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.
Please give this lecture to the banking class. They lived way beyond their means, gambled with trillions of dollars, and ended up bankrupt. Then they expected YOU the taxpayer to bail them out. And they pulled it off! With few complaints from the far-right.
Here's an idea: pick on the strong rather than the weak. Pick on the billionaires who are screwing over everyone. Are you "man" enough to do that? If not, then I suggest you "man up."
Our government is the failure that let this happen. You had an SEC which was plagued by employees surfing porn during work, an inadequately staffed/educated workforce to the point where they couldn't follow up on complaints to investigate them. I don't care far-right or far-left who was complaining or not at the time, it doesn't change the facts of what actually happened. Part private business and part government to blame...see who isn't in that equation? The general public. The more we can remove ourselves from being dependent on them, the better off we are individually.
1. Please point out where I called for NO safety net. A little hint, you cant because I specifically said its needed for the truly destitute. Strike one.
2. When did I said I want to "open the flood gates of big money in politics?" Another hint, I didn't. Strike two.
3. I push for darwinian systems of government? The one where I say the truly destitute need to be helped, and the one where I say I want to see required K-12 personal finance taught? Strike three.
It never takes more than a few back and forth debates with you to remind myself why its such a waste of time when all you do is mis-represent what I say, and make giant sweeping generalizations to demonize a set of beliefs that I have that says the vast majority of Americans are smart enough, and should be empowered enough to succeed on their own so they don't have to come begging to the government (where they will be lied to and mislead to get a simple vote) for basic sustenance.
You advocate for the elimination of SS, disability insurance and Medicare. Correct?
You advocate for massive increase in wealth and income inequality which ALWAYS leads to a corruption of the political system. You can of course deny reality, but it doesnt make it any less true. Massive income and wealth inequality leads to a hijacking of political levers of power. Your response is to weaken the government, so "they have no incentive to bribe politicians" because its so weak and powerless. These are classic libertarian positions. The people will be at the mercy of unaccountable private tyrannies, known as corporations which have only one mission, short term profits.
Tell us which country has ever seen their poverty and human suffering decline as a result of the elimination of basic social safety nets and replacing it with a course in personal finance. Tell us please.
Oh, you mean I'll go get back the money I have been forced to pay? Hell yes.
It is my money.
I know people like you feel you have the right to other people's money and need the government to take care of you, but I'm not a child who needs a nanny
And an allowance.
You need everything every one else needs. Probably even moreso than most. You ain't got it like that.
You love the nanny state as much as the next man. No one believes all that conservative tripe that you guys spew anymore. We realize that you guys don't believe it either.
It appears that you are just making stuff up. If you want me to respond then please put forward some actual proof of your claims. And if you know of a Republican plan that will allow recipients to continue receiving their full benefits AFTER they get their hands on it, then send me a source for that too.
You are the one making ignorant assumptions of what plans have been proposed. you are the one who needs to read even a basic outline of the plans that have been proposed by Republicans, start with Paul Ryan's plan from 2012. I'm not going to hold your hand for you.
You advocate for the elimination of SS, disability insurance and Medicare. Correct?
You advocate for massive increase in wealth and income inequality which ALWAYS leads to a corruption of the political system. Your response is to weaken the government, so "they have no incentive to bribe politicians" because its so weak and powerless. These are classic libertarian positions.
Tell us which country has ever seen their poverty and human suffering decline as a result of the elimination of basic social safety nets and replacing it with a course in personal finance. Tell us please.
1. Elimination of SS? Nope, but I wan't it privatized or I want it so that I at least have a dedicated account in my own name, where I manage from a selected group of funds with minimal expenses and relatively safe index funds. My SS funds don't need to be subject to potential government borrowing, nor do I need to be lectured to by politicians about it so they can try and sway my vote. Incorrect on Medicare. Strike 4 and strike 5.
2. I advocate for income inequality? I advocate for every person in this country to be as educated and self sufficient as humanly possible, while understanding that due to tragedies, and unfortunate health/living situations this won't work for some, so we need basic safety nets. Overall, wrong again. Strike 6
3. Continuing to insist that I advocate for a complete elimination of safety nets. Strike 7
So all those serving in the US military are 'weak' in your book.
The topic is social security and civilians relying on it solely for retirement/to bail them out for poor life decisions. And no, non-military people making poor life decisions with their $ shouldn't be entitled to military benefits just like I believe therapy dogs should be used for those in the military for things like PTSD, not whiners who are "upset" over losing an election.
4.) For your example of your person with a car who can't afford a car battery, they shouldn't own a car if they can't afford the most basic maintenance on it. They should live in an area with public transpiration to get to their job.
About 25 years ago I was in that situation. The rent for an apartment with access to public transportation (which would not have gotten me to my job, anyway) was around $800/mo. I found a cabin to rent for $500/mo. Had a beater car; paid the minimum in car insurance.
Still think I'd have been better off with the $800. apartment?
Of course I wouldn't have. The car did not cost me $300/mo. to own. And yes, there were still times I didn't have the extra money immediately, like when the muffler fell off!
Your example above is totally unrealistic. You assume public transportation will take a person to their job when many times it won't. You assume living 'on a bus line' is cheaper.
1. Elimination of SS? Nope, but I wan't it privatized or I want it so that I at least have a dedicated account in my own name, where I manage from a selected group of funds with minimal expenses and relatively safe index funds. My SS funds don't need to be subject to potential government borrowing, nor do I need to be lectured to by politicians about it so they can try and sway my vote. Incorrect on Medicare. Strike 4 and strike 5.
2. I advocate for income inequality? I advocate for every person in this country to be as educated and self sufficient as humanly possible, while understanding that due to tragedies, and unfortunate health/living situations this won't work for some, so we need basic safety nets. Overall, wrong again. Strike 6
3. Continuing to insist that I advocate for a complete elimination of safety nets. Strike 7
Are you denying that trillions of dollars in tax breaks for the donor class leads to income and wealth inequality? Are you the only libertarian who believes that income and wealth inequality is a problem? I have never heard libertarians claim that it is a problem. When you push for policies that massively increase wealth and income inequality, you are pushing for oligarchy and hijacking of the political system.
So you want elimination of SS (handing it over to Wall Street in a privatization scheme is elimination) and disabled people should just buy disability insurance from Wall Street (which will bribe politicians to ensure there are no oversight or regulations). You want the government run Medicare system to stay as it is? The full effects of these policies are skyrocketing poverty and death rates among the elderly and disabled, which all examples in other countries show.
"Weak" in my book is to rely on gov/not take personal responsibility.
"Strong" in my book is to pick one's self up on their own and not rely on gov and take personal responsibility for their own finances and life decisions and not blame anything/everything else except the person looking back in the mirror.
So please tell the banking class to stop being so "weak" by your definition of the term. Tell them to stop relying on taxpayers to bail them out when they take excessive risks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
We apparently subscribe to a different set of values.
We most certainly do. You have no problem with throwing ordinary citizens under the bus to save tax money, but you have no problem with using taxpayer money for corporate welfare. I, on the other hand, think it is wrong.
You have no problem with social spending, as long as the wealthy and powerful are getting the money. Social spending to keep the elderly out of poverty is immoral, in your view. I guess they were just lazy and deserve to suffer.
I agree, the distinction couldn't be any clearer.
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.
