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.
What happens to the people that diligently save money every paycheck for years and the bank or financial company they entrusted their money to goes bankrupt and all their savings are gone. Or it their pension fund is looted by Baine Capital. These people were doing what they were supposed to do but lost all their savings anyway. What about them?
Social Security is all about them and always has been. It is an insurance system for the people that play by the rules.
Greg have ya ever heard of a little thing called the FDIC?
Do you think the person loses consciousness the instant that the throat closes. If so, hold your breath and tell me if you pass out immediately or if it takes a few minutes.
The throat closes so that more water doesn't come in. This gives the person more time to get out of the water before the person loses consciousness and the throat relaxes allowing air to come in.
Perhaps you should go stick your head underwater and report back to us. You seriously misinterpreted the article and my statement.
Even in a conservative state like Oklahoma there may soon be a requirement that boaters in the lakes wear flotation vests. There have been too many deaths where people ended up in the water and drowned. It's not contriversal. The whole idea of equating something which prevents people from drowning to the nanny state is demeaning of reality that even a good swimmer with a coat and heavy boots can end up drowning since the clothes can pull them down. Or if in a very cold water, shock can incapacitate the person.
I suggest picking some other idea which isn't just common sense for the comparison.... this is like saying we should ban traffic lights on a busy road.
Even in a conservative state like Oklahoma there may soon be a requirement that boaters in the lakes wear flotation vests. There have been too many deaths where people ended up in the water and drowned. It's not contriversal. The whole idea of equating something which prevents people from drowning to the nanny state is demeaning of reality that even a good swimmer with a coat and heavy boots can end up drowning since the clothes can pull them down. Or if in a very cold water, shock can incapacitate the person.
I suggest picking some other idea which isn't just common sense for the comparison.... this is like saying we should ban traffic lights on a busy road.
I don't think banning these things out right is a fair analogy.
Stopping spending on maintenance for them sounds more like it.
I suggest picking some other idea which isn't just common sense for the comparison.... this is like saying we should ban traffic lights on a busy road.
Or contraceptive or morning after pills (especially in the case of rape)
Or contraceptive or morning after pills (especially in the case of rape)
lots of similar things to point at. . .
Look, these are all good examples, except not paying for things (which I believe is the more accurate version of the analogy) is not the same thing as banning them.
For instance we have subsidized gasoline.
If the government were to stop subsidizing it, those who were being taxed on the subsidies would have more money in their pocket from then on, at least momentarily. When they pay again for the gas, I'd assume they have to give more money for the gas.
It's a complex situation though, really, because I'm not sure who'd gain or lose by having their gas not subsidized and the money that the government took for the subsidy would be given back to them.
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.