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.
See I agree with your points, but here's where I think the government is AT FAULT for allowing abuse.
Case in point: Susie has baby at 17. Applies for welfare; medicaid - approved. Susie drops out - no requirement from government to obtain skills. At 18 Susie has baby #2 - meets with social worker and adds new child to welfare/medicaid - still no requirment for skills. At 20 Susie has baby #3, meets social worker, adds new child.
Life long benefits end at 5 years. That was implemented under Clinton.
So does that meant he preditary lenders who lost money due to personal debt don't get gov't bailouts?
What about the mortgage industry? Why do they get help from the gov't but not the home owners?
Large industry doesn't need to be nearly as responsible for their actions, and Joe and Jane Average. Why is that?
no I dont think the mortgage industry should necessarily be "bailed out" but what would happen if the mortgage companies all went bankrupt? wouldnt everyone complain that now joe and jane average cant get a home??
im no advocate for the mortgage lenders, they can be predatory but this instant gratification society we live in where everyone wants what they want wether they can afford it or not, that is the problem not mortgage lenders.
Does it matter if Large industry is responsible for their actions?? does that change how you make your decisions? well they are irresponsible so I can be too?? Just because these companies came up with these ridiculous sub prime loans does that mean we should take them? again accountability.
no I dont think the mortgage industry should necessarily be "bailed out" but what would happen if the mortgage companies all went bankrupt? wouldnt everyone complain that now joe and jane average cant get a home??
I'm sure they would. But why do we accept a double standard?
Quote:
that is the problem not mortgage lenders.
Sure it is. If they lower the normal standards to lend money to people who would not ordinarily qualify, then it is equally their fault. They should have some accountability.
Hey, I wouldn't lend money to someone if I thought there was a possibility they weren't going to be able to give it back. (Unless I didn't need it.) Why do they get a free pass, but the home owners don't.
Quote:
Does it matter if Large industry is responsible for their actions?? does that change how you make your decisions? well they are irresponsible so I can be too??
There is a little thing called 'Regulations'.
Quote:
again accountability.
But you seem to only advocate accountability in one direction, with a double standard for businesses.
We do. I just think that individuals can provide this better than a federal bureaucracy.
Every nation on earth have local charities, they do not have the mass and funds to provide for a nation full of underpriviledged people. They help, sure. They are not the answer.
Local charities are much more equiped to determine who is deserving of help and who is not.
More equitable and fairer for whom? Is it fairer to take resources from a person who has worked all his life providing jobs and donating to charities and give it to those who have contributed nothing to society and have decided not to?
For everyone. You think no one on welfare works. That is a simple fallacy. Hard working people lose their jobs everyday, and in this economy, finding a comparable job very quickly is hard. Even you may need welfare, we do to others as we would want done to us.
Employers shouldn't be held responsible for someone's healthcare. Besides, no one ever loses healthcare because it is available at any hospital.
...For thousands of dollars more. Healthcare is expensive because we only pay for doctors visits when you have a heart attack, not when you have chest pains. You are right that employers should not have to pay for health (it limits the power of our economy, look at GM), we should have to through governement. The divided costs are lower per person, and they are lower overall.
What is the source of this "right"? It's not a luxury, agreed, but only a basic need.
And, who is expected to pay for all of these benefits? The CEOs, middle-class America, and the rest of those who have achieved and provided the biggest benefit, a job.
Not middle class america. They would actually be on the recieving end of benefits like education and healthcare. The CEOs, transnational corporations and top echelon (those making over $250,000, esp. over 1 million) would pay. 1% of the population in the US makes 20% of the income. They can give up half and still live insanely well. That is the difference between a first world nation and Brazil.. Brazil lets its elite steal the wealth of their nation, and lets the majority live in favelas. That is not America.
Treatment is available at any hospital, willing to accept minimal monthly payments. If you don't like your boss, get another job.
Well, I've gone over that already.
Speak for yourself. This is not how I, nor most individualist, treat our fellow citizens.
Who better to decide who is truly needy, private local charities or the politicians in Washington?
Washington may not be the most effiecent, but it will get it done. Local Charities cannot ensure the quality of life accustomed to in this country.
It's this "me,me,me" attitude, better known as individualism that has caused so many innovations, vaccines, and better ideals that allow us to debate like this on the internet, with our computers, after having taken our flu shot.
Which is why the European economy is larger than the American economy. There will still be capital to do research and invention. Warren Buffet will never find the cure for cancer. No one is taking away individualism, just gluttony.
We individualists don't define compassion as providing everything to everyone in need. We define it as helping others take advantage of the opportunities available to them.
Healthcare, education and housing is not everything. They are necessities of life, and ensure the overall strength of the nation. Helping them, also helps you and your country.
Again, speak for yourself. We individualists believe in helping those who help themselves.
What about those who want to help themselves, and can't. There are alot of them.
I don't know what society you live in, but it's certainly not the U.S.
That's my two cents. Helping others helps them, and it strengthens the importance of the United States. No country has ever failed because it affords its citizens basic rights. Many have failed because they do not.
---Minnehahapolitan
I'm sure they would. But why do we accept a double standard?
But you seem to only advocate accountability in one direction, with a double standard for businesses.
no not at all. I am an advocate for accountability across the board. My point was whether or not the companies are held accountable should not take away individual responsibility. Dont make a stupid decision and then expect to be bailed out.
I'm sure they would. But why do we accept a double standard?
its not accepting a doublestandard, i think that is what she is saying, but people need to make better decisions and have there own responsibility for there own actions, on this will prevent people from being preyed upon
Sure it is. If they lower the normal standards to lend money to people who would not ordinarily qualify, then it is equally their fault. They should have some accountability.
i dont think anybody is arguing this part
Hey, I wouldn't lend money to someone if I thought there was a possibility they weren't going to be able to give it back. (Unless I didn't need it.) Why do they get a free pass, but the home owners don't.
they shouldnt get a free pass, but like it was said before, the people who put themselves in this situation shouldnt either
There is a little thing called 'Regulations'.
agreed
But you seem to only advocate accountability in one direction, with a double standard for businesses.
I dont think that is what she was saying, but she was saying is that people need to make better decisions and not expect a bailout, like other people are infering should happen. they both made the mess they both should be accountable.
its pretty stupid to take a sub prime loan ( i know i did and i paid for it) but i never thought i should get a bail out and i dont htink they should either
I dont think that is what she was saying, but she was saying is that people need to make better decisions and not expect a bailout, like other people are infering should happen. they both made the mess they both should be accountable.
its pretty stupid to take a sub prime loan ( i know i did and i paid for it) but i never thought i should get a bail out and i dont htink they should either
What about when you make one mistake in life, and that mistake digs you into a hole, and the more you try to get out, the deeper the hole gets? It seems to me that is what the current "social safety net" in the US entails. There are many people who made a few bad mistakes and are down on their luck and can't get anywhere in life and are slipping towards homelessness. It doesn't even have to be really bad mistakes, it can be just some little ones that cascade into something bigger.
I would also warn anybody saying that somebody who is poor and jobless doesn't contribute anything to society. This is precisely the rhetoric used by National Socialist in their Action T4 program in Germany in the late 30's. Do you really want to live in a society that evaluates human worth based on the amount of money they can give back to society? What about the fact that alot of poor people are friends and neighbors, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers to the rest of the citizenry? Do these social ties have no value?
What about when you make one mistake in life, and that mistake digs you into a hole, and the more you try to get out, the deeper the hole gets? It seems to me that is what the current "social safety net" in the US entails. There are many people who made a few bad mistakes and are down on their luck and can't get anywhere in life and are slipping towards homelessness. It doesn't even have to be really bad mistakes, it can be just some little ones that cascade into something bigger.
I would also warn anybody saying that somebody who is poor and jobless doesn't contribute anything to society. This is precisely the rhetoric used by National Socialist in their Action T4 program in Germany in the late 30's. Do you really want to live in a society that evaluates human worth based on the amount of money they can give back to society? What about the fact that alot of poor people are friends and neighbors, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers to the rest of the citizenry? Do these social ties have no value?
Great post....exactly.
What about care workers, who get paid peanuts, but who provide much needed help to the sick and elderly? Just because they don't earn much, doesn't mean that they don't contribute (a lot) to society.
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.
