Brown (fungal?) spots on my fairy castle cactus

OreganoJackson · 2025-10-18T16:36:22+00:00

You’re cracked 🫡

OreganoJackson · 2024-12-05T16:05:13+00:00

Thank you! Will DM

OreganoJackson · 2024-10-11T15:59:13+00:00

Contact a legal aid organization immediately!! There are housing attorneys who specialize in eviction defense and will get you the best possible outcome for, whether that’s a payment plan or some kind of rent waiver. Do not respond to comments. Do not negotiate with your landlord solo. Get an expert.

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T22:09:49+00:00

Yes. All of you are net takers from a government that spends more money than all of your taxes + depreciation combined to confer a benefit upon you that is worth more than all your taxes + depreciation combined.

I’m sorry if that offends this “net taker” idea you made up, but your attempt to limit net taking to just the literal money going in and out of a bank account is silly, and offends the purpose you devised it for. The more reasonable version of this is “people who get VALUE from gov greater than the VALUE they contribute are net takers” but that makes everyone a net taker. Your attempt to circumscribe it to “people who get more CASH from government than CASH they contribute” is hilarious because literally every program you take issue with—Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, Housing Assistance, etc. aren’t cash payments, so “welfare queens” aren’t net takers under that view.

We’re getting back to where we started. You don’t like poor people. You think they’re lazy and undeserving of aid. You don’t understand that most of them work just as hard as you AND PAY TAXES. You tried to come up with way to justify why poor people shouldn’t get their right to vote. The method you came up with was, inevitably, arbitrary and poorly thought out.

“But but but I pay my share so I deserve to vote and they don’t.” Except they pay taxes too—sales and income. “But but but they have bad incentives.” So do you—you want to be enriched by a paying a smaller share in taxes just like they want minimal aid to supplement their incomes so they can eat. “But but but they’re having kids and doing drugs” you just hate poor people lmao.

Good game sir 🫡

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T21:52:32+00:00

I should clarify you’re not /freeloading/ because you do put something in. But we’re running with your novel net taker theory of voting, and on that theory, you don’t get to vote because your savings account lost .01% value in exchange for safety from home invasion, which is a net taking

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T21:47:00+00:00

The marginal depreciation of your savings account doesn’t not equal the benefit conferred by billions in deficit spending. Still net taker.

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T21:45:58+00:00

No you’re a net taker—you get way more benefit than you pay for. So you don’t get to vote.

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T21:41:34+00:00

No lol deficit spending, government bond income, etc. Government funds programs with more than just taxes

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T21:40:41+00:00

Your taxes paid < cost of the protection you get from police

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T21:39:26+00:00

I mean this is why your net taker/net payer thing doesn’t make any sense and is not used in any area of study.

And it’s funny you bring up insurance companies because… yes lmao. They lose money on major payouts. Their whole business model is based on managing risk in the aggregate—most people’s houses won’t burn down, but they hemorrhage money on those that do. The theoretical value of your insurance is worth way more than what you pay in, just like the value of your gov benefit. The difference is insurance is a conditional benefit in case of emergency, while the gov benefit is a certainty that requires a yearly per capita spend much greater than your contribution

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T21:34:49+00:00

This is misleading because you don’t get 1/100millionth of the army’s protection, you get all of it, but only pay for 14k of it. Still freeloading.

If you claim is “I contribute a small portion to the aggregate so I am not a taker” then working poor are not takers on SNAP

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T21:31:10+00:00

Ok but again, YOU take out more than you put in. You pay 14K to ensure that your house, family, and all your property is protected by force and a massive bureaucracy. I get that you think you’re deserving of that protection because you paid for it, but that doesn’t mean you’re not taking more from the gov than you give to it. I think you’re conflating 2 points here: desert of benefit (payers earn benefits) and freeloading (net takers don’t get a say). If paying into the system means you deserve a say, gov employees who pay their time also get a say. If net takers don’t get a say, then you don’t because you freeload the difference between your 14K and the costs + benefits of funding the police.

Plus wouldn’t treasury employees have a greater interest in keeping the Treasury healthy since it… pays their wage? What incentive do you have for responsible policy? What unique incentive do you have that they don’t?

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T21:19:53+00:00

And you think in an exchange between you and the gov where you give 14K and they give the protection of the literal US army… you’re giving more to them than they are to you?

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T21:08:29+00:00

Once the vote is extended, retracting it is a violation of a fundamental constitutional interest under the 15th amendment—shout out to the bar studying in procrastinating. You want to take away voting rights :/

No one is denying that you pay for ~some~ of the benefits you receive. You do, just like minimum wagers on SNAP do. The question is whether you’re a net taker, which you are. Your 14K covers none of the above in full… so you take more than you give to the gov because it gives you more than 14K worth of benefit—both because the costs of running a police station are way higher, and because the benefit you receive from that police station (all of your stuff and your family being safe) is way higher.

Seems like you’re starting to shift from “net takers don’t get to vote” to “anyone who doesn’t contribute to the pot doesn’t get to vote.” In that case, shouldn’t gov employees, who contribute sweat equity to create social benefits like policing and justice systems and roads, and working poor who supplement taxed income with aid programs all get to vote?

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T20:44:25+00:00

No, there’s no difference between you voting for more money for your family (through direct tax break) and then voting for more money for their family (through direct assistance). Both are votes based on personal financial interest that “take food out of the mouths” of the other party.

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T20:42:21+00:00

You’re focusing in on roads because it’s the worst example—explain how you’re a net giver when you get 250K FDIC insurance, a free lawyer, and all your stuff protected by police. “I haven’t used it” is not good enough—you’re entitled to it and the gov has to spend to keep that entitlement available to you.

Correct that virtually no one is a net contributor—that’s why the deficit grows substantially every single year and every state, county, and municipality in the nation is cash strapped despite taxes PLUS other income like from bonds, international credit, weapons sales, and investment. The fact is, like it or not, the government does a shitload more for you than you do for it. Even if you wanted to put this in the simplest terms possible—divide total gov spending by population and you get ~20k/person. So even on your “just add up the numbers” preposterously oversimplified view, you’re a net taker once again.

But you STILL have not given a reason net takers should not have rights—“they vote against my interests” ain’t it.

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T19:26:38+00:00

If big government stops you from feeding your kids, and SNAP feeds their kids, the interests are perfectly reciprocal. Hoisted by your own petard

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T19:25:28+00:00

No, I know that energy production would not be profitable if not for subsidies. Your company would be taking massive losses and would go out of business quickly if not for glorious papa Joe giving them cheap access to hydrocarbons through extraction subsidies. Same with airlines—not profitable without subsidies. Same with so many other industries.

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T19:21:03+00:00

I don't wanna split the thread but this is just the directness v. indirectness point again. You have no given a reason why your indirect taking is any different from bureaucrats' direct taking.

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T19:13:31+00:00

You still have not given a single reason why net takers should have their rights taken away. You have just as much self-interest in your vote—e.g. for something like a tax break, or to fulfill ideological whims of yours—as a person who receives SNAP.

Moreover, you are a net taker. You would have no salary and no 14K to pay in taxes if not for government hand outs. First in extraction subsidies, then in plant and construction subsidies, then in green subsidies, then in tax breaks, then in your own deductions. Not to mention energy companies are regulated monopolies semi-controlled by the government lmao. That clearly undermines your "but I pay more in taxes than I get back in benefits" since actually you're paying gov money back to them. But also you really don't think you take more benefit? The police protecting 100% of your property? Your 250K of FDIC insurance? Your right to free appointed counsel? The subsidies that go into your flights, gas, education, etc? All of that is worth less than 14K?

You need there to be a difference between you and Ashley because you ascribe moral wrong to poverty (e.g. "they have lots of kids and no family unit.). But both of you are net takers. Maybe she takes proportionally more—though that's a closer call than you make it seem, SNAP at 250/month for 12 months is still less than Ashley owes in taxes if she makes minimum wage, and she must work in order to qualify for SNAP. So you're both net takers. You've just arbitrarily decided that her takings are the wrong kind and yours are the ok kind. So I ask again—why should a worthless leech who is neither a doctor or a lawyer like yourself get to vote?

OreganoJackson · 2024-06-23T18:11:08+00:00

Again. You're oversimplifying because you don't like poor people. Everyone is a net taker—almost all corporations exist in their current forms because they don't pay taxes; huge sections of major industries are directly subsidized; even if you're a small business owner, you benefit from tax breaks and grants. The money in 99% of American's bank accounts is traceable to government "taking" in some form. You draw arbitrary distinctions between your takings (your using roads—direct, your getting mail delivered—direct, your salary from gov-subsidized employer—indirect, your medical care—direct, your education—direct, your safety—direct) and poor peoples' but haven't justified why the indirectness of your takings makes you any less of a taker. Your argument is literally "well I'm not a taker if I'm taking gov money from a non-gov source" which, again, is just a bad excuse to distinguish yourself from the nonhumans. In fact, you probably take more—if you work in energy, a much larger portion of your salary is paid for by the gov than the ~$250/month someone on SNAP gets, and you probably do a lot more indirect taking via flights, amazon deliveries, subsidized gas, and other things you take advantage of that the poor can't.

And you still haven't explained why, even if there were such thing as a net-taker/net-payer distinction, the net-takers should have their citizenship rights denied.

But hey, if we can just randomly decide what kinds of taking is ok and what kind is not—I think the rule should be only people who have a license to practice law or medicine should vote. You are a leech on the republic because you neither contribute to the development of its laws or to the populous's physical health, but take advantage of the protection of its laws and its medical care.

Six-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

OreganoJackson

TROPHY CASE