PDA

View Full Version : Today's Lesson On Irony


Nervous SLF
25th Jan 2014, 00:38
An e-mail sent to one by a friend in the U.S.A.:-

Two Statements that speak volumes:





· Irony 1:


o “We are told NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics." BUT on the other hand…….


o "We are also encouraged TO judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of a few lunatics."





· Irony 2:


o The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing this year the greatest amount of free Meals and Food Stamps ever, to 47 million people as of the most recent figures available in 2013.


o Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because "The animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves."

:ugh::rolleyes:

Fliegenmong
25th Jan 2014, 01:15
47 million!.....I think you being had a lend of!.....I simply can't believe that 47 million Americans need government assistance to eat...doesn't seem to pass the 'reasonablness' test..

11Fan
25th Jan 2014, 01:27
In 2013, the monthly average for individuals on food stamps hit an all-time-high of 47,636,084, according to the USDA, an increase of 1,027,012 over the 46,609,072 individuals who were participating in the program in 2012.

Give or take over a half a million.

Record 20% of Households on Food Stamps in 2013 | CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/record-20-households-food-stamps-2013)

SASless
25th Jan 2014, 01:40
I simply can't believe that 47 million Americans need government assistance to eat

You must recall that Welfare Man has done his dead level best to see that the maximum number of Americans and Illegal Aliens get as much Government Handouts as is possible with the view towards buying Votes at Election time.

"Need" has **** all to do with it!

chuks
25th Jan 2014, 01:45
The thing is, these programs take on a life of their own without regard to the end effect. Instead of backing off to find a way to get people off food stamps, which would of course mean cut-backs on the funding for the program (Are you mad?), there's a drive to expand it; "success" is then defined as "feeding X number of people," rather than seeing the failure of this wealthy nation having so many people who are so poor, or perhaps so feckless, that they need "help" from their government to feed themselves.

We just got shut of a social parasite and his curious family that consisted of his male significant other, his aged mother, and their ancient dog, all tucked up in a small rental flat, living in filth and using government-provided legal aid to continue in that way. This fellow is "disabled" and has been for years now, from another one of those curious injuries that's very difficult to diagnose, the second one of that sort he's suffered soon after he recovered from the first one (meaning that he swung the lead as long as he could get away with it until finally judged fit, when he promptly had another accident). Now he's training at German government expense to "help the disadvantaged," really meaning, "teaching other skivers to work the system."

There's a vast sub-stratum of people in First World countries who need the disadvantaged to provide themselves with well-paid work at taxpayers' expense. Many of those "disadvantaged" would figure out some way to earn a crust on their own if they were pried off that dripping tit that's been popped into their mouth by their "helpers."

SASless
25th Jan 2014, 01:48
http://2012patriot.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/food-stamps-pic.jpg

Fliegenmong
25th Jan 2014, 02:00
OK, seemed to be way too many.....but really 47 mill. ...'working the system' to live in filth and squalor?

Tell me about welfare SASless, our new government are giving out 'marriage guidance payments' to newly weds...:ugh:

chuks
25th Jan 2014, 02:34
I had a chat with a fellow Viet Nam vet, hoping to use him as a subject. He's been recommended to me as one of those "wounded warriors," so that I was interested to know the story.

Well, it really sounded like he'd had a pretty good war. Not as good as mine, but I guess if everyone who wanted to serve out their Army time in Saigon had been able to do so, the place would have been the size of New York City. That said, his war wasn't Khe Sanh or the Ia Drang or anything like that. Not least, he got to eat Navy chow.

No, the real trouble for him started afterwards, and it sounded an awful lot like being a screw-up and dragging himself down with drug abuse until he ended up with serious health problems. Now, though, he was happy to point out his new lap-top, a freebie from the VA, whom he visited quite regularly for help with one thing and another. Then he asked me, "So when was the last time you saw the VA [to get some of these bennies]?" Wrong question!

There I was, no obvious problems, so what possible reason should I have for going to see the VA? To get a hand-out, just because?

I told him that I guess that was about 40 years ago, the first and next to last time I saw an actual person at the VA, when I had to go have an interview to prove I wasn't crazy for wanting to swap going to college to study underwater basket-weaving for flight training. (I fooled them.) Aside from that, I had almost no interest whatsoever in letting this arm of the government "help" me, thanks very much! Screw them and the horse they rode in on!

So I guess he got the idea that I had a very different take on letting my government be there to help me, and a certain frost settled upon our chat.

SASless
25th Jan 2014, 04:04
Watch the Video.....it says it all about the abuse of the Food Stamp Program.



[WATCH] California surfer uses food stamps to buy sushi and avoid work (http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/08/11/watch-california-surfer-uses-food-stamps-to-buy-sushi-and-avoid-work/)

AtomKraft
25th Jan 2014, 05:19
Well, who's the mug?

anotherthing
25th Jan 2014, 07:43
The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing this year the greatest amount of free Meals and Food Stamps ever, to 47 million people as of the most recent figures available in 2013.Why would anyone be proud of this fact?

If, (and I know it isn't the case, but stay with me), these were all genuine claims, then surely it is indicative of a broken society, or at least one that is getting worse?

"We are proud of the fact that more of our citizens than ever require food stamps to enable them to eat..." :ugh:

Rwy in Sight
25th Jan 2014, 08:14
Over the last few months I have this thought about taxation. In my early 20's I was all of more taxation to help the poor and people in bad health.. you know the socialist model applied in IKEA land and copied in other European countries.

In the last month I am so sick of learning of benefit cheaters and all other cases of taxes being poorly used that I am taking a serious dislike of paying taxes since they are used to fund an unfair system. So I am turning politically more towards the right.

Is this a sign because I am getting older, more cynical or is this an excuse for not wanting to pay too much tax?

Rwy in Sight

Airey Belvoir
25th Jan 2014, 08:17
I think it's called maturity and the gaining of common sense.

emergency000
25th Jan 2014, 08:26
common sense

Not so common as the name suggests, unfortunately....

arcniz
25th Jan 2014, 09:05
In 2013, the monthly average for individuals on food stamps hit an all-time-high of 47,636,084, according to the USDA....

Whatever the correct number of "needy" recipients may be gaining possibly important nourishment from the program, to understand the way of it, one must appreciate that the Food Stamp Program likely also supports:

100,000 government employees of various sorts, full-salaried and pensioned,
50,000 farmers, millers, bakers, hog-raisers, etc producing the food,
and likely 30,000 to 60,000 intermediary folk who turn the cranks, push the papers, and clean up the mess.

That's Political Economics, bread-basket-style. Strong-arm pillaging the resources of some people to buy easy pre-determined votes from other ones.

Fantome
25th Jan 2014, 09:16
Not to detract from the valid arguments aired here so far. Insoluble societal
problems on a large and complex scale, well, the media is full of it.

Concerning food assistance for the needy and what is denied certain animals,
would to many not be ironic, as such, but unrelated.

People will draw a long bow to attempt to prove or establish what they fancy is a prime case of irony.

It is perhps ironic that less than 50 per cent of Americans vote in the senate elections, yet maintain a loud and long litany of complaint about poor governance. But it is just as likely a case of hypocrisy.

Though risking being shouted down a tedious pedant, the Urban Dictionary defines -

Irony (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Irony&defid=950347)
One of the most misused words in the entire English language.

There are several types of irony.

Socratic irony - When someone pretends to be naive about a certain subject, and uses his questions about it to point out a flaw in the established belief. This is often used on the TV show South Park, where the children often ask questions about a situation until the folly in a parent's decision becomes clear.

Sarcasm - Understatement, mocking overstatement, or heavy-handed irony (stating the flat opposite of the truth) where both parties are aware of the difference between what's said and what's actually happening.

Situational Irony - The irony that most people think of. A difference between what you expect to happen (in a story, for example) and what actually happens. Rain on your wedding day would be a sort-of example, because a wedding day is generally expected to be a perfect, happy day. The good advice you didn't take, however, would NOT be irony, because that has nothing to do with what is expected and what isn't expected. A traffic jam when you're already late wouldn't be irony either; there's no automatic expectation that traffic will be fine, just because you happen to be late.

Irony of Fate - The concept that the Gods, Fates, etc. are toying with humans for amusement by using irony. Beethoven's loss of hearing is a famous example; one would expect a composer to be able to hear his compositions, but fate denied him that ability.

Tragic (Dramatic) Irony - When the audience knows something that some of the characters don't know in a play/movie/novel/whatever. For example, when the horror flick psycho is in the house and the homeowner just goes in without suspecting anything.

"So, yeah, Alanis was wrong in a lot of her song, but there ARE some examples of irony in there - and a few that are kinda-sorta, but could be better. The old man who buys a lottery ticket is one; it would be a better example if he won, and then died of a heart attack from the shock of winning."

SawMan
25th Jan 2014, 09:17
47 million!.....I think you being had a lend of!.....I simply can't believe that 47 million Americans need government assistance to eat...doesn't seem to pass the 'reasonablness' test..

No, it;s not reasonable- especially in a nation with one of the highest obesity rates. But sadly, it's true. Not that these people actually need the help, it's just that they can fit the criteria (or make it appear that they do) to get the "free lunch" they think they deserve. I could twist my own financial numbers and be eligible too, but I can feed myself so I will, thank you.

Perhaps when they retire seeking their Social Security check, the bill for today's lunch will have become due and there won't be any money left to feed them when they truly can't feed themselves anymore. I for one will not cry over that- in fact I almost wish it would happen sooner so we could get rid of the leeches sooner :eek:

Hunger is a heck of a good motivation to get people off their too-ample butts and make their own way in this world like the rest of us do. When you eliminate motivation nobody will put the needed effort into it and society as a whole will suffer.

500N
25th Jan 2014, 09:37
I think this food program really sums up bad Gov'ts as well
as show how Gov'ts just get bigger and bigger and buy votes.

I think the US is in for a big shock when Obama leaves and
the next person starts pulling down the huge bureacracy
and welfare drip feeds Obama has created.

Going to be plenty of Obama phones on the market in a few years :O

That surfer just sums up a fair few people of this world.

ExXB
25th Jan 2014, 09:39
I have read that many of the recipients of 'food-stamps' were employed but unable to earn a 'living salary' (sometimes despite working two or more jobs).

So the USG and all you tax-payers are subsidising the fast-food industry and similar businesses who don't feel the should pay a living wage.

Rather than paying for this through your taxes, wouldn't you rather pay a little more for your Big Mac, Fries, and Cokie-cola?

Ever penny more that employed workers earn will be returned to the Economy a few times over.

beaufort1
25th Jan 2014, 09:45
Genuine question.

Is there not a minimum wage in the US?:)

Checkboard
25th Jan 2014, 11:07
Wiki answer:

As of July 2009, the federal government mandates a nationwide minimum wage level of $7.25 per hour, while some states and municipalities have set minimum wage levels higher than the federal level, with the highest state minimum wage being $9.32 per hour in Washington as of 2013.

Among those paid by the hour in 2012, 1.6 million were reported as earning exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage. About 2.0 million were reported as earning wages below the minimum. Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 4.7 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

Matari
25th Jan 2014, 11:58
There are also state and local minimum wage laws. Where those laws conflict with the Federal minimum wage, the higher wage prevails.

Milton Friedman had a few choice things to say about minimum wage laws, but I suppose that's for another thread.

SASless
25th Jan 2014, 13:40
Liberal Economics.....how ever do they manage to pay their own bills?

Welfare Man's rant about how successful businesses in the Private Sector "did not build that" is indicative of how Liberals see reality.

Welfare Man tells us it is Government that provides for success in the private sector....as Government builds roads, bridges, canals, airports, and all manner of infrastructure.

The small flaw in his thinking is Government doesn't build a damn thing.....nothing.

When Government builds a Highway.....it contracts the work to privately owned companies who buy the materials from other private companies, who buy their equipment from other private companies, all who hire non-government labor.

The Government PAYS for the Construction Project by the expenditure of Tax Money.....taken from the Private Sector to begin with and filtered down through the Government Bureaucracy.

If there were not successful Private Sector companies....the Government could not do squat in building roads., bridges, and the like.

Ever seen a Government Road Crew in action?

They cannot patch pot holes....much less build something!

We have spent over 20 Trillion Dollars on the War on Poverty since it was kicked off by LBJ in the 1960's....due to the Republicans supporting his Civil Rights Program and the associated War on Poverty.

Yet today....we have a Democrat Administration which has increased the Poverty rolls by tens of millions of Americans.....and they brag about it!

Where did that money go....what did it buy....what did it accomplish?

It damn sure did not cure Poverty and by any measure today....has added to the problem.

You reckon if we had spent that 20 Trillion Dollars on efforts to create and maintain full employment and skipped over all the Welfare and Social Justice silliness that we would be much better off today?

Nothing lifts folks up out of poverty than having good, steady, well paying jobs.

Living off government handouts only maintains your living in Poverty as you never....ever.....get ahead in Life.

Fantome
25th Jan 2014, 16:52
probably 99 per cent on the money there fella.

But what happens if welfare is abolished?

and the most timeless question of all - how to create better societies.

don't just say the world is going to the dogs everywhere, that we have a civilisation in decline and decay. Many there are who would say that that is a given, but stating it ad nauseam does nothing at all to advance the critical debate that has occupied the minds of Marxists, Keynesians and others for many many years.

It is stating the obvious to say that the despair that comes from being unable to conceive of just and equitable solutions to the world's greatest maladies is the key concern of moral philosophers and intellectuals such as Peter Singer.

alisoncc
25th Jan 2014, 22:31
The real issue isn't the recpients of the governments largess, it's the industry that has grown up in providing same. Many years ago I did a spell as the locum accountant for a major AIDS charity. Remember a discussion relating to the finding of a cure - a senior board member commented, slightly tongue-in-cheek, imagine the thousands who would be out of work if they did. Same applies.

There is no motivation for those providing welfare to reduce their efforts, quite the opposite, they are motivated to grow the "business". Fix that and there might be some hope in reducing the costs.

Ogre
26th Jan 2014, 01:08
It always amazes me how the strongest advocates for a freely available benefits scheme (which should be designed to support those in times of trouble who cannot support themselves) completely fail to understand that the human species contains a number of those who basically want something for nothing.
When these schemes were first put in place, the average citizen had a degree of pride that would not readily accept "charity". Unfortunately that willingness to soldier on appears to have been bred out of people.

Matari
26th Jan 2014, 03:14
Remember a discussion relating to the finding of a cure - a senior board member commented, slightly tongue-in-cheek, imagine the thousands who would be out of work if they did. Same applies.

The history of the eradication of polio says otherwise.

llondel
26th Jan 2014, 03:30
The history of the eradication of polio says otherwise.

And smallpox before it. The disease eradication teams have a steady stream of targets on which to focus, and should a cure/vaccine for AIDS be found, they'd have another one to add to their portfolio. However, all the researchers who discover the cure, and charity people who raise the funds, would suddenly find themselves out of work. Ultimately they'd all be re-employed on whatever society thought was the next priority, but there would be a gap as momentum built up.

The ones I don't trust are all those associated with the child protection scam, including the ones that pay millions to their senior executives and are always getting grants from the government to do things and producing hyped-up headlines to justify their existence. They have a clear incentive to find new and creative ways to define abuse.

UniFoxOs
26th Jan 2014, 08:34
And, irrespective of the employment side, most of these support workers are sad, incapable, dependent types who NEED somebody that they can help in order to feed their need to feel that they are some use to society, and to be able to have a reasonable gripe against society in general.

They are probably not capable of or interested in doing any "productive" job like making something useful to other people.

Fantome
26th Jan 2014, 09:30
In Australia Howard brought in welfare for 'middle classes'. Thereby fostering the nanny state moreso.

If you were an all powerful president, how would you manage the problem?

Don't say "let 'em starve". In 1984 Orwell foresaw a world populated with regimented automatons.

Maybe that is, in a way, the way the mandarins have been gearing up. Their planning is long long term, of course. Are they waiting for the western world to implode?

500N
26th Jan 2014, 09:40
Re Polio and SmallPox, they were eradicated before the syndrome
of "can't let the mission succeed because that will put us out of a job"
had taken hold in the mind set of the do gooders, although at that
stage I wouldn't have called them do gooders.

I refer to Bill Gates and hi foundation. Why did he virtually set up
a separate infrastructure to the UN et al. Probably because he doens't
lie the bureaucratic BS and wastage that goes on.

I agree with what everyone else has put, some people NEED someone
else to help because it is the only way they can feel worthy and contribute :rolleyes:

SawMan
26th Jan 2014, 11:46
Anyone who expects any part of a government to work efficiently is either blind or a fool, yet there are some things which we need a government to do for society as a whole. A few of those things are done fairly well but most are not. The things governments do not do well should be handed over to a more efficient private sector who has to work hard or fail- something no government is subject to.

The concept of a minimum wage is ludicrous. All it does is ensure that there will also be a minimum price for goods which will correlate closely to it. In practical terms that means that it can never keep up with the prices no matter how much or how often you raise it. It's only a race to bigger numbers where those who make a profit on percentages win and everyone else loses. Taxes and loan interests are figured on percentages, aren't they? See where the money goes and who truly profits from a minimum wage and it will all become clear to you :uhoh:

Part of the free-enterprise system is the concept of you getting only what you earn with whoever you are working for making a profit on your efforts too. Where much has gone astray is that the levels above the workers who produce the profits have not produced the profits needed to justify their own jobs except by the process of taking more earnings from the workers than they should. Were that higher-level waste eliminated there would be higher wages for the workers and lower prices for all. It would imply that there would be many who become unemployed but they weren't producing anything anyway so why care about them? Let them find a job they can do to produce some profit, same as the rest of us have to do.

All I want is what I can earn but allow me to have my fair share of it. Don't force me to waste it on inefficient government, unnecessary levels of non-productive management, and excessively greedy investors who can [email protected] a company and then walk away without getting hurt when that company later fails. I produce a good profit because I work hard and with diligence (it's my nature) but I see barely any more earnings than the many who don't. It is frustrating to see so many around me who simply reduce their efforts to a level where they can get the freebies from the government actually doing better in life than I do. Even more frustrating is to see the many who are truly in need and unable to help themselves not getting what they need because there's nothing left after wasting so much of it on those without a need.

If you're going to rob me, please do it to my face with a gun so that I can shoot back if I choose to. Or don't you have enough integrity to do things the right way? That's what I thought. Even if there's little I can do about it, I can see who and what you really are :suspect: And I don't care what happens to your ilk- I'm pulling for those of us whose lives are worth it, and not a just waste of our limited supply of planetary oxygen :ok:

El Grifo
26th Jan 2014, 12:09
Even if there's little I can do about it, I can see who and what you really are And I don't care what happens to your ilk- I'm pulling for those of us whose lives are worth it, and not a just waste of our limited supply of planetary oxygen

Ole Adolf could have used guys like you when planning "The Final Solution"´

El G.

Sunnyjohn
26th Jan 2014, 16:03
Wiki:
In the United States workers are generally entitled to be paid no less than the statutory minimum wage. As of July 2009, the federal government mandates a nationwide minimum wage level of $7.25 per hour, while some states and municipalities have set minimum wage levels higher than the federal level, with the highest state minimum wage being $9.32 per hour in Washington as of 2013.
Note, however, that the phrase Wiki use here is 'generally entitled to'. If anyone from across the Atlantic (sorry, I hate the phrase 'across the pond') can enlighten us further, I would be interested.

SASless
26th Jan 2014, 16:19
But what happens if welfare is abolished?

No one is suggesting "Welfare" be abolished.....what we do endorse is not being "facilitators" or "enablers".

No one denies there shall always be those who need a hand up.....the problem is today it has become a hand out and that is the failure of the anti-poverty war.

If work was a requirement for "Welfare" and "Unemployment"....even if it added some cost to the Government in the distribution of that financial support....we would all greatly benefit from that.

If one is genuinely unable to work for physical or mental reasons....then of course they should be taken care of by society.

When the Welfare Payment matches or exceeds the working wage then we have the problem of those who could work....choose not to and just live off the largesse of others.

Why does the Government pay Women for Illegitimate Children in the form of Aid For Dependent Children......there are cases of Women having multiple children only so as to qualify for that AFDC money. That is not good for the Children or anyone else. Yet, that money is a lure to those that see it as way to make a living without working.

Bringing another 12-30 Million non-English Speaking, low skill workers into the Country darn sure is not going to help things but yet that is exactly what both Political Party Leaderships are trying to do....against the will of the People.

Our Government is too big....out of control....and setting us up for a catastrophic failure economically and fiscally.

Fantome
26th Jan 2014, 16:39
the more you have this conversation with people who are aware, concerned and different to the multitude of sheep, the more you come to the opinion that there is no solution in sight. It cannot be only the despondent who see a civilisation in decline.

Ogre
26th Jan 2014, 21:42
Fantome

I agree, however as the aware and concerned are sevely outnumbered by the sheep, they are voices in the wilderness, or chicken little who can plainly see the sky is falling..

chuks
27th Jan 2014, 07:05
I once had a sort of girlfriend who very much liked to "party." We were out and about once with a red-headed friend of hers who also had been part of the party scene when they were both young and care-free.

What tumbled out, once alcohol had loosened their tongues, was a tale of a lifestyle funded by, yes, ADC (Aid to Dependent Children), including people who chose to have yet more children to get yet more "free money!" There was nothing in that of using the money to better their lives, no; it was just money for drugs and entry to the discotheques, basically.

Now, I can see being feckless, but not when children are involved. For those two, though, it was happy memories of visiting this or that office to tell a tale that ticked the right boxes, when then the ADC money flowed, until one day it didn't. Then there was a real problem, so that they had to stop partying and go to work with few qualifications and a couple of brats tugging at their skirts, since the (yet more feckless) baby daddies were long gone.

El Grifo
27th Jan 2014, 08:03
No one is suggesting "Welfare" be abolished.....what we do endorse is not being "facilitators" or "enablers".

I always suspected you to be part of a "we" and it would not be hard to imagine who is in your little group.

Was it just a slip the keyboard, or perhaps you would like to enlighten us "other Ppruners" just who the "we" are :ok:

El G.

Fantome
27th Jan 2014, 08:48
Sounds like a call to step into the box SAS?

500N
27th Jan 2014, 09:08
"When the Welfare Payment matches or exceeds the working wage then we have the problem of those who could work....choose not to and just live off the largesse of others."

We now have that problem in Aus.

Why go to work in a low paid job when you get more for staying at home
and sitting around.

teeteringhead
27th Jan 2014, 09:18
I'm surprised no-one has commented on the proportion of the population that 47 million represents.

I make it a staggering 15% :eek::eek:

Whether it's needed (or not) or well or badly administered is surely beside the point when so much of the country is in receipt of such a basic benefit. :confused:

MagnusP
27th Jan 2014, 09:20
We now have that problem in Aus.

It's becoming endemic in the UK, too. My jaw hit the floor when a single mother of two was bleating on TV that she'd lose some of her £625 A WEEK benefits - or roughly twice the takehome pay of a newly qualified FO on some domestic airlines.

500N
27th Jan 2014, 09:24
A young lady here in Aus, I think on the border between Victoria and NSW
had I think 5 kids to 3 fathers and got $2500 a fortnight for something like that.

Plus of course housing assistance et al.

Up north of Aus, unless you get a well paid job in the mines,
it is better to be on welfare (work for the dole) than work.
Oh, and they don't work for the dole !!!

It seems in most society's, a whole sub culture exists of living off the
Gov't while enjoying life.

alisoncc
27th Jan 2014, 09:36
500N, during the Howard years in Australia it was standard practice for anyone Centrelink deemed "unemployable" to be actively assisted into getting on to a Disability Support Pension. This was so they could keep the published unemployment rate down. Centrelink is Australia's benefits agency.

I speak from personal experience, and have the paperwork to prove it. So lets not just blame the recipents, as in our case even "right" wing governments had a part to play in the current mess. Politicians only seek to govern for the short term - ie. until the next election.

500N
27th Jan 2014, 09:41
Alison

Don't worry, I don't just blame the recipients, I know that Gov'ts of both sides play games with the numbers via Centre link.

I might be "right" but I'm not blind :O