-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
They have a 5 season obligation with the Tolkien estate for that garbage. Get it whether you want it or not.
The last season will be nothing but those "I've got amnesia so lets flash back to scenes from earlier episodes" clip eps we used to get once per season in the old days to save money.
negator2vc
Member
turds float so..... keep dreaming
Yeah I never understood how 2 non citizens can have a citizen kid. The rule should be, at least one of your parents has to be a citizen. I don't just mean here in the US, I mean anywhere in the world.
It was a very common practice back when it took months by sea to get someplace. Women were only brought over when there was a place to bring them, they didn't just show up hoping for hand outs. Pregnancy used to be a reason to REFUSE entry as well (this was shown on the 1923 show). I think it's pretty common practice to not grant visas to late term women as well (it's also medically unsafe to travel at that point).
I agree that the "anchor baby" concept is a dubious legality, I'd still argue the parents could be sent back (with the kid) and the kid could return with citizenship status once they hit 18. What's happening with the Dreamers though, catching them as teens/young adults, to send them to the birthplace of their parents, the horse has WAAAAY left the barn at that point.
The flawed, slow, legal immigration system along with spotty border control and a "look the other way" level of local enforcement is just a disaster. It's a deliberate shit show because its easy to campaign on for both sides, neither wants to "fix it".
Oh I understand why back in the day. In this day and age it seems like something that should be changed much like the damn daylight savings time.
PSA people, this weekend you set your clocks back...
When people vent about the welfare security system in the UK, I love to remind them that Apple's tax avoidance system is over three times our annual welfare budget each year.
The world and its governments are a fucking cesspool of corruption and greed.
It's no wonder we live in a society of people who look after number one.
The world and its governments are a fucking cesspool of corruption and greed.
It's no wonder we live in a society of people who look after number one.
Trickster
Member
I mean, 95% of the 800k hires could be warehouse workers...That still leaves 5%, or 40k corporate hires as well, almost 3x the number being let go now
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Why are you going on about this in a thread about 35,000 people losing their jobs?
StreetsofBeige
Member
When it comes to any info that companies are saving big taxes, it comes down to two things:
1. Is it legal. The company can avoid paying big corporate taxes due to being clever taking advantage of laws
2. They are purposely scamming the system and not paying. They owe, but simply dont and drag it on for years or decades.
If it's #1, you cant blame companies. All they are doing is hiring some clever tax lawyers who combs the law books for breaks. It's the stupidity of governments making tax books so thick with so many bullet points and gimmes, that's their fault.
No different than a guy at home saving some taxes by hiring a guy at H&R Block to help him save money on tax returns because it's impossible for any single person to know every tax pointer.
All gov has to do to tidy up tax collection is get rid of any tax breaks and weird shit and companies will be held to paying it. But probably for reasons like encouraging investment (you always hear about Ireland being a big tax break country) they give tax incentives or have loosey goosey policies where all it takes is a good group of tax lawyers to find savings.
Just close the loop on those gimmes and the tax collection goes up.
Last edited:
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
To me it was a tangent.
Escape Goat
Member
I dont think corporate America understands what AI can and cannot do. Theyre riding high on consultant visions of AI but well see if it pans out.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Just to follow up on this because we got sidetracked - it's curious to me how both of us can be presented with the same data and then come to very different conclusions about what the data means and how that should guide us forward as a society.
I'm not sure why you seem so convinced that the stable 50+ year poverty stabilization is a point in favor towards your point of view, because to me, that shows that the program is working to do what it is intended to do - reduce poverty and the negative outcomes of being poor. Like any analysis of a population, there will be a baseline rate. Do you expect the rate to keep going until it reaches zero? Is that your measurement of success? Because that is very unrealistic and unreasonable. How much lower should the baseline rate be for you to consider it to be successful? In my opinion, the little money (relatively speaking) that we put into the program does a lot of heavy lifting towards keeping the poverty rate at that lower baseline rate makes it a great bang for the buck.
You would agree with me that getting rid of SNAP would increase the poverty rate, and increase hunger and malnourishment amongst the population, right? If that's the case, why should we get rid of an efficient and effective program? Just because a minority of users become dependent on it? That does not invalidate the majority of users who become independent thanks to SNAP. Your disproportional distaste for impoverished who might be abusing the system is misplaced.
StreetsofBeige
Member
I'm going to reply in a more holistic way when it comes to social assistance (not just food programs).
But I think for a lot of hard working taxpayers grinding it out paying a lot of money into the government tax pool, a lot of people dont get much or anything out of it because they are self sufficient.
But when money goes towards good causes or poor people, thy just want it used efficiently. Not wasted on dumb shit. And it's impossible to control that for the most part because nobody can see or control how people spend money whether it's gov help or rent controls. All it takes is someone on the dole to be always spending the help on weird shit keeping themselves in a forever hole or not working even trying to get a McDonalds job, and it makes the majority of people pissy good money is being spent on junky purchases. If you want to do it, get your own job and buy it yourself.
There's a big difference IMO with someone in the hole and spending help money well on survival things like good food or rent. But when you see some people just slacking it on welfare or using money on smokes or booze or lottery tickets, yet claiming they dont got enough for food and rent that's a fuck off kind of thing. If I want my tax money spent on that, I'd rather blow the money on myself and buy a case of beer and scratch tickets.
I say holistic because it can also include non-social assistance stuff like when you hear about gov wasting millions or billions on some 10 year project for whatever and it's a money sink. No taxpayer is getting that money back. Gov just takes your tax money and does whatever.
I treat my nephews and nieces to whatever they want at Xmas because I'm the fun uncle. And because I got no kids of my own I'll buy them what they want. I've done the merry go round with my list going from store to store at the mall buying shit. But if I spent my time and money buying you the shoes you wanted at Zumiez which I've done (some teen shop), and then after Xmas you told me you refunded and took the money to buy overpriced food on Uber Eats, ya it costed me the same money, but it gets weird. I thought you really needed new shoes. Next time, are you going to ask me for the shoes again? Or would I be the junk food gifter and now you'll ask someone else for shoes double dipping?
Let's say a fam member got into money trouble and asked us for mortgage help. Ya, we'd all pitch in. But if it turned out he took the money and lost it on stocks or blowing it eating out or buying new furniture, we'd all be WTF dude? That $5000 was supposed to help cover your mortgage for a bit. And were all family, so at least we know each other. But if shit loads of people are getting grilled on taxes and they have no idea where it goes or how random people theyve never known use it for dumb shit, then it becomes a guessing game and frustration. At least with a messy family situation, you might get back together and pay each other back. But for any money taxed away and spent on stupid stuff, how is any person going claw that money back? You cant.
Last edited:
P:axMagellanic
Member
Are these food stamps in the US similar to working tax credit here in England, ie you work but need a top up because wages are dogshit for many people?
Its a high fructose corn syrup gift card, a massive subsidy to agribusiness with the happy side effect of making poor people obese.
Yes. America is a failed state and it is ridiculous.
If a program runs for HALF A CENTURY and the thing it supposed to 'solve' does not change....that's a failed program by any metric.
I would agree that the sudden termination if all welfare orgrams WOULD increase hunger, for a time. It wouldn't increase poverty because the only people supposed to be getting these programs are ALREADY in poverty. I suspect that if you eliminated snap then some children would go hungry until their caretakers hooked up with church based food banks. And a WHOLE LOT of moochers would have to get out and work and mabye practice some pregnancy discipline.
The elderly is the vulnerability here, ain't no one wanting to cut their bennies.
JeTmAn81
Member
He's got a point here, why we got all these programs still trying to cure cancer
Nocty
Currently Steaming
Not exactly.. they're similar only in the broad sense that both involve government help for low-income people, but they're not direct equivalents.
Basically in the US, Food stamps (now called SNAP) give specific help for buying food. It isn't general income support, can only be spent on approved groceries. The UK equivalent would be the Healthy Start vouchers (for pregnant women and families with young children), or specific local authority food vouchers or emergency aid etc.
The system in the US is kind of broken, low-wage work can be unstable and may not provide enough earnings to safely replace benefits. People worry about losing other related benefits (like Medicaid) if their income rises too..
High marginal effective tax rates (losing multiple benefits at once) can discourage taking slightly higher income jobs.
So the system tries to incentivize leaving food stamps, but economic realities can make that difficult for most.
Last edited:
And EVERY program for cancer reduction we support, be it colonscopies, mammographies, pap smear, hpv vaccine, cigarette smoking reduction, is shown to REDUCE cancers
.
If I told you to stand on your head while I shit in your mouth, and 50 years later that practice hasn't changed cancer rates 1 iota, are you still gonna stand on your head while I shit in your mouth?