But Seriously...

Gawker has been covering the trial, the verdict gets handed down and you don't hear a peep out of them. Nothing. I find if funny.

I don't normally read the site but some of the sub-sites are pretty good, that video is excellent in its cringeworthy moments.

 

My thoughts exactly. I went over to Gawker to see if they had the balls to post the story, but of course NOPE. And while I don't really care about Gawker itself, I do like some of the sub-sites like Jalopnik, and am worried they might go away.

 

Am I the only one that thinks its hilarious that Hulk Hogan wore a doo-rag to court?

 

Actually, hardly anyone cared that much. I don't really care that much either. I just can't help but find it funny that they're doubling down and funding her again, and again, and again when she hasn't produced shit. Like I said, no one (except her dip shit fans) actually expects her ridiculous theories to influence the gaming industry. Sure, companies might say it's insightful or whatever politically correct thing, but they're not going to change jack shit on her account.

She must have had a significant following before the backlash. You can't raise $160,000 if no one is paying attention to you. What I find so funny and strange about the whole situation is not only how outlandishly absurd her criticism is, it's that all these feminists who profess to care so much about women's rights are donating to something so worthless. If they actually gave a shit, why wouldn't they donate to something that helps women who don't have equal rights? It sounds more worthwhile than dumping all that money into something that not only costs virtually nothing, but isn't going to contribute in any tangible meaningful way. What exactly do they think her series is going to accomplish? I'm guessing they think it will and already has accomplished a lot. Like I said, kind of funny.

Lastly, it's so blatantly obvious she's pocketing the money. If you actually think those shitty videos she makes cost the million dollars she's raised I've got a very shiny bridge to sell you. So these feminists profess about how much they care about women's rights, but they'd rather shell out cash for a scam artist who's just inventing sexism where it doesn't exist than actually give to women in need. Obviously, that's not all feminists, but Anita is not really an isolated story either.

 

It's actually interesting because Hulk's legal team, and Hulk himself, were making a distinction between "Terry the private citizen" and "Hulk Hogan the character." For example Hulk was asked if he lied, and his response was basically "As Terry? No. But as Hulk? I've said that I've water skied on tiger sharks, so yeah, those were lies."

That being said I'm really looking forward to seeing Jezebel trying to explain to its readers why they have to shut down their feminist website because their company was stridently, some would say recklessly, defending their right to distribute and profit off of revenge porn.

 

Very good article, and it's a bit of a shame that the colossal failures that are those policies gets so little attention. If Hillary (assuming she wins the primaries which is probably a safe assumption at this point) has any sense she'll hammer points like those in that article home during the general election debates. A lot of this comes back to the laffer curve, except when Republicans talk about it they don't seem to realize what it is. Typically they'll show a curve like this:


It makes it appear that the growth maximizing point is around 5-10% and revenue maximizing is around 20-25%. An actual laffer curve looks more like this:



Not anywhere near the rates they ramble about. Also, the curve is purely theoretical and has spotty historical support. Obviously there isn't just one tax everyone pays and marginal rates at different income levels are going to have different effects.

The theories behind the shit they want to implement make so little sense. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Never going to happen. They also always want to increase military spending even though we already spend more than the next ten countries combined. What exactly is that supposed to accomplish?

While they want to spend more in the military they also want to make cuts. But usually not with regards to things that make up a large portion of the budget. Cut food stamps. Foreign aid. Yada yada. You could cut those things completely and it would barely amount to shit.

I really hope what happened in Kansas, Louisiana and elsewhere becomes a hot topic during the general election. It would be very interesting to see what Republican advocates have to say about it.

 

Well, first and foremost it does keep some asshat country from getting a wild hair up their ass and deciding to try and fuck our shit up.

Secondly, the military, like it or not, drives a very robust second economy. Companies and workers for military contractors and cities with military installations all benefit from the huge cluster fuck that is our military spending.

I'd much rather my tax dollars went to military spending then welfare, section 8 housing, Obama phones,& food stamps for someone who is a 3rd generation recipient of government programs and has contributed absolutely nothing to society.

 

If you made a pie chart of federal spending, "lazy bums on welfare" would be an invisible slice of the already invisible slice that is "general welfare outlays." If we're going to sign up for the government-spending-as-economic-engine way of doing things, I'd much rather we be making huge capital investments in useful infrastructure like roads and bridges, power grid, R&D, telecoms, and others, than in make-work contracts of dubious military benefit.

 

I wouldn't argue with that at all. That was actually something Obama said he was going to do and didn't. He was going to improve our infrastructure with our tax dollars....I thought that was great. It would create jobs, improve our country, and drive our economy. Wonderful, that's just what we need.

It wasn't implemented though. Why?

 

I don't want to see heaps of money dumped into that shit either. However, federal spending on defense is already 21% of the budget. That's an insane amount. Most of the soldiers are providing fuck all. By comparison education is at 3%. Infrastructure is less than 5%. Science and medical research is at 2%. Maybe increase spending in those places instead?

Social safety net programs are around 10%, but that's including a lot of programs, not just lazy bums wanting a hand out. I hate the claims that they're all trying their fucking best, and they don't have a job because racism, the economy, or whatever the fuck, but we need to get the military budget in check before we start obsessing over food stamp recipients.

With regards to dumping all this money into military spending - it's not pointed out enough that the only countries with technologies advanced enough and economies large enough to actually give us a fight already have nukes. Meaning we're not going to fight them in a war anyway, and if we did we'd pretty much be fucked no matter how much we spend on the military.

 

Just an FYI - The food stamp program alone is about 2% of the budget. It's not a huge slice, but it's hardly invisible. I'm not saying everyone, or even most people on it are lazy bums, but it's kind of sad that total spending on all of education at the federal level is barely double what we dump into food stamps.

I said earlier that cutting these programs wouldn't amount to shit, but I meant that in reference to military spending. General welfare outlays is a significant portion of the federal budget, hardly invisible.

 

Science and medical research may only show at a dedicated 2%, but I have a feeling a great deal of science and medical research falls under the umbrella of military spending. There is a lot of R&D that goes into developing new ways to kill, injure, and fix people. I'm not saying it's right, it's just kind of a fact of life.

Would I rather that our budget included much more money spent to improve infrastructure, medical research, anything at all that would improve our quality of life? That would be awesome.

However, no matter how small it may be in regard to our overall national spending, social programs need a major overhaul. They provide absolutely nothing of value in return. They were put in place as a stop gap measure for people that had fallen on hard times, not as the lifestyle that they've become.

I have no problem with our government having programs to help out someone that has fallen on hard times. I have a huge problem with our government using my money to pay for the entire life of someone who has 5 children by age 22 and has never even considered getting a job. And they are the 3rd generation to do so. That shit needs to stop.

 

Considering Obama had to deal with a Republican Congress more interested in being petulant dipshits, I'm surprised he got anything done. I think it's bullshit he used so many executive actions, but given the political climate, what the fuck else was he supposed to do?

The best part about Republicans bitching about executive abuse, is that they were totally okay with Bush doing it. It's my understanding that they even expanded executive powers to get around Democrats who were standing up to Bush in the first place.

If you're going to be mad at Obama because he wasn't able to do everything he set out to do, fine. But you also have to be mad at obstructionists more interested in placating wingnuts in the base than serving their country.

 

I don't get the hate, but where are these stories coming from? Like, do you personally know anyone doing this?

My mom is on disability through a convoluted series of medical fuck-ups and of the guys I know hurt in construction who were on disability, I can only think of one who wouldn't rather be working. It sucks, and it'll go on for years, but there's really not much alternative if you can't work (and the perverse incentive of not working at ANYTHING, rather than being completely unemployed to maintain benefits).

My mom's a nurse and her income was X. The disability covers Y, and there's no way for her to make the difference between X and Y without them yanking her benefits (until she turns 65). What fucking sense does that make? She can't physically do the requirements of her job, but she could take a pay cut and do something productive. It's not enough for her to live on (minimum wages and what not), and it wouldn't come close to her benefits, so that takes priority. So, the benefits reduce her incentive to work, which is a net loss.

From a statistical standpoint, we are looking at high levels of poverty, going back 60 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

I think the incentives are fucked (I can work my ass off, full time and only make 5% more than being unemployed?) for wages and unemployment in general, but the sense that I get is we should do more, not less.

I also think we bristle at the thought of some people benefiting from the system unequally. Like, I'll subsidize the health care, retirement, etc of someone who will earn less than me kind of pisses me off, but that's just a fact of life in a society like ours and it ensures my kids/family a more equal shot.

 

The best part of our welfare program is how major employers take advantage of it. Walmart, for example, is more than happy to hire tons of employees, pay them minimum wage to work part time (God help you if you manage to work more than 29 hours in a week), allowing their employees to make so little they're still eligible for welfare benefits. Essentially allowing the federal gov't to subsidize their payroll. It's not illegal and from a business standpoint it is actually pretty genius, but morally it's a little fucked up. They could, in theory, either pay more or allow their workers full time and benefits, both of which would reduce the burden on the gov't at their expense, but what is their incentive to do so? They'll claim they'd have to fire people and raise prices to keep up profits, because of course they would.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#28058b527cd8

So sure, rail against those "welfare queen" stereotypes people love to espouse. I've yet to meet a single person in my life who wants to admit being on welfare or takes any kind of pride in it. Nor are they living a fabulous lifestyle.

When I was a social worker, nearly all my clients were on some kind of aid program. They'd miss doctor appointments because they couldn't afford gas. They'd get groceries with their food stamps, and still barely have enough food. They'd send their kids to school sick because they didn't have food for them at home. They'd be constantly looking for jobs because if they didn't they'd lose benefits. Then they'd never get a job because their clothes looked like shit, and would YOU hire someone who went to an interview in a sport coat with a hole in it because they couldn't afford a new one? They look poor, which reflects on them badly in interviews, so they don't get jobs and stay poor. Their availability is shit because they can't afford day care for their kids, even with a job, making it more difficult to find work. And if they do splurge on a new suit? Anyone who knows they're on welfare will give them shit for "wasting MY tax money" on that shit, regardless of their explanation, because that stigma is a bitch. That's not to mention they'd have to make a sacrifice to afford those clothes, and that could mean less food, no gas for the car, no Christmas or birthday presents for the kids (which were already bought at goodwill or other second hand stores), or some other sacrifice for a family just barely scraping by.

The kids were deathly afraid of being seen getting free lunch for the stigma of being a "poor kid," so they'd end up not eating for a day or two. They'd even scour the sidewalks on their way home for quarters for the laundromat. They'd wash clothes with dish soap, cause fuck it, soap is soap and we can only afford one kind.

They weren't living like kings and giggling like school kids while cashing their welfare checks. Shit, some of them were living in a state of constant shame because they couldn't get out of it, but it is a constant self perpetuating cycle. You're poor and living on welfare, which means everything you own is shitty and drab, which makes it harder to get a job and get off welfare, so your stuff gets older and shitter and you can't afford to replace it, and thus the cycle is constant.

 

I said this earlier in the thread. If they really want a job I know so many places they can easily get one. Not enough to buy a mansion and eat lobster every night, but enough to pay the bills. There's so many small town companies in the Midwest that are facing labor shortages. All you have to do is turn in an application and then pick up the phone when they call you. That's pretty much it. If you actually know a bunch of people who are trying to get jobs and sincerely want one shoot me a pm and I'll tell you where they can apply.

I want to ask too though, if you were a social worker and all these guys were so desperate for work, how come none of you were aware of how many companies want hires from anywhere?