employment to the employment needing the people, but on the other hand it is incredibly exploitable and would require a very robust taxation system.

Trouble is I don't really see any alternative to it. When it is already the case that the number of jobs and the number of people that want jobs are dangerously close (if not dangerously imbalanced in the wrong way, like in the UK) it seems unreasonable to assume everyone should be employed in a workforce where there isn't room for everyone.

It necessitates either severe economic control or severe population control.
User avatar
#257 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
while it is true that living allowances will become a requirement, they arent inherently bad. if the living allowance only covers the basic necessities, then the poor wont resort to crime. costs spent on incarceration will be reduced, and the beneficiaries of those funds will be free to seek jobs, etc if they want more than the bare minimum quality of life.

it is important to remember that at this point in our cultural and scientific evolution, our primary focus should be on colonizing the moon, and later mars. if our governments are mired down in dealing with wars and poverty-induced crime all the time, we will not make it off this planet in time. establishing a higher baseline for the average citizen allows industry to look up at the stars instead of down at the masses.
User avatar
#259 - questionableferret (02/04/2016) [-]
Fuck... I thought I was on funnyjunk but instead I seem to be playing some advanced game of Civilisation and chatting to one of my advisors. What are we gonna do about Ghandi's space-base moon-laser?

Anyway, yeah, I've held that belief for a while. To be honest I think it should already be the case. The notion that 'Everyone should work for a living' is cool and all, but it is as much of a fallacy as the free market because not everyone can earn a living off of their work.

Once the barrier of 'how' you earn your living wage is removed, the options for what you do with your life are drastically increased. I reckon post-implementation we would see a spike in the artistic fields, as well as a spike in start-up businesses as the minimum-wage is rendered functionally redundant.

The trouble really though is how you tax such a system. It is possible, because functionally the system doesn't alter the amount of wealth in the nation and there should reasonably already be enough wealth in the nation for people to survive off of (otherwise even the current economic system would implode) but it places the burden of that wealth squarely on the shoulders of the government, whereas in the current system the burden is on the markets, so corruption would probably bring far harsher ramifications.

I figure the Baby Boomers will need to die before that could happen though.
User avatar
#260 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
youre right on all accounts; the way to combat government corruption is forced transparency, and community access to all government documents (even classified military ones immediately post-op). if the government knows its actions will be known publicly, it wont act out.

as for gandhi, we are going to have to nuke that warmongering motherfucker. stupid fucking gandhi thinking he can designate and culture into space
User avatar
#262 - questionableferret (02/04/2016) [-]
I'd argue that it is more than just transparency that is the issue. We already have enough information as-is to hold the government accountable, but the current systems for transmitting that information to the people are highly corrupted themselves. The Internet has brought a new age of fire to the government's feet but it isn't enough yet.

What is more, we are dealing with the fundamental failing of democracy when it comes to issues like these, namely that no matter how good the change is it only matters if people 'think' it is good, otherwise you can't guarantee it won't be repealed by another party during the next election cycle, making large-scale planning for the future next to impossible in a system where people are so polar-opposed to one-another.

So transparency would be good, but there is a more problematic corruption to be dealt with at the same time and that should be that there needs to be a structure put in place to prevent news organisations from distorting the truth or presenting outright lies.

Democracy is the same fallacy as the free market. The idea that everyone will do the right thing, however those individuals are consumed by misinformation and bias and it leads to a system far less ideal in practice than it is in theory.

I'm not arguing against democracy, just that before we can make any meaningful strides forwards there will need to be a fundamental change in how we approach the transmission of information within the system, and how we penalise misinformation, and if it is even fair to do so.

We also need to fix the current vastly misrepresentative 'one vote per person' voting system that is the default democratic system around the world to one that is more representative of the cultural zeitgeist, like having the option to vote for as many of the candidates as you like and rather than the most popular getting in, it is the least popular being left out, thus also eliminating the need for tactical voting.

But before even that there is campaign finance reform that needs to come. The USA has it lucky as there are already groups such as Wolf-Pac that are pushing for an amendment to the constitution outside of the house/senate's power, however not as many nations have as much agency in their politics as the people of the US have in that regard, and so will need to go through more direct means to fix the corporatist corruption within their systems.

Ultimately we're faced with a situation where every good bit of progress that needs to be made comes at the end of a long line of hurdles that are not easily leapt. Thankfully the internet is making these hurdles visible to more people but we've still got a long way to go and, sadly, we've got a timer as to how long we have to effect that change, due to our treatment of the climate.

*sigh* It all seems a bit insurmountable, really, but hey-ho, what's idle woe ever gotten us?
#235 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
I have no strong feelings about this site. I like it more than others but thats about it. But it seems moderates are losing. (on the internet at least)
I study polsci so it's hard for me to look at these discussions.
#239 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
i studied economics, government and logic/philosophy

tfw when you watch intellectual discourse among informed youth die
#243 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
offtopic but a teacher of mine said to visit some philosophy courses. It is supposed to help with writing papers a lot.
User avatar
#245 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
would advise, especially one with a detailed course-load in logic and forensics. not every argument topic has evidence; the ability to eloquate is vital for communication.
#210 - kanyesfishsticks (02/04/2016) [-]
I'm a conservative, and even I think George Bush is one of the worst presidents in history
#246 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
Im not a us citizen so I may not understand it fully but I think it's really weird to put so much faith/power in one person. America could really benefit from a parliamentarian democracy.
User avatar
#252 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
we were supposed to have one (albeit as a congress) but exxon, haliburton, and big banks bought them all from us.
#253 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
Nope. Even before big business 2 parties were the norm
User avatar
#255 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
but once big business entered the picture (think rockefellers) politicians started walking around with for sale signs and the super-rich jumped on an opportunity.
#256 - porkslapchop (02/04/2016) [-]
While this is true it implies that only dishonest and greedy people are politicians. Imo many politicians genuinely care about their people but are being forced into a system where they have to compete for indorsements from big business so they can campaign. Then they make compromise after compromise and change so much that they have nothing in common with the person they were before.
User avatar
#258 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
youve hit the nail on the head. a few corrupt people a hundred years ago created a system that corrupts most who are too weak willed to resist it.
#249 - kanyesfishsticks (02/04/2016) [-]
Presidents actually don't have as much power as you would expect.
User avatar
#214 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
it isnt about his presidency, its about reaganomics and the way that national debt and tax cuts for the rich (especially when combined with legal purchase of politicians) affects the nation
#230 - kanyesfishsticks (02/04/2016) [-]
I know, it was just a side note.
#233 - phtholognyrrh (02/04/2016) [-]
truth, my breddah
#141 - How does it cause inflation, the only thing that causes inflat… 01/28/2016 on Trump as the Joker 0
#140 - Hillary is going down in the polls, and she will most likely g… 01/28/2016 on Trump as the Joker 0
#138 - From personal experience, socialism is the devil. Look at how …  [+] (2 new replies) 01/28/2016 on Trump as the Joker 0
User avatar
#139 - platinumaltaria (01/28/2016) [-]
Correlation does not imply causation. And just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.

The government taxes external income in this way because it causes inflation when money is brought in from abroad via private hands.
User avatar
#141 - nanananapotato (01/28/2016) [-]
How does it cause inflation, the only thing that causes inflation is when the government prints money.... You can't cause inflation from money that ALREADY exists. You have to MAKE money to cause inflation, which only the government can do, oh and that also affects the economy by the way, the government printing money. And it's not that I don't like it, of course I don't like it. But i've seen the effects that it's done to people first hand, not over the internet reading articles and looking at graphs, but the real deal. And where in the world has it worked, where has 100% Socialism worked in any society where people were happy and free. I really REALLY want to know, it's WONDERFUL in theory, don't get me wrong but human nature is too greedy, it's how we are built, people will take advantage of a system like socialism or similar to socialism (Hello Cuba). Sure there are the little rays of sunshine that are really honest people who do work for the community, but let's be real, they aren't common.
[ 61 Total ]