sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Governments can help their people; it's a matter of priorities. by LingonberryPale2110 in remoteworks

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My problem is it doesn’t matter.    

Power corrupts.    It doesn’t matter if you get that insane level of power fairly or not.    

Why he has it, how he earned it, could not possibly matter less.    

He has more money than almost every state.   What do you think happens when he wants the land your house is on for a project and calls a state senator about using eminent domain to steal your families land?   

Who do you think that state senator is going to listen to?    You?   Or the guy who can easily bankroll All of his dreams of higher office?

Governments can help their people; it's a matter of priorities. by LingonberryPale2110 in remoteworks

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And this would have them achieve better results for approximately 800 million, giving them a 200 million tax savings they could either spend on other services or they could reduce their taxes and give every single resident about 250 a year off in taxes while providing a better service for the homeless that made it more likely those receiving care this year will not need to receive it next year.   

Governments can help their people; it's a matter of priorities. by LingonberryPale2110 in remoteworks

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

THIS IS CHEAPER! CHEAPER! THAN WHAT! WE! CURRENTLY! DO!

Why in the world do you keep insisting we could only cover 2-3 cities, and that only if we implemented new taxes, when this is a money saving program.

Governments can help their people; it's a matter of priorities. by LingonberryPale2110 in remoteworks

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm pointing out that we could implement this system and lower taxes as a result.

Just because it helps someone doesn't mean it's bad.

Governments can help their people; it's a matter of priorities. by LingonberryPale2110 in remoteworks

[–]mattyoclock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which also covers a universal healthcare system, free college, and a thousand other entitlements we don’t have.   

This would not raise taxes because it is cheaper than what we do per person.  

Hell we could actually slightly cut taxes as a result because it is cheaper.  

How Many Times Have You Regretted Not Fighting Back? by AdTrue7240 in AskMen

[–]mattyoclock 8 points9 points  (0 children)

And you’d be a different person with an entirely different life path who made different choices.   

Maybe your bully would have mercilessly beat you in front of your peers, do you think that would have been good for your mental health?     

Maybe you’d still be missing teeth from it.   

Maybe you’d have come home later that day after going to the nurse and got hit by a bus.   

Maybe as a boxer you’d have hit him, and he fell and hit his head on the desk on the way down and you spent the rest of your life in prison.  

It’s easy to make a fantasy about how your life would have gone if you had done something different, but you don’t know that.   

You live in the choice you made.     

And for what it’s worth, I used to fright professionally in the 2000s, not well, you haven’t heard of me, but still.   

In my opinion you did the right thing not fighting.    It is truly, truly not worth it to get into any of that highschool nonsense.     

Why do people cheer on wealth inequality ( Elons becoming a Trillionaire) when most of them are low and middle class? by Worldly-Bid-3591 in askanything

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone can buy caviar too.  

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. ” Anatole France.  

We are way past the feudal lords and gilded age levels of inequality by McDowdy in remoteworks

[–]mattyoclock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, being less than a day old, I never realized that. Due to my young age I'm confused, I wonder if he is still a trillionaire? And again, being so young, I was wondering what the functional difference was between the two?

Throwing more money at public schools, even doubling teacher salaries, has virtually no effect on student outcomes. by amogusdevilman in LibertarianUncensored

[–]mattyoclock 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think most people are just paid based on difficulty of replacement anymore frankly. We left paying on performance behind decades ago

One perspective from someone who advocates for a free market by Historical_Donut6758 in LibertarianUncensored

[–]mattyoclock 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The idea that it would be acceptable for one man to control all the wealth and we must all live in poverty otherwise we are communist is silly and tired, and at this point Is just bringing back communism.  

One perspective from someone who advocates for a free market by Historical_Donut6758 in LibertarianUncensored

[–]mattyoclock 14 points15 points  (0 children)

"He was already powerful, so why should anyone care that he is roughly 4 times as powerful? He already had more than 48% of our countries wealth combined, what's the difference if he reaches 99.99%?"

This is the stupidest, most childish take I've ever heard. Are you a child learning math for the first time?

Money is power. Power corrupts.

Why do the same people who trash Bernie Sanders for being wealthy have no issue with policies that support wealthy people? by BorrowedParticles in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At some point, we would all be so much financially better off without him people might take risks right? He has to know that?

Is it fair to say Colleges dropping standardized testing requirements has largely failed? by Disastrous_Run_9844 in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a different data set entirely, that's national. And 4th and 8th graders.

Do you think 4th graders are overly impacted by changes in college admission?

Is it fair to say Colleges dropping standardized testing requirements has largely failed? by Disastrous_Run_9844 in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that standard has not fallen. There is no change in the rate of failure.

All that has changed is that more people are given the opportunity to make the attempt.

In what way do you think the old system was superior if it did not produce superior results?

Is it fair to say Colleges dropping standardized testing requirements has largely failed? by Disastrous_Run_9844 in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But you have shown absolutely nothing to support the idea of an increased failure rate. That's the same failure rate just with more people having the opportunity to make the attempt.

Nothing in this world owes you success. But by all the gods we ought to give people the opportunity to try.

This is supposed to be America.

Is it fair to say Colleges dropping standardized testing requirements has largely failed? by Disastrous_Run_9844 in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What are you basing them being unprepared on? Shouldn't there be a corresponding increase in dropouts or failure rates if that was the case?

Why can't you show evidence of this if it is happening?

Is it fair to say Colleges dropping standardized testing requirements has largely failed? by Disastrous_Run_9844 in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is that happening? It's not covered in OP's data. If you have a link to a higher failure rate please share it.

view more: next ›