Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It takes 12+ hour days, 7 days a week, for 10 years to obtain what I have.. But I've adopted two children, I have a family, I have responsibilities to take care of them, not pass the cost onto society. Thats what a responsible citizen does..
You think airlines would fly without adaquate insurance knowing that when a plane goes down, not if, they would go out of business? Thats just a foolish assertion. It costs hundreds of millions to open up an airline, adaquate insurance isnt expensive. If it was, you wouldnt have private pilots flying around in planes all over the country.
The question isnt if it should be regulated, the question is by whom? The Supreme Court ruled numerous years ago that this should be regulated by the states.. But many everything else in this nation, the federal government wanted to control this, along with everything else you do. Sorry but many regulations you pretend in your OP to want to be "done away with", are simply regulated on the wrong level of government..
Well you are the one talking extremes, pretending that Republicans want all regulations done away with. Claiming this is as ridiculous as my 10mph argument.
I think that without government regulation, some manufacturers or airlines would take the risk, monetarily(See "Ford Pinto").
As far as speed limits are concerned, the federal government supplied the funds to build the majority of the freeways. They should have some say.
As far as business regulations are concerned, I have heard repeatedly from most Republicans that business should be given a free hand. With you, it seems, the question is more of a contemporary one, which is, how much of a free hand. That has yet to be established, I suppose.
Georgiafrog
If favoring a liberal view is your cup of tea then I wish you the best. Here are my comments/opinions;
Quote:
it has caused me to begin to see the conservative notion of lower/middle class upward mobility to be an illusion.
I feel you have quit trying, why? and when you say conservative, are speaking of people who are conservative or the political parties who claim conservatism?
Quote:
the poor, without some sort of leveller of the playing field, will continue to struggle.
isn't the struggle the cause of value in the attained? I struggle but I am not poor and I place great value on items and goals attained.
Quote:
I am not advocating a socialist state that monitors the very thoughts and movements of it's people, or anything close, but it seems that lately, moderation is in order.
to whom would moneradtion be applied too? It seems our own government is the corperation that requires moderation. Our government is, at this time, regulating itself to its own advantage yet we still feel it is capable of regulating all successful businesses?
I see your point, to some degree I can agree with it.
If there isn't any stuggle then there is no value.
In my opinion, adding a leveler is nothing more than a nice way to say cheat. No one wants the rich to cheat and doing so is nothing less than that!
The playing field will never be level as long as someone is trying to get one-up on someone else.
I hope your favoring of liberal views helps you to find the peace of mind you seek.
Thanks for the post, it was curious.
Your edited post is better, I think. My argument is that not all of those in need of some assistance in equality need the help because they are lazy or inept.
Agreed, some are mentally ill, some are uneducated, some suffer from physical ailments etc. But 40+ % of americans are collecting some sort of welfare now. If you add in SS, (yes, its also welfare), this probably puts the percentage over 50%.. Dont even begin to tell me that 50%+ of society on welfare is acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
Some actually need the help because of the way the system works.
I believe the system works the way it does because so many demand help. If you get 50% of the population out of the way, its no wonder those left trying to succeed find it easier to get ahead.
Lets explain it this way
You have 100 fish in a lake.. All trying to fend for food.. Let someone come along and take 50 of them home and feed them daily, then the other 50 obtain twice as much food because there was adaquate supply of food in the lake to feed all 100.. These 50 fish obviously become the big fish in the lake, so when that guy takes the 50 fish back to the lake, they get ran over because they are taught to be taken care of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
I would be in favor of some sort of welfare fraud dept. that investigated each case individually. But again, that would be a government agency.
There already is a fraud department.. But in order to hold your position, you first need to accept that its ok to take from 50% of society to support 50%..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
I also agree that hand-outs don't make for productive members of society, and feel that they should be limited.
How limited? What percentage of society do you believe is ok to be on welfare? My thought, about 5%, and then only for a limited time, where they should get an education and forced to get a job.. If your collecting payment, you should be able to provide something of value in exchange..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
But I also feel like there are many reasons why some people don't get a fair shake at things, and I also feel like there is very little pity for people like that in a completely free market economy.
How do you have pity for 1/2 of society? Its hard to have pity for the people who delegate their responsibilities to others.. Sure you can pity those who dont have a choice, but clearly its not 1/2 of society who doesnt have a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
It is true that someone from a bad background can succeed, but what are the odds of success compared to one from a better background? What if all that is known in their community is failure?
That all depends on the education.
Pop quiz: Who do you think would be more successful,
A) one with a bad background who is taught that if you dont want to get up the morning, the only thing you have to do is go to the mailbox to get your check..
B) one with a bad background who is taught that if you dont get up in the morning, you dont eat..
And finally, all of this comparing to those with "better backgrounds" is a falacy. While its true those who have better backgrounds have it better, how many of those with a better backgrounds have turned into a failure? An awful lot!!
Georgiafrog
If favoring a liberal view is your cup of tea then I wish you the best. Here are my comments/opinions;
I feel you have quit trying, why? and when you say conservative, are speaking of people who are conservative or the political parties who claim conservatism?
isn't the struggle the cause of value in the attained? I struggle but I am not poor and I place great value on items and goals attained.
to whom would moneradtion be applied too? It seems our own government is the corperation that requires moderation. Our government is, at this time, regulating itself to its own advantage yet we still feel it is capable of regulating all successful businesses?
I see your point, to some degree I can agree with it.
If there isn't any stuggle then there is no value.
In my opinion, adding a leveler is nothing more than a nice way to say cheat. No one wants the rich to cheat and doing so is nothing less than that!
The playing field will never be level as long as someone is trying to get one-up on someone else.
I hope your favoring of liberal views helps you to find the peace of mind you seek.
Thanks for the post, it was curious.
There are many parts of your post I can agree with as well. My main point of contention are the people that struggle and die before the change is made. It takes a great many people to affect a change upon an injustice caused by social inequality, or financial inequality. I hate to see those people live and die without realization.
As far as your thoughts upon the current government go, there are many points that I agree upon. There is a definite pendulum that appears to be swinging the other way, and that, too is not always a good thing. I guess what I truly seek in this this thread is the moderation and direction we should be heading in that defies the current extremism of American politics. There is a middle ground, and more effort should be put into finding it. It can be deciphered through healthy debate and compromise. We have neither of those things at present.
I think that without government regulation, some manufacturers or airlines would take the risk, monetarily(See "Ford Pinto").
The Ford Pinto was removed from the market because of lawsuits, not because of the government. See you just validated my argument. Even though the Pinto was deemed to be safer than other vehicles of similar size.. market demands removed it from the market. There was no federal law deeming the Pinto illegal to own or drive.. you can still buy them, and drive them today if you wish. No law bans their existance nor is one needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
As far as speed limits are concerned, the federal government supplied the funds to build the majority of the freeways. They should have some say.
Ok, so those who are taxpayers, should have some say as to how their tax money is being spent? Do you think taxpayers should have the right to dictate how welfare recipiants spend their money? Sorry but the minute you give up your money, its not yours anymore, and this includes the federal government. GIVE SOMEONE MONEY.. ITS NOT YOURS ANYMORE to dictate how its spent..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
As far as business regulations are concerned, I have heard repeatedly from most Republicans that business should be given a free hand. With you, it seems, the question is more of a contemporary one, which is, how much of a free hand. That has yet to be established, I suppose.
I dont believe you've heard this repeatedly from Republicans.. I believe you've heard liberals/Democrats say thats what Republicans believe, which is a lie. I challenge you to find ONE Republican to make any comment to backup your claim..
Good to hear that you're recognizing that capitalism and competition can't solve all of our problems. It's also nice to hear from someone who has compassion for those who are less fortunate or less able to care for themselves.
"Every man for himself" sounds good on paper, but it's no way to run a civilized society.
Agreed, some are mentally ill, some are uneducated, some suffer from physical ailments etc. But 40+ % of americans are collecting some sort of welfare now. If you add in SS, (yes, its also welfare), this probably puts the percentage over 50%.. Dont even begin to tell me that 50%+ of society on welfare is acceptable.
I believe the system works the way it does because so many demand help. If you get 50% of the population out of the way, its no wonder those left trying to succeed find it easier to get ahead.
Lets explain it this way
You have 100 fish in a lake.. All trying to fend for food.. Let someone come along and take 50 of them home and feed them daily, then the other 50 obtain twice as much food because there was adaquate supply of food in the lake to feed all 100.. These 50 fish obviously become the big fish in the lake, so when that guy takes the 50 fish back to the lake, they get ran over because they are taught to be taken care of...
There already is a fraud department.. But in order to hold your position, you first need to accept that its ok to take from 50% of society to support 50%..
How limited? What percentage of society do you believe is ok to be on welfare? My thought, about 5%, and then only for a limited time, where they should get an education and forced to get a job.. If your collecting payment, you should be able to provide something of value in exchange..
How do you have pity for 1/2 of society? Its hard to have pity for the people who delegate their responsibilities to others.. Sure you can pity those who dont have a choice, but clearly its not 1/2 of society who doesnt have a choice.
That all depends on the education.
Pop quiz: Who do you think would be more successful,
A) one with a bad background who is taught that if you dont want to get up the morning, the only thing you have to do is go to the mailbox to get your check..
B) one with a bad background who is taught that if you dont get up in the morning, you dont eat..
And finally, all of this comparing to those with "better backgrounds" is a falacy. While its true those who have better backgrounds have it better, how many of those with a better backgrounds have turned into a failure? An awful lot!!
Some good points.
I would counter with a couple of more questions.
Given the cultural disadvantages that some or born with, what entity is going to educate them towards the idea that hard work and diligence will pay off if they know no better, and who will pay for their education if they do realize it?
I agree that there cannot be a 50% population that is simply "taken care of", but there are currently no programs available to help those people take care of themselves without mandate. What sort of programs should exist to help these people on their way to becoming productive members of society?
Here's simple little fact, the economy is based upon the acceptance of a surplus labor pool. Even conventional economist of whatever flavor agree that full employment is 3%. That means that even in the best of times there will not be a job for every American citizen that wants one and if you had a Calvinist magic wand that instill the Protestant work effort in the hearts and minds of every American there still would not be enough jobs to meet demand. This is a issue that isn't going to get better as technology inextricably moves forward. In the future there will be a need for fewer works. What then?
The Ford Pinto was removed from the market because of lawsuits, not because of the government. See you just validated my argument. Even though the Pinto was deemed to be safer than other vehicles of similar size.. market demands removed it from the market. There was no federal law deeming the Pinto illegal to own or drive.. you can still buy them, and drive them today if you wish. No law bans their existance nor is one needed.
Ok, so those who are taxpayers, should have some say as to how their tax money is being spent? Do you think taxpayers should have the right to dictate how welfare recipiants spend their money? Sorry but the minute you give up your money, its not yours anymore, and this includes the federal government. GIVE SOMEONE MONEY.. ITS NOT YOURS ANYMORE to dictate how its spent..
I dont believe you've heard this repeatedly from Republicans.. I believe you've heard liberals/Democrats say thats what Republicans believe, which is a lie. I challenge you to find ONE Republican to make any comment to backup your claim..
People died in Pintos. If there had been government regulation, perhaps they wouldn't have.
Yes I believe that taxpayers have some right to speak upon how the money should be spent. But again, there should be some sort of moderation in it's spending. If all taxpayers thought that none of their money should go to help others, they would be wrong.
Your last point is interesting, but most of the cries I have heard have been for less regulation. I still seek the terms of regulation that would be acceptable, as most have decried any sort of regulation, whatever.
Given the cultural disadvantages that some or born with, what entity is going to educate them towards the idea that hard work and diligence will pay off if they know no better, and who will pay for their education if they do realize it?
Why would you not pay for your eduction? If you educate yourself and increase your pay from $10K a year to $30K a year, and the ecuation cost $15K, what makes you think I should pay to increase your paycheck? Isnt the fact that you've tripled your standard of living reason enough to pay to get ahead? I dont have a college degree, but I've learned what I needed. When I needed to learn Cold Fusion programming, I opened up a book. AIX, a book. And when I didnt have time to learn what I needed, I hired others who did. Paying them to do something for me was well worth the increase in pay. I didnt need the government to pay me to pay the programmers, and you surely dont need the government or others to pay for you to triple your income. Thats ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
I agree that there cannot be a 50% population that is simply "taken care of", but there are currently no programs available to help those people take care of themselves without mandate. What sort of programs should exist to help these people on their way to becoming productive members of society?
I'm sorry but I dont think you were at all conservative to begin with. No conservative would ask what programs should be made available to help people take care of themself. You dont need mandates to teach people to get up and earn their way. You need to stop giving 50% of society an easy way out and this country will rebound so fast and so great that it'll make the recovery of the 1920's or the WWII economy seem like a recession..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
