Real Issues

[jimmyjazz 46411]

2 hours ago, Chrispy said:

He was most likely suffering from substance abuse or mental illness. These guys end up on the street because a lack of family support, whether they burned too many bridges or resisted taking their required medicine. Their immediate family needs to step up, when it’s feasible, but the reality is that it comes down to personal accountability. I’m all for more resources to distribute the necessary assistance, but the difficult part will be encouraging these individuals to participate. There doesn’t seem to be an easy answer to this issue, but it’s important to jump on it now, before we end up in a situation like California. 

Well, that was predictable.  Thanks for stepping up to the plate.

[jimmyjazz 46411]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

One of the reasons we don't do this is the misguided belief that everyone will just wait and go around back instead of buying food at the front.  French grocers avoid this by having distributors take the food to shelter/food pantry locations.  However, french bakeries do give food away at the end of the day without damaging their business.  I don't see why Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks would be any different.

Anecdotally, I don't see where it can't work.  Texas French Bread (South Congress & Annie) used to give away whatever they still had on the shelves about 15 minutes to close.  Didn't matter who got the food, they just gave it away.  I grabbed a few loaves during my 10 years in the neighborhood, but a tip kinda felt necessary.  I don't think they expected that out of the average homeless dude just trying to get some calories (nor should they).

[Chrispy 132]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, that was predictable.  Thanks for stepping up to the plate.

No problem, please don’t report me. 

[jimmyjazz 46411]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

No problem, please don’t report me. 

I'm just impressed you didn't implore them to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".  Lost a hundy on that just now in Vegas.

[Brisketexan 105534]

2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Sigh,  There are so many issues in the O.P. that I don't know where to begin:

-Agriculture Policy

-Hunger Assistance

-Education Policy

-Housing Policy

-Urban Planning

-Healthcare

That's just a few off the top of my head.  These issues are hard and complicated and require committed, bright people to come up with compatible and workable solutions.  And many, if not all, involve a significant government role.

But the American public, and most the people on this page, keep screaming about how corrupt and stupid government is.  How Congress is the FUCKING WORST.  FIRE THEM ALL.  I don't want some politician who has a specialty degree in food security and ag policy from a quality school.  A local dentist will know far better how to address these issues!!!!

If you want solutions, you need, as a society, dedicated public servants who are supported in their mission and job. Policy is fucking hard.  Think about the next time you watch a debate or interact with a politician.  Think about the details, not the shit that gives you a partisan rage boner.

 

Good thread.

And GREAT post by Bates.

Anyone with any experience with complex systems -- and lets be clear, a society made up of hundreds of millions of people, and administered by several layers of local, regional, state, and national government is a complex system -- knows that solutions to problems are often complex as well.  Solving problem X often requires multiple disciplines, has cascade effects in dozens of different areas, etc.

Solving complicated problems, which often have multiple elements of causation, is hard.  Even the example of "hunger" discussed above -- look at how that has involved discussions of mental health care, adequate employment opportunities, food, waste, and health policies, etc.  Teams of wonks, practical boots-on-the-ground leaders, and dedicated servants, solves problems.  I've seen it work.  It's hard.  It takes lots of thinking, creativity, and 4-D chess-level problem-solving.

But if we're focused on "government bad!" or "every man for himself, I got mine!" or "private enterprise bad!", depending on where you sit, we'll never get anywhere.  Seriously, we don't pass Go, we don't collect $200.  We need to believe in the commonwealth -- that is, the common good.  We need to realize that ALL of our institutions can and should play a role in solving our problems: government, private businesses, down to the family unit.  And all of those pieces need to fit together in some way that makes sense.

I imagine that you can see why I have little hope that we'll do so anytime soon.

[Chrispy 132]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm just impressed you didn't implore them to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".  Lost a hundy on that just now in Vegas.

Sadly, most do not have the proper faculties to perform that basic function. Or, as in the case of my uncle, they prefer zero responsibilities and the squalor suits them just fine. Much like your ill fated bet in Vegas, throwing more money at the problem will most likely fail. 

[jimmyjazz 46411]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

Sadly, most do not have the proper faculties to perform that basic function. Or, as in the case of my uncle, they prefer zero responsibilities and the squalor suits them just fine.

I'm confused.  The right has always opined that they will step up and support the indigent, the poor, the homeless without government intervention.

Do you mean to tell me you have a FAMILY MEMBER who is homeless and yet you haven't found a way to help him?

Tsk tsk.  The hot air, it chokes.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

I live in a small town that has one little donut shop.  I asked the lady what they did with all their leftover donuts and such.  She said they had to throw them away now.  Can't even feed them to pigs.  She used to donate the surplus to the nursing homes in the neighboring town but they can't do that anymore due to Texas Health codes.  I could see that for food that had meat in them, or eggs..but plain breads?  I imagine there are other regulations that prevent others from donating excess goods as well. 

Anybody know where most of the mental health money spent by the state goes?  Or goes through?

Several years ago, I talked to Drayton McLane about donating leftover food from MMP concessions and suites to Star or Hope.  Which is right down the street.  He said he would love to.  But the city law prohibits it.  

[Brisketexan 105534]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Several years ago, I talked to Drayton McLane about donating leftover food from MMP concessions and suites to Star or Hope.  Which is right down the street.  He said he would love to.  But the city law prohibits it.  

Sounds like a perfect project for an attorney to work on -- find the operative ordinance, draft an amendment, rally public support for it, and present it to the council.

Seriously, this is EXACTLY the kind of local-level change that is within relatively easy grasp of citizens to make happen.  Sometimes well-meaning (often old/archaic) laws have unintended consequences.  Those consequences can be addressed with reasonable fixes.  Working on just one issue like that might end up providing thousands of meals to hungry people.  Talk about a great ROI.

[David Dennison 19053]

11 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Sadly, most do not have the proper faculties to perform that basic function. Or, as in the case of my uncle, they prefer zero responsibilities and the squalor suits them just fine. Much like your ill fated bet in Vegas, throwing more money at the problem will most likely fail. 

So Jesus was wrong.

Huh.

[Chrispy 132]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm confused.  The right has always opined that they will step up and support the indigent, the poor, the homeless without government intervention.

Do you mean to tell me you have a FAMILY MEMBER who is homeless and yet you haven't found a way to help him?

Tsk tsk.  The hot air, it chokes.

We help him, well my father does mostly. He lives on the streets of Los Angeles, but we buy him a bus ticket about once a year to come to Houston and detox, take a shower, shave, etc. My father even managed to get him a job at a local Big Lots, which lasted two weeks, until he got caught drinking their Scope mouthwash. But ultimately, shirking personal responsibility wins out and he finds himself back in Los Angeles. The problem isn’t the lack of help available, it’s accepting it. I believe he’ll be dead soon, but we’re going to continue to try anyway. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Food stamps should operate more like WIC.   Approved nutritional items.  Not Cokes and Donuts.  I’m well aware why those items are allowed.   So save that.  

[David Dennison 19053]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Food stamps should operate more like WIC.   Approved nutritional items.  Not Cokes and Donuts.  I’m well aware why those items are allowed.   So save that.  

Food stamps should be eliminated in favor of cash. Cash works.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Food stamps should be eliminated in favor of cash. Cash works.

Disagree.  

[David Dennison 19053]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Disagree.  

Cash doesn't buy food?

That's a new one.

[hayden_horn 11365]

the first step to solve any meaningful like this is empathy.

i think i've seen it displayed by most on this thread, so kudos all around. 

but then the next step is trying to understand the problem, why it exists, and why it persists. 

for reference, i supposed you could start here, where empathy appears...wanting:

https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/247-2018-apd-booking-photo-thread/&

i've always hated that thread on the old board after getting disgusted with myself for reading it idly over lunch. i know it embodies a large portion of the strange surly bonhomie we have here about sad or serious things. but i find it a sad commentary on the state of both our judicial and mental health systems, as well as our reticence in any real sort of give a shit about them.

[jimmyjazz 46411]

19 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Several years ago, I talked to Drayton McLane about donating leftover food from MMP concessions and suites to Star or Hope.  Which is right down the street.  He said he would love to.  But the city law prohibits it.  

Yes, Brisket is correct.  You have the ear of an extremely prominent Houston businessman, and he is open to helping out except local ordinances prohibit him from doing so.  You're a smart, educated attorney.  (I think you're an attorney.).  Start doing the work, or at least getting the word out so others might do so.  (Your post is part of that, I admit.)

I live in Austin.  I'm not gonna help in Houston, save the random catastrophic hurricane.  We have our own problems.  I don't have that kind of "in" here, so my family's efforts are meager, and hardly leveraged at all.  We are literally (self-)limited to handing out a little water or sandwiches to a few homeless, and we don't do that nearly enough, shamefully so.  That's probably all one big excuse for not donating money, but at least when we pass out a little bottled water, I know 100% of the cost got to the intended destination.

It's an extremely difficult problem.  My best efforts might be to try to make connections I don't currently have.  My more practical efforts would probably be to work with a group like Mobile Loaves and Fishes, who handle all the org work and just need feet on the street.  It's meager, but it's not zero.  I guess I need to sign my kids & myself up for some service.

Edited October 10, 2018 by jimmyjazz

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Cash doesn't buy food?

That's a new one.

It does.  It also buys beer, cigs, drugs, and lotto tickets.  

[David Dennison 19053]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

the first step to solve any meaningful like this is empathy.

i think i've seen it displayed by most on this thread, so kudos all around. 

but then the next step is trying to understand the problem, why it exists, and why it persists. 

for reference, i supposed you could start here, where empathy appears...wanting:

https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/247-2018-apd-booking-photo-thread/&

i've always hated that thread on the old board after getting disgusted with myself for reading it idly over lunch. i know it embodies a large portion of the strange surly bonhomie we have here about sad or serious things. but i find it a sad commentary on the state of both our judicial and mental health systems, as well as our reticence in any real sort of give a shit about them.

 The problem of poverty persists because we as a society haven't figured out an egalitarian method of distributing resources. This is particularly true in the case of children and the elderly. 

[David Dennison 19053]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

It does.  It also buys beer, cigs, drugs, and lotto tickets.  

So what? 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, David Dennison said:

So what? 

Really?

[Don Johnson 4758]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Cash doesn't buy food?

That's a new one.

Cash buys anything.  I don't give cash to people to buy just anything.

[elfenix 34375]

2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

But the American public, and most the people on this page, keep screaming about how corrupt and stupid government is.  How Congress is the FUCKING WORST.  FIRE THEM ALL.  I don't want some politician who has a specialty degree in food security and ag policy from a quality school.  A local dentist will know far better how to address these issues!!!!

 

this is the reason we're supposed to have expert technical bureaucracies staffed with professionals, as well as a proficient research staff for congress.  unfortunately, the bureaucracies are headed up by several layers of political appointees who are also dentists and congress doesn't have near enough research staff so everything gets drafted by lobbyists. 

[David Dennison 19053]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Really?

Absolutely.

[David Dennison 19053]

1 minute ago, Don Johnson said:

Cash buys anything.  I don't give cash to people to buy just anything.

Sure you do. Ever heard of the United States military?

[Don Johnson 4758]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So what? 

How does buying those things solve "real issues?"

[Brisketexan 105534]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It does.  It also buys beer, cigs, drugs, and lotto tickets.  

 

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So what? 

Interesting debate.

Seriously, you both make points (and I've read policy positions in the past that go into more detail about the points you are each making).  I can't dismiss either argument out of hand.  SO....know what we SHOULD do?  An experiment.  Let's go with a mechanism that works Johnny's way -- food aid is limited to WIC type stuff, and is controlled that way.  And someplace else, let's do the David Dennison thing, and just distribute the cash (saving the admin costs, etc.).  Then, let's track the results.  What gives us the greater cost-benefit?  Results are the ultimate piece of evidence, so let's get some and compare them.

Instead of saying "your idea is stupid and will never work," let's try them, in a way that tracks them and tells us the results.  I've seen plenty of things that I didn't think would work end up being great and efficient ideas.  And I've seen plenty of things that I thought would work well end up being utter failures.  Let's give them both a whirl, and look at the results side-by-side.

[David Dennison 19053]

2 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

How does buying those things solve "real issues?"

It doesn't. But most poor people will use cash to buy food, clothing, and shelter for themselves or their children.

If we want to help poor people, we should give them money. Full stop.

Edited October 10, 2018 by David Dennison

[G650 14297]

2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Sigh,  There are so many issues in the O.P. that I don't know where to begin:

-Agriculture Policy

-Hunger Assistance

-Education Policy

-Housing Policy

-Urban Planning

-Healthcare

That's just a few off the top of my head.  These issues are hard and complicated and require committed, bright people to come up with compatible and workable solutions.  And many, if not all, involve a significant government role.

But the American public, and most the people on this page, keep screaming about how corrupt and stupid government is.  How Congress is the FUCKING WORST.  FIRE THEM ALL.  I don't want some politician who has a specialty degree in food security and ag policy from a quality school.  A local dentist will know far better how to address these issues!!!!

If you want solutions, you need, as a society, dedicated public servants who are supported in their mission and job. Policy is fucking hard.  Think about the next time you watch a debate or interact with a politician.  Think about the details, not the shit that gives you a partisan rage boner.

 

 

This is exactly correct, and 90% of the people aren't going to listen.

 

There is a thread full of posts right now that state "It's this", "It's that", "It's the other", when in fact "It is all of the above". And this is why the government is completely non functional right now, as no one wants to hear some complex technocratic spiel on how to fix it, that want a catch phrase that gives them a warm fuzzy emotional response that they are helping fix the problem.

 

The fact that the U.S. has such a legitimate widespread issue feeding a not insubstantial amount of it's populous is absurd and a monument to our current stupidity.

[AtticusFinch 155]

4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

You have to be willing to pay a lot more in taxes. 

I'd prefer we not waste so much before taxes get raised to waste more.  The government takes in plenty to pay their bills.  This idea that higher taxes is the only solution is weak

[Bat Guano 359]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Interesting debate.

Seriously, you both make points (and I've read policy positions in the past that go into more detail about the points you are each making).  I can't dismiss either argument out of hand.  SO....know what we SHOULD do?  An experiment.  Let's go with a mechanism that works Johnny's way -- food aid is limited to WIC type stuff, and is controlled that way.  And someplace else, let's do the David Dennison thing, and just distribute the cash (saving the admin costs, etc.).  Then, let's track the results.  What gives us the greater cost-benefit?  Results are the ultimate piece of evidence, so let's get some and compare them.

Instead of saying "your idea is stupid and will never work," let's try them, in a way that tracks them and tells us the results.  I've seen plenty of things that I didn't think would work end up being great and efficient ideas.  And I've seen plenty of things that I thought would work well end up being utter failures.  Let's give them both a whirl, and look at the results side-by-side.

This would appear to be the right way to go - figure out what works to solve the problem. It appears that often the folks who bring up the "they'll just buy drugs with the money" argument are just using it as an excuse to do what they want to do anyway: that is, nothing. If not, a try-it-and-see approach would seem to be the best response; this country used to be known for finding solutions to problems, after all.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Bat Guano

[Don Johnson 4758]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It doesn't.

When you ask "so what?", that's what.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Don Johnson

[David Dennison 19053]

Just now, Don Johnson said:

When you ask "so what?"  That's what.

I'm not the one trying to tell poor people how to spend government aid. I really don't care what they spend it on. I just know they could use money. Because they're poor.

[ChickenSandwich 9856]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It doesn't. But most poor people will use cash to buy food, clothing, and shelter for themselves or their children.

If we want to help poor people, we should give them money. Full stop.

would you agree to this if the families submitted to a monthly audit and were required to track spending and keep receipts?  I would like to see the direct comparison to food stamps as Brisket suggests above. 

Also, states need to get rid of their loopholes allowing able-bodied recipients to be exempt from work requirements. This labor could be used explicitly to help feed the homeless, clean the streets and other tasks that need more man power than money.

Like all good ideas, there has to be a feasible implementation procedures.  You also can't keep adding to the problem from other countries and then say we don't pay enough.

If we have free health care and cash for everyone in poverty, how do you keep the entire populations of the Central Americas from coming for the free stuff?

No matter how much we would want as humans to end all hunger in the world, it is not possible.  There has to be common sense limits or it will never work.

See education funding based on a per student basis.  If the supply of those in need is ever expanding all of these programs are doomed to fail.

[Don Johnson 4758]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I'm not the one trying to tell poor people how to spend government aid. I really don't care what they spend it on. I just know they could use money. Because they're poor.

And most people are ok giving money to solve "real issues", but aren't ok with giving it when it won't (as you admit).  

[G650 14297]

2 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

 

No matter how much we would want as humans to end all hunger in the world, it is not possible.  There has to be common sense limits or it will never work.

 

 

I agree with most of your post re:implementation, but this is incorrect. We could feed the world without even breaking a sweat.

[David Dennison 19053]

1 minute ago, Don Johnson said:

And most people are ok giving money to solve "real issues", but aren't ok with giving it when it won't (as you admit).  

How do you know giving cash to the poor won't work?

When have we ever tried it?

[UTDD 362]

I don't see why it isn't possible to have some form of currency/cash/money that would allow the purchases of clothing, shelter, and food, and not specific negative purchases that anyone with common sense knows is a bad idea.  Governments, just like individuals, should be accountable and responsible in how they allocate resources and make decisions.  It isn't just about that specific person receiving aid, it's how enabling negative behavior/actions can have drastic repercussions on other people that become victims that are completely innocent.  

[G650 14297]

One thing I will say, and I mentioned this in another thread, all of you who want to continue being capitalist as I do, better get on board with guaranteed minimum income and universal healthcare. And soon.

[David Dennison 19053]

Just now, G650 said:

One thing I will say, and I mentioned this in another thread, all of you who want to continue being capitalist as I do, better get on board with guaranteed minimum income and universal healthcare. And soon.

This is a wise observation. Capitalism cannot exist if people cannot afford to buy the goods and services capitalists sell.

[bad_teammate 13245]

17 minutes ago, AtticusFinch said:

I'd prefer we not waste so much before taxes get raised to waste more.  The government takes in plenty to pay their bills.  This idea that higher taxes is the only solution is weak

I'm also against "just raise taxes to increase the size of the welfare state" as the knee-jerk solution, because all it's really doing is using public resources to prop up leeching capitalist enterprise.

[Don Johnson 4758]

4 minutes ago, UTDD said:

I don't see why it isn't possible to have some form of currency/cash/money that would allow the purchases of clothing, shelter, and food, and not specific negative purchases that anyone with common sense knows is a bad idea.  

Exactly.  I have interest in helping.  I have zero interest in pissing away money to fund additional problems.

[Bozo_Casanova 26652]

3 minutes ago, G650 said:

One thing I will say, and I mentioned this in another thread, all of you who want to continue being capitalist as I do, better get on board with guaranteed minimum income and universal healthcare. And soon.

I'd rather be on board with a jobs guarantee than an income guarantee, but I agree in principle. And I'm speaking here as somebody who believes in free markets, trade and price discovery in nearly absolute terms. 

[elfenix 34375]

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Interesting debate.

Seriously, you both make points (and I've read policy positions in the past that go into more detail about the points you are each making).  I can't dismiss either argument out of hand.  SO....know what we SHOULD do?  An experiment.  Let's go with a mechanism that works Johnny's way -- food aid is limited to WIC type stuff, and is controlled that way.  And someplace else, let's do the David Dennison thing, and just distribute the cash (saving the admin costs, etc.).  Then, let's track the results.  What gives us the greater cost-benefit?  Results are the ultimate piece of evidence, so let's get some and compare them.

Instead of saying "your idea is stupid and will never work," let's try them, in a way that tracks them and tells us the results.  I've seen plenty of things that I didn't think would work end up being great and efficient ideas.  And I've seen plenty of things that I thought would work well end up being utter failures.  Let's give them both a whirl, and look at the results side-by-side.

you also have to keep following up on the results and it often takes a decade plus before you can really say.  and you have to figure out what the goals for a policy are, and whether those results addressed the policy goal. 

i go back to TANF because (1) at least part of it is still cash welfare, and it replaced the old cash welfare system, so it is a bit toward DD's position (2) marketplace did a podcast about it (worth a listen).  if the goal was to get people off of the cash welfare system, well, TANF seems to have done that.  if the goal was to get people out of the marginally employable/low skills part of the market, well, it didn't do that.  and, it turns out that the 'successful' 'welfare to work' model which was the pilot study for TANF back in the 80s was probably just economic noise (the program appeared successful because the local job market was booming, not because of anything the program did). 

Edited October 10, 2018 by elfenix

[Bozo_Casanova 26652]

6 minutes ago, UTDD said:

I don't see why it isn't possible to have some form of currency/cash/money that would allow the purchases of clothing, shelter, and food, and not specific negative purchases that anyone with common sense knows is a bad idea.  Governments, just like individuals, should be accountable and responsible in how they allocate resources and make decisions.  It isn't just about that specific person receiving aid, it's how enabling negative behavior/actions can have drastic repercussions on other people that become victims that are completely innocent.  

Your first and second sentence are diametrically opposed.

[UTDD 362]

6 minutes ago, G650 said:

One thing I will say, and I mentioned this in another thread, all of you who want to continue being capitalist as I do, better get on board with guaranteed minimum income and universal healthcare. And soon.

Well I definitely buy that our current healthcare system is completely broken and inefficient compared to numerous other countries on this planet and the evidence is clear and pervasive in many other countries with less to work with overall.  That could be an entire book on its own but suffice to say I am comfortable being a free markets advocate but also advocating for a much different healthcare system in this country.

[G650 14297]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'd rather be on board with a jobs guarantee than an income guarantee, but I agree in principle. And I'm speaking here as somebody who believes in free markets, trade and price discovery in nearly absolute terms. 

Yeah, I mean that is clearly better from an idealistic point of view I think we all agree, but this is something I've studied for a really long time and I've yet to see anything compelling that says that fake jobs could in anyway be more efficient than just money. There's just layers of friction in a jobs scheme where waste comes in.

I also think it clearly ties into a rethink of the currency system as many have alluded to, where it's more of a housing/food/clothing direct pay deal, even possibly in tax subsidy form. With the electronic financial systems these days, it's not so far fetched as it once was.

[Bozo_Casanova 26652]

Why are they fake jobs? We have a lot of shit to do. Do you realize how much public infrastructure in this country and art and social science and primary research is the result of the WPA and CCC? Calling that fake jobs is like calling the military fake jobs. It's not. It's paid service to the Republic. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[G650 14297]

1 minute ago, UTDD said:

Well I definitely buy that our current healthcare system is completely broken and inefficient compared to numerous other countries on this planet and the evidence is clear and pervasive in many other countries with less to work with overall.  That could be an entire book on its own but suffice to say I am comfortable being a free markets advocate but also advocating for a much different healthcare system in this country.

Personally I think Germany does it best. It's private healthcare, and insurance, and it's regulated as a public utility where rates are set. We regulate our electric company, but not our healthcare? Pretty absurd.

 

I do not want the NHS under any circumstance.

 

You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a bigger free market guy than me. I'm the most classic of classical liberals, but what I see is that we need to put a hard floor to catch those at the bottom at a reasonable standard of living. We have plenty of money to do it, we just blow it on stupid shit regularly. And the masses are going to literally revolt if we don't. Nobody is just going to sit around and die, they are going to fight back.

[G650 14297]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Why are they fake jobs? We have a lot of shit to do. Do you realize how much public infrastructure in this country and art and social science and primary research is the result of the WPA and CCC? Calling that fake jobs is like calling the military fake jobs. It's not. It's paid service to the Republic. 

Well, I'm a site contractor, so yes, I do know something about infrastructure. It's the biggest reason I became a GMI advocate. That shit is going to be autopilot in the next 10 years and millions of people are going to be jobless. There will be a Soviet redux if we don't do something proactively. I'd prefer to keep making a lot of money and not be shot in a basement.