Frontline did a segment a couple years ago on just how clueless the avg professional is about this stuff. Like the NYT writer making the doc admittedly had no clue himself. Brains+education and absolutely no idea about any of this stuff.


My brother and mother (before she retired) have always been good savers and also investors, TERRIBLE investors. I start talking Vanguard and expense ratios and dollar cost averaging their eyes glaze over in about 30 seconds. My mom would rather pay a guy $5K a year to put her in Magellan fund or w/e the ****. It's maddening.

Nice, that's nice.

Today this made me think of that episode of 'Good Times' when they discover the elderly neighbor is eating dog food because they find cans in her garbage but she didn't have a dog. You don't see that on TV anymore.

Dog food in a can is expensive. Way cheaper human food options.

I've had the damn Good Times theme stuck in my head since we discussed it in the Things that shouldn't piss you off but do - thread.

Ive done this too. its totally sick that they would cut this program. just legit mindbottling. deplorable is too good a word for these ppl.

So wife and I are going to be moving to IA soon. This week, I realized where we're moving to is in the district represented by Steve King.

Positive: 2 more votes against him in 2018
Negative: I'm switching from living in one of the more liberal areas in WI to living in an area that is represented by a white supremacist.

Managing to offend the british on St. Patrick's Day by accusing them of being the fiends who "tapped Trump's wires" for Obama is truly an accomplishment. It's like everything's a giant fever dream.

When you said offend on St Patrick's day I assumed he'd accused the English of genocide vs the Irish. Silly me since that had nothing to do with Trump and everything has to always be about Trump.

Well, Trump thinks genocide is "bad," and that "that's very bad."

So, you know, break out the Nobel Peace Prize polish.

Frankly, he's more deserving than Barry so far.

But there would be no market or desire to provide this service if the federal government didn't force it?

I feel like the "Don't want federal funding = you are an inhumane deplorable who wants it banned" is sort of a flawed argument/line of thinking


Not trying to defend the regime just argue against the notion that a "Great service that's invaluable to society" wouldn't be voluntarily financed without government. It's not like a fire department.

Jesus ****ing christ

Am I misreading that or does Thayer think the government is forcing impoverished seniors to take food deliveries?

Which part of Iowa Meb?

I have no comprehension at all of what you're trying to say.

Are you trying to say there is no market for charity meals, except that the government "forces it" therefore there is a fake market that shouldn't be there?

Or are you trying to say that there IS a market for charity meals, therefore the government doesn't need to "force it" because THE MARKET would take care of free food all on its own anyway? And therefore that wanting to cut all government funding of charity meals is not morally bad because they will inevitably be provided by THE MARKET anyway?

Or are you trying to say that getting rid of good things is fine because if they're good, of course they will be privately financed anyway?

Or something else?

Are YOU saying that you wouldn't HELP provide these SERVICES unless everyone else was forced to at a progressive rate?

I actually drive around with packages of food, water, personal items, wet naps, and blankets in my car, and drop them with homeless people in Los Angeles. This is because my girlfriend started doing it, and I thought it was awesome. So no.

That said, the fact that the above is an EXTREME OUTLIER IN AMERICA seems relevant to the point you may or may not be trying to make, which no one can understand because you expressed it incompetently. Your scorn, though, was competently expressed. It was just dumb.

EDIT: And for that matter I was an unpaid volunteer lobbyist and strategist for Oregon Food Bank for an entire year, so again, no.

Yes bro, it's painfully obvious that human nature means Meals on Wheels is less effective without FORCED FUNDING AT GUNPOINT THEFT

If only there was some way we could agree to all give the same marginal percent, so that there's no incentive to gain an advantage through some warped version of the prisoners dilemma

Goddammit

For example I feel that if Planned Parenthood and all forms of abortion services were defunded federally we'd see even MORE investments and donations into that market, leading to a better industry and better overall social utility and anxiety in communities.

We agreed that there's a cost to keeping the elderly and disabled all isolated and starving

Leaving it 100% up to donations isn't as effective at addressing that cost, in a similar way that it doesn't work to just hope everybody refrains from driving aggressively so that we can end freeway traffic jams

You feel things that have no basis in reality and history

Today on: SE Politics explains to Thayer how basic human constructs work and produce better results for everybody even though Thayer won't listen!