Founded By Geniuses, Run By Idiots

[Gravdigr]

(Ammoland.com)- If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but
 not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might 
live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or 
to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might 
live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a 
check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not 
to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that 
was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from 
owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty 
F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a 
nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but 
not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make 
you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is 
run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a 
wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman
 in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head 
searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but 
is run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions 
of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a 
nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his 
teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class 
in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation 
that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more 
government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with 
Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free 
cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses 
but is run by idiots.

If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to 
provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment 
checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was 
diligently sought, but couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation 
that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest 
big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a 
wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government 
forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a 
nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself 
makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a 
nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the media panders to your openly socialist leader while the IRS targets groups with dissenting views— you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your government ‘cracks down’ on legal gun sales to law abiding citizens while secretly supplying illegal guns to Mexican drug cartels— you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your local government (IE: Chicago) outlawed gun ownership for ‘the safety of its citizens’ and now boasts the worst murder rate in the country — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

What a country!

How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America?

This was attributed to an unknown blog and author, please spread it far and wide!

[DanaC]

This was attributed to an unknown and clearly rabidly right wing blog and author, please spread its lies far and wide!

;p

Seriously. Some of those make sense. Some of them don't. Some of them have twisted the way things are so far out of shape that they start to make common sense look like idiocy.

[fargon]

Amen Brother.

[Gravdigr]

Are you familiar with the '...you might be a redneck.' thing that Jeff Foxworthy assaulted us with? Same thing. Tongue in cheek. Humor, y'know?

God it must be exhausting taking everything literal and with no humor.

Oh well, not my loss (outside of the thirty seconds it took to post this, and I already wish I had that 30 secs back).

[Gravdigr]

The main gist here (and I can understand how you might have missed it, it's only said 15 times, after all), is that the United States was founded by geniuses, but is run by idiots.<---16th

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

The main gist here (and I can understand how you might have missed it, it's only said 15 times, after all), is that the United States was founded by geniuses, but is run by idiots.<---16th

Yup. Wouldn't disagree :p

We've had this conversation before Grav. Sometimes, humour is based on a political point/stance. What you posted was based on a political stance. It is using humour to make a political point - or it is using a political point for the purpose of humour. But what it absolutely is not is apolitical. Even if you, the person posting , pretty much are *smiles*

So - don't get bent outta shape if people respond to the political content in political humour.



Just to give an example:

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more 
government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with 
Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free 
cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses 
but is run by idiots.

That right there is anti-welfare, and in my opinion, anti-poor rhetoric. That sort of thing is like a red button for me. That is as inflammatory to me, as an anti-gun ownership stance is for you.

But I didn't make a massive deal about it. I commented on it. Just because something is framed as a joke, does not mean it is automatically exempt from any and all criticism or interaction. If I posted a joke thread that relied for its humour on the idea that gun owners were numpties, I would fully expect that some poeple, probably including your good self, would have some things to say about that. And that....is ok.

[Gravdigr]

I need to stop giving a shit, is what I need to do.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

I need to stop giving a shit, is what I need to do.

Yes!

Seriously Grav - I wasn't having a pop at you when I commented on the post. I thought my use of ';p ' might have got that across. It wasn't something you'd written, and I know you are not really a political type. You see something that makes you laugh and you post. I suspect you didn't even see that the joke was political.

I am a political animal. That's how I see the world. That doesn't mean I don't see the humour. But it does mean I see the politics. You are a humour beast. You see the humour but you often miss the political element that is there at the base of that humour. I cannot not see the politics. So when you post a joke that has its foundation in a very definite and specific political stance - I see that. When I post in resopnse, I am not criticising you - I am engaging with the political element of a political joke. The person who wrote that piece was doing so with a political stance in mind - 100%. They meant it for funny, but funny for people who share their political stance.

The base line of the joke - that the US was founded by geniuses and run by idots - yeah that's funny. How they define that idiocy is political.

Do you want me to never post a response to something that presses a political button for fear of upsetting you?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Trouble with the Welfare State of the Anglo-European description is that it isn't about doing anything to lift anybody on Government Assistance -- consumption of wealth, not producing greater, or a surplus, of wealth -- off of it. Under the Welfare State, what in practice the Poor remain is -- poor.

Not getting out of poorness. Anybody honest actually got rich on the dole? (I'm excluding clever grifters -- and even the cleverest of these aren't producing any economic surplus, are they?)

That's inimical, the not getting out.

And what actor but the state is doing that inimical thing? I think I see who's really anti-poor.

[DanaC]

Trouble with the Welfare State of the Anglo-European description is that it isn't about doing anything to lift anybody on Government Assistance -- consumption of wealth, not producing greater, or a surplus, of wealth -- off of it.

Not true. Benefits for the unemployed in the UK are tied to jobseeker programmes. Those programmes offer assistance in gaining employment and are underscored by stringent sanctions for anyone who does not comply with the requirements to actively seek work. If someone has been unemployed for more than a year they go onto a work programe - this includes mandatory reskilling courses and short period work experience placements to increase employability.

Most benefits though are paid to people in work - as a response to the low wages that many employers pay their workforce. People who work full time at minimum wage and are still too poor to feed their children. That is a disgrace. But withdrawing that support will simply lead to more poverty - and indeed has done where that support has been cut. Calls to institute a legal requirement for a living wage are seen as illiberal and anti-free market. If the government cannot or will not enforce fair wages, then the choice is to accept a tranch ofte population starving (foodbank use for example is through the roof at the moment) or step in to the breach left by private industry.

There is no evidence that removing assistance from the unemployed forces people out of poverty - it just increases the available labour pool and drives down wages, thereby increasing the need for in work benefits and creating a low wage economy.

[Clodfobble]

In my experience most people who complain about the unemployment system have never actually used it.

I collected for a month or two after getting unexpectedly locked out of the Acclaim building and not even receiving paychecks I was owed, and I was surprised to learn what a good system Texas actually has. You do have to prove you're looking for work, and they do check up on the businesses you list, you can't just write shit down. The benefits are structured such that if you find part-time employment, your benefits are reduced not by the amount you're making, but less than that, so that you will end up with considerably more money by working part-time-plus-unemployment rather than just sitting there and collecting benefits. This math is explained very clearly for the academically-challenged, both in paperwork and during the mandatory in-person meetings you must attend at the Work Center before receiving any money. (Admittedly irritating for someone like me to have to take lessons on how to write a resume and interview well, but I recognize that I'm not generally their target audience, and for free money I could suck it up and pretend to be listening.) This Work Center was also where a huge number of free training classes were available at all hours of the day and night. Some of my ex-coworkers took a few of the carpentry/vocational classes just to fill the time, and because hey, wouldn't it be cool if you knew how to fix your own car?

Can't speak for other states, but Texas' unemployment system is awesome and well worth the taxpayer dollars.

[infinite monkey]

I agree. For our unemployment benefits, we have to apply for two jobs a week. When my mom was sick, I made a couple feeble attempts to do so and realized I didn't have the mental energy, or even the time, to do what amounts to a part-time job...if one is serious about job-seeking. I also knew that I was needed elsewhere and didn't really think I'd be able to take a job anyway. So I let it go. I received a fraction of what I essentially had been paying into for years...my 'entitlement.' So, living off all the money I'd saved and wondering what my future will be...but anything can happen, right? Like, maybe I'll wake up one morning and find I've turned into a real live person.

I finally got a 'thanks but no thanks' letter from one of my recent applications, a job with a neighboring city. While my qualifications are indeed IMPRESSIVE, they decided to go another way. Something like that.

Also, one doesn't need ID to check out a library book (referring to paragraph 3 in the OP) at least not in these parts. You walk into the library and request a card. You fill out a piece of paper. You get a card. That's it. You don't need proof of address or state ID or anything.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, it sounds to me like you've got a low-wage economy already, which the gov't is buying with subsidies. This monkeying with the labor market distorts it, and distorted markets are bad markets indeed. We just went through this ourselves with healthcare, and made the problem worse.

Temporarily, I hope.

[DanaC]

We absolutely do have a low wage economy. But I think it would be a mistake to think that our government wants that changed.

It's like with rents. There is a benefit granted to unemployed and low wage households to help with the cost of renting a home. Rents are outrageously expensive. A significant proportion of the governing party are landlords who rent to the unemployed. So, whilst they make all sorts of noises about the cost to the public of high rents - they themselves are directly profiting from those high rents. Rather than intorduce rent controls on the private sector to bring down rents, they instead reduce the benefits of people who rent from the limited social rent sector - that is to say those who rent from council/housing associations - thereby forcing people who have no real option to change their situation to pay the shortfall out of their low wages or unemployment benefits.

They could cut the housing benefit bill drastically, if they introduced sensible rent controls to the private sector. But that would directly affect their own income.

Similarly, the current government is made up of people with strong links to business. It is against their personal interests for wages to go up, despite their claims to want wages to rise.

Instead they push unemployed people to accept zero-hour contract jobs or lose their meagre benefits.

The UK is tilted almost entirely to employers. If your employer lets you go and claims it is your own fault (so, whether you've actually been incompetant, or if there's a personality clash between you and a manager) you are not entitled to any unemployment benefit for 6-12 months. If you walk away from your job (so, if your employer has treaed you badly - and that includes a zero hour contract not giving you any work for months on end) you are intentionally unemployed and barred from claiming benefits for 6-12 months. If you are unhappy with the way your employer treats you, you can no longer seek redress from an employment tribunal without paying fees of several hundred pounds. Consequently, people get trapped in jobs where they are mistreated and underpaid for fear of having no income at all. Employers know this and some (not all) are happy to make use of that situation.

The problem with having very low and very contingent benefits for the unemployed is that people are fearful of losing their jobs and therefore are in a weak position when mistreated. With high unemployment, employers are free to treat workers badly, knowing there is always a ready pool to draw from.

These things drive down working conditions and wages. And that - for the ones who are employers, works very well thankyou.

Meanwhile - the austerity drive seeks to save money by cutting benefits to the unemployed and low waged - when the amount that could be saved is minimal compared to what might be saved if attention was focused on the tax avoidance strategies of big corporations. Businesses are not heavily taxed in this country. And, that's probably a good thing overall. But they should be paying that tax not squirreling away through complicated tax avoidance schemes and tax havens.

Smaller businesses pay their way. They pay their taxes. It's the huge corporations that manage to get away with not doing so. The burden of recovery falls on the shoulders of the very poor and the genuine job creators. Whilst big business gets away with paying minimal tax, reaping hige profits and employing people on exploitative terms.

[DanaC]

Incidentally - there was a time when this country allowed businesses absolutely free reign, with no controls and where there were no benefits to protect the unemployed or low paid. It did not result in higher wages. It resulted in low wages, workhouses and child labour.

When the Uk had a robust benefits system it pushed wages up not down.

I do agree with your point about government effectively subsidising the cost of employment by paying in work benefits. But the answer to that is not to take away the in work benefits but to take away the need for them. The current minimum wage is insufficient for a working family to house, clothe and feed themselves. The cost of living in the UK is very high. And a minimum wage of just under £7 an hour does not meet those costs even if both adults in a house are working full time.

Insisting that businesses pay the full cost of employment, rather than government subsidizing that cost would be a better plan imo. I'd rather we paid money to a few more unemployed people than keep paying the overhead costs for businesses who then pocket large profits at our expense.

If your business cannot afford to pay a fair and proper wage for the people who work there, then your business is not in fact viable. It never was. And if it can afford to pay people a fair and proper wage then it should be doing so. Shave a little of the profit margin - rather than shaving it off the costs of the workforce.

oh - quick point about zero hour contracts - they're not in and of themselves a bad thing. they can work well - I'm on one myself. But many are exploitative - they lock people in with exclusivity clauses that mean they can't take on additional work to fill the gaps left when their employer gives them no work. That means when they are not working and earning, it is the tax payer who pays through working benefits. Again, the tax payer is funding the employers' flexibility.