Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,467 Responses
- whhipped0
Judges orders millions paid in NYC firefighter bias case
A U.S. district judge ordered New York City to pay $128 million in to firefighters who allege the city used an entrance exam that deliberately sought to keep African-Americans and Latino Americans off the force. The judge also ordered the FDNY to hire 293 black and Latino applicants.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/08/us…
I agree that there was most likely discrimination, but how is a cities tax payers responsible for the mismanagement of its fire department. Such a travesty and wasted monies, that really doesn't fix the real issue. Get the bastards, cheaters, liars, etc out of public positions as soon as there are any conspicuous/shady happenings... oh, but I forgot it takes an act of God to fire any state government worker. So we are here sitting with our hands tied waiting to be screwed again and again. Awesome.
- whhipp0
so utopian!? didnt like what I was posting and reported me as spam... nice, how is any of this spam? this is a forum of politics I thought... a little banter and fun? Isnt that what this is mainly for? Some good insight on others opinions with a bit of entertainment and heated debate? Man if this is how it goes within this thread... so boring everyone with the same opinion... Tell me what did me in utopian? the picture posted above (cant be, seen plenty more appalling images and comments sprinkled throughout this place)? my few posts, which have been the only action this thread has garnered? what gives... i just want to know so i dont piss you off again.
- at least give me a warning that you will delete my ass unless this that and other... man, SMH this sucks.whhipp
- zaq0
John McCain proposes bill allowing for military surveillance of the internet. I can't imagine what would be today of US if he was elected.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/civil-l…
- locustsloth0
So you say that the welfare program creates a dependency on the party that is in favor of it. First of all, what policy that involves one group of people DOESN'T create a dependency on the advocates of teh policy. Corporations, for the most part, support Republicans because if the R's were voted out, policies COULD change that would cause the corps to lose money.
So, ignoring that, what should be the course of action? Personally i'd agree with providing opportunities for those on welfare to work for the government. Maybe that means a slightly lower pay rate than a worker not on welfare would get? Which, in theory would save money that would otherwise go to fully paid workers and also give them incentive to get off welfare to seek a higher paying job, since thy are putting in hours anyway.
i don't personally know anyone receiving government assistance who is proud to admit it or is gaming the system or wouldn't rather be in a position where they didn't need it. So while the notion of families living it up on welfare is absolutely true in some cases, it's a disservice to paint all recipients with that same brush, as often happens in discussions about govt benefit programs- I agree and the Milton video above has the same message.whhipp
- BonSeff0
- sheer stupiditylocustsloth
- she needs to stay away.whhipp
- Such a moronic human being. A Repub saying that, not acknowledging the class division THEY have caused? Surely she jests.mg33
- locustsloth0
Furthermore, the malfesance of recipients, as is often the refrain of those opposing benefit programs, is not the only culprit for misspent funds. Retailers are responsible for fraud as well.
- exactly and its not just ok for the government to give unfettered benefits—allows for all types of fraud.whhipp
- locustsloth0
The Friedman video is like a chocolate with a lump of shit in the middle. It's all sweet an well-intentioned at it's borders, but stinks at it's core.
What Friedman is pointing to as teh main problem with welfare is not being on welfare, but transitioning from it. This does not mean, as he sidewardly says at about 6:35, that everyone'd be better off if the programs evaporated. It means that a way to make the transition out of welfare needs to be more like a ramp than a cliff.
The video also glazes over the other costs that one would incur when going back to work. Child care, vehicle fueling and maintenance, etc. If you are getting $200 a week for welfare and you get offered a $200 a week job, you can't take it because of these costs. People need a chance to build up savings and get on a level place when coming off a program, or else they'll slide right back in- I wouldnt say its shit. Although you do bring up a good point... it does not solve or address all the issues, but at the core I think it is real good road map to go by.whhipp
- think it is real good philosophy to try to achieve a better system for people to get out and off of welfare. Reform it in this light.whhipp
- whhipp0
My point is this, when government, albeit for a righteous cause, gets involved in giving financial benefits I feel causes more harm than good.
Take for example the housing fiasco where the government thought it was a good idea for everyone to own a house "The American Dream". Made policies to allow for anyone to obtain a loan and get into home ownership. What did that fiasco create... a bubble. Loans going to people that had no reason of getting one... and an newly government created/manufactured industry in the private sector that saw an opportunity to get easy money from a government mandated program... leads to fraud and manipulation.
We will be seeing this come to a head in the college system, where the government has stuck its nose in and said everyone deserves to go to college and now gives loans to anyone with a pulse. Why do you think college tuition goes up astronomically every year? Because the institutions know that the loans are there to be given, easy money.
- It seems we're currently experiencing a moron bubble.waterhouse
- wow, you are a fucking genius and have it all figured out.BonSeff
- What rubs the wrong way with what i stated?whhipp
- ‹ this was not even a left right issue, if anything i throw the right under the bus with the housing deal?whhipp
- Your opinions are fluid, you will say anything that supports your position of the minute.DrBombay
- so...
A. Staunch right is not good.
whhipp - B. Fluid middle and comprehension and understanding of others opinions not good.
whhipp - C. Staunch left good.whhipp
- D. You continue to create new usernames because your loneliness is oppressive.waterhouse
- I choose DDrBombay
- locustsloth0
But that's like saying that the person who gave up their taxi to someone else is at fault because the taxi driver drove off a cliff and killed the passenger. It's every person's responsibility to act lawfully and morally, in addition to having safeguards against those who chose not to.
Let's say that government welfare was eliminated and by some miracle the slack was taken up by various charities. Those charities could be (have been and are now being) taken advantage of too. What the agency needs is better oversight and regulation, but these are anathema to the right. So their solution (like Friedman's) is to eliminate the whole system- not a fair assessment of the right's position. I feel they want a less & more efficient government. Not elimination and not more of the same bureaucracy.whhipp
- and not more of the same bureaucracy.whhipp
- but they want more efficiency by cutting services, rather than improving the servicelocustsloth
- thats debatable... and would take forever to make the arguments. In the end I dont think one party is more compassionate than the other. Just have different philosophies on how to get there. Ron Pauls solutions seem more inline with which direction we should take.whhipp
- compassionate than the other. Just have different philosophies on how to get there. Ron Pauls solutions seem more inline with which direction we should take.whhipp
- which direction we should take.whhipp
- But Paul is the guy who wants to END nearly every program. That's opposite what you said up there^locustsloth
- get out of things it has no business in right. But he doesnt want to end social security and welfare... maybe reform because we will never have the cash the way its going forward.whhipp
- because we will never have the cash the way its going forward.whhipp
- Sure, lose the cap at $125,000. Problem solved.DrBombay
- whhipp0
Taxi driver analogy is not good BTW. If a taxi driver had a sign on his cab that read, "will give free rides if you dont have the cash" and he goes bankrupt, he is responsible. Not the passengers that didnt pay him.
- ukit20
You can talk about these theories all day, but where's the example of a government that has successfully implemented Milton Friedman, libertarian policies?
Nearly all societies with a high standard of living have a welfare state and government involvement along with a free market. In fact most of them are more socialistic than the US.
- BonSeff0
the rights' moral hypocrisy when it comes to domestic policy is staggering.
- whhipp0
^ reference to zaq:
hmm i dont know?... maybe the same place?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/poli…
- ukit20
Milton Friedman, Fascist Collaborator
"The greatest stain on his memory is his co-operation with Pinochet military dictatorship. The regime in Chile provided a showcase for the ultra-free market philosophies of Friedman and the Chicago school. I can't imagine what mental acrobatics he must have used to reconcile his 'libertarianism' with a military coup to overthrow the elected Allende government and the murder and torture of thousands of oppositionists."
- TheBlueOne0
I wish we could all just go back to simpler times when the poor had to learn to rely on the largesse of the nobility. That's when they really knew their place and we could kill them whenever we wanted to for shits and giggles. None of this modern entitlement shit, as if they were actual human beings. The poor should learn to be dependent on their betters and accept whatever scraps they're offered, and gratefully so.
- ukit20
Good example of where this line of thinking leads
Tea Party Nation President Says It ‘Makes A Lot Of Sense’ To Restrict Voting Only To Property Owners
- white facepalmwaterhouse
- and womens, with all their emotional mentruating, they don't deserve to vote eitherlocustsloth
- Back To The Future: The NeoSerf EditionTheBlueOne
- whhipp0
^ nope just taking time to read up. I dont know all the facts here and I'm sure you dont since you posted a link to some random person's opinion.
Of course nothings perfect when implementing a change, but the guys post is a bit one sided opinion.
What I got from Wiki:
Pinochet's policies were lauded internationally for transforming the Chilean economy and bringing about an "economic miracle". British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher credited him with bringing about a thriving, free-enterprise economy, while at the same time downplaying the Junta's human rights record, condemning an "organised international Left who are bent on revenge." Pinochet certainly did achieve macroeconomic success with his reforms, hindered somewhat by recession in the early 1980s. GDP growth remained steady, and Chile began a process of integration into the international economy. However, as discussed below, many social costs were paid by the lower strata of Chilean society during his experimentation with economic shock.
- Wikipedia? With all your free time, I figured you had access to an academic library.waterhouse
- yeah had lunch and some beers, so wiki was the way.whhipp
