The argument against conservatism - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-08-2010, 12:36 PM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
Just so you know, as a progressive I take a lot of my conservative friends seriously and I've never once asked them to stop believing in what they believe. Divergent opinions and the right to hold and express them is what makes free societies like Canada and the United States - as opposed to the former Soviet Union - so great.

No. Actually I don't take YOU seriously for the reasons mentioned by Diemen above.
What are you talking about? I'm trying to put a conservative point of view in this thread because if I don't it'll be "crickets and wind blowing with a few darling tumbleweed" passing through the thread.

What I want from academia is exactly what you want for everyone else. The ability to be exposed to many points of view without an agenda. I'm simply exposing that the left often puts agenda first and competition second. If you don't ostracize your friends well thats good for you. We need more of you.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 12:50 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Here's how conservatives view the Democrats economic policies in summary form:

Scattershot Stimulus - Article - National Review Online

Quote:
The Editors

September 8, 2010 4:00 A.M.

Scattershot Stimulus

The scattershot nature of President Obama’s latest economic proposals is a sign that the administration is starting to panic — and panic it should: The GOP’s advantage in generic-ballot polling is approaching historic proportions. But the composition of the proposals also tells us something else: The administration knows it is losing its fight to let certain of the Bush tax cuts expire — even though it now has explicitly ruled out a compromise on extending them — and it is making one last push to buy leverage for its position by offering “targeted” tax cuts to the business community.

“Targeted” is one of this administration’s favorite words, second only to “inherited,” as in, “To address the severe crisis he inherited, President Obama pushed for a stimulus that was timely, targeted, and temporary.” But what we have learned from the stimulus is that Congress has exceptionally bad aim, and that temporary measures to boost the economy do little more than steal demand from the future. The Cash for Clunkers program boosted car sales for the two-month window of its existence, but it was followed by a steep drop a few months later: Average the two time periods together and you get no noticeable change in demand. The temporary Homebuyers Tax Credit had a similar effect on home sales, with transactions spiking the month before the credit expired and then plummeting in the months after.

Having spent the last 18 months binging on stimulus sugar and enduring the consequent crashes, Obama suggests we return to the cookie jar with a temporary credit that would allow businesses to take an immediate 100 percent deduction for new capital and equipment expenditures made between now and the end of 2011. (Under current law, businesses must spread the deduction out over seven years.) A permanent credit of this sort might make sense as an option for businesses, but a temporary credit is a bad idea. Just as Cash for Clunkers and the Homebuyers Tax Credit distorted demand for cars and homes without really stimulating it, a temporary deduction for capital expenditures would encourage firms that were already planning on building new plants or buying new equipment at some point to make those investments in 2011 rather than 2012, but it probably wouldn’t be enough to persuade them to invest in the absence of such plans.

Obama also proposes to expand and make permanent a tax credit for research-and-development expenditures. This would be an improvement over the status quo, under which this tax credit has been “temporary” for government accounting purposes but consistently reauthorized since its creation in 1981. By itself, the policy isn’t objectionable, but it’s being offered in exchange for a worse overall tax climate: The administration has almost certainly oversold the benefits of expanding the credit, which would be small compared to the costs of raising tax rates in a weak economy. Increasing tax rates on income, dividends, and capital gains, even if those hikes were confined to the top two brackets, would weaken incentives for some of the country’s most productive individuals and profitable small businesses to work, invest, hire, and grow. A slightly bigger write-off for R&D isn’t sufficient to cushion that blow, and business owners know it.

No list of proposals from this president would be complete without new spending, so the president has also asked for $50 billion to fund a new “infrastructure bank” that would make loans for transportation projects. It’s important to keep in mind that the government can’t pay for the transportation projects it already has. The Highway Trust Fund is insolvent, and the Democrats aren’t willing to raise the gas tax that funds it, even though they’ve tried every other way they can think of to make fossil fuels more expensive.

It isn’t clear where the administration would get the money to fund the government’s share in this new bank, though its spokesmen have suggested, as they have with regard to every other new spending request, that raising taxes on oil-and-gas companies and “closing loopholes” might cover part of the cost. Nor is it clear how the bank would attract private capital. Toll roads and other revenue-generating projects might be attractive to investors, but these kinds of projects aren’t exactly political winners. The worst-case scenario, which we can easily imagine, would involve giving private investors an incentive to bring their money to the table by insuring them against losses and letting them keep most of the profits while making taxpayers shoulder all of the risk. Haven’t we seen this movie before? Remind us: How did it end?

If this summer’s employment and housing numbers heralded the death of the latest Keynesian revival, then Obama’s latest raft of stimulus proposals indicates that he has reached the bargaining stage of grief. He is tacitly acknowledging that tax relief is the best medicine for an ailing economy, but he is trying to hold on to the idea that government still knows best where that relief should be “targeted,” and he’s asking for just $50 billion more in new spending in exchange. He still thinks we should let the Bush tax cuts expire, even as key senators in his party and his own former OMB director have abandoned that view. The sooner Obama gets over the denial stage, reaches the acceptance stage, and embraces a pro-growth tax policy, the sooner we’ll exit the depression stage and get on the road to recovery.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 01:04 PM   #63
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
This is the typical response I expect in a thread like this. I don't expect progressives on a U2 site to take me seriously unless I stop being conservative.
Here we go with the crap generalizations again... No, as many have said, it's really just you, it's hard to take your type of conservatism seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Conservatives don't believe in having lots of social engineers. Even if they tolerate some social engineering (social workers can help get kids out of abusive homes for eg.)
The fact that you lump social workers with social engineers just because they both have the word 'social' shows how ridiculous you can be. I'm guessing ice cream socials are dangerous communist organizations as well?

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The problem with social sciences is that THEY also are full of bias and politics. I find that the more distant we study (like galaxies or subatomic particles) we get more objective opinions. As soon as we study social sciences all kinds of biases appear. That's why understanding history is so important to social sciences because we often get more objectivity from history (economics, politics, anthropology, etc). If we don't learn from anti-growth policies, that have been in the past, and don't learn from what usually works in society we can get caught in all kinds of morasses of progressivism that we don't really see what's in front of us.
Something wikipedia won't tell you is that Marx didn't agree with a lot of Sociology. Your understanding of sociology, like most sciences is abysmal.

Can you understand the difference between the study of and how the information is used? You're blaming the science of sociology, for the perception of how some of the observations have been used. That's backwards logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
For example you call the ultra right "uninformed".
No. Every sanction has an uninformed portion of it. Extreme sides, usually a little more.

But I was saying you belong to the uninformed sanction of the ultra right, I was not calling the ultra right uninformed.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 01:08 PM   #64
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
What are you talking about? I'm trying to put a conservative point of view in this thread because if I don't it'll be "crickets and wind blowing with a few darling tumbleweed" passing through the thread.
And I appreciate that you have a different view, I just wish you would lay off the "___________ is socialist", "you all want ______", "higher learning is communist" and all the other bullshit generalizations and warped perspectives.

These are not conservative views, these are uninformed ultra right views.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 04:06 PM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Here we go with the crap generalizations again... No, as many have said, it's really just you, it's hard to take your type of conservatism seriously.
My type of conservatism is pretty mainstream. I'm for gay marriage. I want a balanced budget. I want a strong military. I want more free trade. I want universities to actually be universal. It's not far right wing at all. You guys try too hard to put me in a bubble like my ideas are so way out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
The fact that you lump social workers with social engineers just because they both have the word 'social' shows how ridiculous you can be. I'm guessing ice cream socials are dangerous communist organizations as well?
Way to go to make a meaningless analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Something wikipedia won't tell you is that Marx didn't agree with a lot of Sociology. Your understanding of sociology, like most sciences is abysmal.
No but a lot of Sociology professors like socialistic ideas. How conservatives would view your idea of science would be that you would like to live in a technocracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Can you understand the difference between the study of and how the information is used? You're blaming the science of sociology, for the perception of how some of the observations have been used. That's backwards logic.
I'm blaming a left-wing bias in the university sociology faculties and other humanities faculties. I'm okay with studying society. There's more than the left-wing view of society and the obssession with alienation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
No. Every sanction has an uninformed portion of it. Extreme sides, usually a little more.

But I was saying you belong to the uninformed sanction of the ultra right, I was not calling the ultra right uninformed.
whatever. As long as the left doesn't understand why the right can win elections (as opposed to Carville's assertion Republicans would be gone for 40 years) they will be constantly surprised when they get turfed every so often.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
And I appreciate that you have a different view, I just wish you would lay off the "___________ is socialist", "you all want ______", "higher learning is communist" and all the other bullshit generalizations and warped perspectives.

These are not conservative views, these are uninformed ultra right views.
I don't think my views are exactly as you put it here. Certainly I've met people who are socialist and communist and I criticize their ideas. If that doesn't include you well you don't have to defend them either or assume conservatives don't care about higher education. They certainly are represented well in economics if not sociology, anthropology, history, etc.
__________________
purpleoscar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 05:11 PM   #66
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
My type of conservatism is pretty mainstream. I'm for gay marriage. I want a balanced budget. I want a strong military. I want more free trade. I want universities to actually be universal. It's not far right wing at all. You guys try too hard to put me in a bubble like my ideas are so way out there.
Quote:
I don't think my views are exactly as you put it here. Certainly I've met people who are socialist and communist and I criticize their ideas. If that doesn't include you well you don't have to defend them either or assume conservatives don't care about higher education. They certainly are represented well in economics if not sociology, anthropology, history, etc.
If these aren't your views then you've done a horrible job representing yourself. Since day one back in EYKIW you were calling everyone a "socialist".

I mean seriously, when you bring social workers into it, you have some understanding issues.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
No but a lot of Sociology professors like socialistic ideas. How conservatives would view your idea of science would be that you would like to live in a technocracy.
But this isn't a logical argument. You understand that, right? A lot of radio talk show hosts are assholes, but I don't say all conservatives are assholes. Learn how to look at the science alone outside of your tiny exposure to it in school.

And that joke was bad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I'm blaming a left-wing bias in the university sociology faculties and other humanities faculties. I'm okay with studying society. There's more than the left-wing view of society and the obssession with alienation.
Talk about obssession, you are obssessed with turning your miniscule exposure into a general consensus. How many universities have you attended or worked for?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 05:44 PM   #67
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Local Time: 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You have to be careful though. Other countries have more left-wing systems and they can have lots of complaints about them as well (what system doesn't?). Then you've got prior statements that contradict what Obama promises (no Canadian style healthcare).

YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

It just seems like the left wants to simply get their foot in the door and then make changes that will lead to huge expenses that will then have to be rationed with bureaucrats ("death panels"). Now I've met these death panels with my mom and it is uncomfortable. They try and do their best to persuade you to do the easy option possible to control the budget and I can see how many Americans aren't too interested in that path. They aren't vampires with bloodthirst but they are uncomfortable.



I don't like his energy policies (EPA threats, bullshit green jobs) and I don't like the endless stimulus plans. I'm okay with regulation of Wall Street but not government ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'm not interested in his response to BP (what can he do?). I don't care about his personal life, though radical associations are definitely informative.



Well presidents don't have as much power as Congress but you must know that ramming a public option through without many people understanding it would piss off not just Republicans. But again I expect that both parties will be changing it over decades because the deficit is too big to leave alone healthcare entitlements and social security. At minimum the government will water down benefits and/or raise taxes and at maximum they will cut benefits until the deficit is gone.



This is a good point. I would question though whether people really want to pay more taxes (hypocrisy) and is it also good to have so many who don't pay taxes piggyback on the productive ones that do? This is one of the pitfalls of progressive taxation.



The majority aren't for Obamacare. Some minority are and some would say the in danger minority have a reason for it. I certainly want all covered but there must be a mandatory insurance system because free riders do exist and it makes the system unsustainable. The Republicans need to know that we can't have people allowed to not be covered and then when an early accident occurs pass it on to the taxpayer. The left has to be honest about rationing (Michael Moore was at least).



Thank God there was enough opposition!



Telling people who lost their coal jobs it's 2010 isn't going to cut it. Other countries have tried the green jobs move but unfortunately there is a net job loss. This is precisely because green jobs are related to technologies that can't make energy as cheap so prices would have to increase and losing coal jobs won't be replaced one job for one. If green jobs were so good they would automatically get venture capital because they could compete with fossil fuels. I'm all for funding research but if a technology isn't ready yet we shouldn't be using the public as guinea pigs.



Well this is what happens when you're president. He can't do everything so he picks his battles. Most of the public wanted him to deal with the economy first but he didn't do that. He focussed on healthcare and energy reform. His attempt at the economy (and Bush's) is Stimulus. Stimulus is just a name for borrowing and spending. There was a funny response from Fred Thompson about "taking a bucket of water from one side of the pool and dumping it into the other side of the pool". Stimulus is to create government spending in government related jobs (like road construction, shovel ready projects, etc). Then these workers who receive their pay spend some money and therefore trickle into the economy. Unfortunately when that money gets to everyone else there is a looming tax bill from all that debt. The government either has to reduce quality of the benefits, inflate the currency (same thing), or increase taxes. Either way the pool is the same size as before and general public (without a government job and pension) has to eat the cost because there is no free lunch. The actual engine of growth is allowing people to keep a majority of what they make so there is an incentive to work (work is painful) and then the public (if they are even intelligent anymore) saves a portion of that money for hardship and then eventually retirement. If the public loses this healthy habit the government can justify itself to intrude in all levels of our life. It won't happen tomorrow but future generations.



Don't forget the campaign. A lot was promised (as usual). Some of the public are too impatient but this looming debt is what is scaring them. They don't want a run on the dollar and they don't want the high taxes.



The Republicans feel the EXACT same way about Democrats. You gotta love Democracy.
I agree with Moonlit_Angel. While I dissapointed things haven't turned around much since Obama took office I don't know how much is due to him. Looking at it another way, would we have been much worse off with someone else such as McCain? We will never know. But regardless, people have to be careful to look at the whole picture, including the circumstances when Obama took office and where the country was headed (strait down), before they blame him. As an analogy, I forecast weather for a living and am considered very good at what I do by my coworkers. But when I come into work and an incredibly major and complex to forecast storm hits a big area there are going to be a lot of areas I screw up and get the forecast wrong for! why? Not because I am bad at my job but because of the situation. Every other forecaster from competing places probably did similarly poor or worse. Ever notice that? Usually when a forecast busts, all or at the very least most forecasters get it wrong - even some of the best.

So back to Republicans and democrats, yes, I think the repbublicans, or more specifically, the radcon who have control of that party, are scary. There are many reasons we should all be scared of them.

1. Foreign and domestic policies - pre-emtive wars (not just Bush - remember McCain with bomb, bomb, Iran; wiretapping citizens. Patriot act with its many provisions including suspension of all rights of the accused, etc. Essentially, there are for policies that are anti-democratic and strictly based on ideology without considering facts and consequences

2. Not caring about the environment / deregulation - things like "Clean Air Initiative" could not be farther from the truth. deregulation of oil under by Cheney helped to set stage for oil spill. "Healthy forest initiative" - gimme a break.

3. Business over public interest / "priveteering" - Over the past 10 years the radcons have consistantly gone this way. Ties into point #2. Look at how radcons went with the private sector so much with Iraq war. They are not accountable to public interest and the nations interest and it is this that led to circumstances of Iraqui torture

4. Ideology over reasoned debate and looking at the facts - just look at their stance on global warming, decision to attack Iraq. I can not stress this enough, with radcons it is always their ideology before anything else. If facts and reason don't support it? - twist the facts, "spin" the story to decieve the public into thinking you are right. Conservatives have gone this way with every major decision they have had control over for at least the past 10 years! - right back to the stem cell research decision in the summer of 2001 even before 9/11.

I could go on and on...PurpleOscar, I'm sorry. You do seem like a pretty reasonable conservative. But your party has gone off the deep end. Do you realize this? I know your conservative but is this the version of conservatism (radical conservatism is what it is) you want? Or are you just accepting it because it is better than liberalism? Lets put it this way, if it were me, and it was the opposite - say the liberals went waaay off the deep end and became full blown commies and the conservatives were more middle ground, I would vote conservative!
__________________
pcfitz80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 08:31 PM   #68
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You have to be careful though. Other countries have more left-wing systems and they can have lots of complaints about them as well (what system doesn't?). Then you've got prior statements that contradict what Obama promises (no Canadian style healthcare).
They're probably contradictory because he's trying to please everyone and by doing that, you'll contradict yourself.

So many people who live in those other countries that I've talked to have little to no complaint with their systems-hell, there's people here that could tell you that. They actually laugh at us for seemingly misunderstanding the way their healthcare system works. Of course, no system is perfect, a public option would have its issues just like any other, but seems many I know like their system better than ours . Guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

I'd like to see that full interview. It's easy to make it seem like that's what he said when you only take snippets of it out of context. Let me see the full thing, and then I'll comment.

Keep in mind, the operative word here is "OPTION". You don't HAVE to take public insurance if you don't want to. But it's there for people who would like it. If we can survive with a public mail system and a private mail system, if we can survive with public schools and private schools, if we can survive with public buildings and private buildings, I don't see why we can't have competing public and private health options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
It just seems like the left wants to simply get their foot in the door and then make changes that will lead to huge expenses that will then have to be rationed with bureaucrats ("death panels"). Now I've met these death panels with my mom and it is uncomfortable. They try and do their best to persuade you to do the easy option possible to control the budget and I can see how many Americans aren't too interested in that path. They aren't vampires with bloodthirst but they are uncomfortable.
What exactly did you encounter with these so-called "death panels"? How in the world are they "death panels"?

I've been in the healthcare situation this year, too, with my dad. The private insurance didn't do squat for us other than add on bill after bill after bill for us to sit there and wonder how the hell we were going to pay it off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I don't like his energy policies (EPA threats, bullshit green jobs) and I don't like the endless stimulus plans. I'm okay with regulation of Wall Street but not government ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'm not interested in his response to BP (what can he do?). I don't care about his personal life, though radical associations are definitely informative.
How are the green jobs "bullshit"? What about the EPA threats bothers you specifically? And didn't Bush propose a stimulus, too? Don't many presidents propose a stimulus? We have to get our economy moving again somehow. What's your plan to solve the problem, if not a stimulus?

If there's regulation of Wall Street the government's already got its hands in the whole thing. There's got to be some control on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-maybe not ownership, per se, but some control. It's sort of like when you give a teenager their first taste of freedom and they go out and blow all their money or crash the car or something. Until they can prove themselves to be responsible again, the parents step in and keep an eye on things. Such is the case here. The financial industry has proven itself horribly irresponsible, so somebody needs to come in and watch them. Not permanently. Just for a while, until they grow up and act responsible. Remember, Obama has said that he has no desire to control everything, he doesn't WANT to sit there and tell car companies or financial companies or whatnot what to do. But right now, he doesn't have much of a choice.

Agreed on BP, there wasn't a whole lot he could do there. Radical associations, however...well, he's long ago distanced himself from Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, and I can't think of any other radical people he's associating with at this time. But even so, you can know or be around radical people and not automatically support what they say or do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Well presidents don't have as much power as Congress but you must know that ramming a public option through without many people understanding it would piss off not just Republicans.
So make it understandable. That was Obama's problem, he didn't argue his case clearly enough. The scare tactic people took over, and some Americans unfortunately brought into their fearmongering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
But again I expect that both parties will be changing it over decades because the deficit is too big to leave alone healthcare entitlements and social security. At minimum the government will water down benefits and/or raise taxes and at maximum they will cut benefits until the deficit is gone.
The government, even if they stand up there and say they'll cut benefits in healthcare and social security, will never do it. Just like we'll never see cuts in defense, even though we could certainly cut some things there, too. Because for all the crowing and complaining, the fact is, people love their Medicare and their Social Security. Again, remember the nonsensical "Get your government hands off my Medicare!" cry? There's a reason those benefits still exist to this day: because people LIKE them. They provide needed services to people. There'll be changes, you're right, but it'll never be cut. Not unless a president who really wants to see how much he/she can alienate the public comes along with the nerve to do so. I'd say the minimum suggestion would be the most likely scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
This is a good point. I would question though whether people really want to pay more taxes (hypocrisy) and is it also good to have so many who don't pay taxes piggyback on the productive ones that do? This is one of the pitfalls of progressive taxation.
If they can't pay taxes for a specific reason (i.e., disabled and not able to work as a result), that's not really their fault, though. If they have the means to get a job but don't simply because they don't want to, then I see your argument. Course, if people wind up benefiting from the taxes that productive people pay, that may in turn allow them the chance to get jobs down the line so that they're part of the productive taxpaying society instead of piggybackers.

I think people will be happy to pay taxes if they know the taxes will actually go to the right places. Whether it's a big amount or a small amount, as long as they see the benefits from their contribution, they'll be fine with the idea. And if society improved to the point where more people were able to get much better-paying jobs, we wouldn't notice the amount of tax as much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The majority aren't for Obamacare.
Didn't sound like it from that video. Many polls I saw during the debate stated that Americans were for a changed healthcare system. Obama was talking about universal healthcare pre-election, and obviously that struck a chord with many, because he won.

I don't think Americans were bothered by the idea of universal healthcare. I think if there was any reason for the comedown in support, it was because we got to see the sausage-making process regarding the healthcare bill, and we saw Obama and the Democrats giving in so often to the Republicans and weakening the bill more and more, and we saw the bickering and the scare tactics and the constant re-votes and the back and forth passing between the House and Senate, and we just got burned out on the idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Some minority are and some would say the in danger minority have a reason for it. I certainly want all covered but there must be a mandatory insurance system because free riders do exist and it makes the system unsustainable. The Republicans need to know that we can't have people allowed to not be covered and then when an early accident occurs pass it on to the taxpayer. The left has to be honest about rationing (Michael Moore was at least).
You are right, the free ride problem does need to be dealt with. We need a means in place to punish those who use the system, because what they're doing is not fair to the public at large. Just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There probably will be a bit of rationing, yes. But I'm guessing we'd try and make it so that those who need medical care right away (i.e., life-threatening conditions) can get that taken care of, and then we work our way down from most important to least important. Or, we could set it up so every hospital had its specialty areas, so anyone who went there could go to whatever specific area they needed to get treated, and there's no waiting. Or something like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Thank God there was enough opposition!
But how much of that opposition was founded?

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Telling people who lost their coal jobs it's 2010 isn't going to cut it.
Well, I'm sure that was the message that was stated when the car industry came into being and the horse/carriage industry wasn't needed anymore. I don't mean to sound so blase or cruel by saying that, because I don't like hearing about people losing their jobs, either. But the fact is, we are ten years into a new century, one would think we would be making some more progress by now. It's like when I heard about that mining accident in West Virginia earlier this year. My mom's first thought (and mine, too) was, "We're still mining? Why?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Other countries have tried the green jobs move but unfortunately there is a net job loss. This is precisely because green jobs are related to technologies that can't make energy as cheap so prices would have to increase and losing coal jobs won't be replaced one job for one. If green jobs were so good they would automatically get venture capital because they could compete with fossil fuels. I'm all for funding research but if a technology isn't ready yet we shouldn't be using the public as guinea pigs.
And I do agree with you on that-we should make sure the technology works properly first before we put it out there. So let's see if we can find a way to make this new energy in a cheaper way, that way we won't have to increase prices and we can get more money saved up to help get people more jobs in the new industry. They may not be able to replicate job for job, no, but if they can get training in whatever new jobs are available, they may learn new skills or improve on ones they've already had or something. 'Cause I certainly don't want people wandering around jobless, so if we can find a way to keep them working, that'd be great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Well this is what happens when you're president. He can't do everything so he picks his battles.
Indeed. I'm just saying that if he really didn't care about the other side's complaints, he would've just shoved all his stuff through as quickly as possible, no attempt at compromise, nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Most of the public wanted him to deal with the economy first but he didn't do that. He focussed on healthcare and energy reform. His attempt at the economy (and Bush's) is Stimulus.
And that's probably why he didn't go head first into altering the economy, he just figured he'd continue with and tweak Bush's strategy and while that was simmering, he'd go on to work on something else in the meantime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Stimulus is just a name for borrowing and spending. There was a funny response from Fred Thompson about "taking a bucket of water from one side of the pool and dumping it into the other side of the pool". Stimulus is to create government spending in government related jobs (like road construction, shovel ready projects, etc). Then these workers who receive their pay spend some money and therefore trickle into the economy. Unfortunately when that money gets to everyone else there is a looming tax bill from all that debt. The government either has to reduce quality of the benefits, inflate the currency (same thing), or increase taxes. Either way the pool is the same size as before and general public (without a government job and pension) has to eat the cost because there is no free lunch.
Then I guess we have to make a choice. Do we lose these nice benefits we enjoy so much, or do we pay a bit more to help keep them going? 'Cause the government can't win either way-raise taxes and people get in an uproar. But when a bridge collapses, or a school can't afford new books, or a road is unsafe to drive on, those very same people are going, "Why isn't this being fixed?" Well... Gotta make up your minds, people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The actual engine of growth is allowing people to keep a majority of what they make so there is an incentive to work (work is painful)
Work is only painful if you make it painful. Go in with a negative attitude and the job's gonna suck for you. And some jobs can be quite enjoyable in some form or fashion.

Many of the people nowadays who do manage to keep a majority of what they make don't share it and don't work. I guarantee you the CEOs in this financial mess haven't worked a day in their lives for a very long time, if ever. Meanwhile, my parents had some jobs that didn't pay much, but they always, always went to those jobs, no questions asked. They may not have liked every job, they may not have wanted to go every day, but they did. Because they had to support a family. And they wanted to have money to help themselves and others should they need it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
and then the public (if they are even intelligent anymore) saves a portion of that money for hardship and then eventually retirement. If the public loses this healthy habit the government can justify itself to intrude in all levels of our life. It won't happen tomorrow but future generations.
Some of the inability to save is due to people's bad spending habits and lack of intelligent decision-making, but some of it is also due to the fact that no matter how hard they try, they simply can't save, because they blow their money just taking care of the necessities. Add in unexpected medical bills, economic downturns that cause people to lose jobs and have difficulty finding new ones, and things of that nature and it makes it harder for people who truly want to save money be able to do so.

The last part, no offense, sounds slightly paranoid. Of course we shouldn't have the government run our lives entirely, but that's why we have these systems in place, so that people who do hit a bad spot can have some help until they get back on their feet. Our country could do well to learn to help each other out a little more often. We've had Medicare and Social Security in place for years, we've had public schools in place for years, and yet no mass government control over our lives has happened yet. If the government was trying to control us, they wouldn't leave any of this stuff as an option. They'd just say, "You're doing things this way, no questions asked". I'd like to think I'll be able to sense when the government's reaching beyond its bounds to unreasonable lengths. And if I do, trust me, I'll be the first one sounding the call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Don't forget the campaign. A lot was promised (as usual). Some of the public are too impatient but this looming debt is what is scaring them. They don't want a run on the dollar and they don't want the high taxes.
And I understand the fear about the debt. I'm not enthused about paying off 10 years worth of other people's crap decisions, too. Which is why I wish people had thought about that these past 10 years before they enthusiastically supported all sorts of things, but we can't change that, so hopefully we'll learn from this (though, do we ever?) and learn how to be more responsible with our money.

If we can get someone who knows how to explain economics in simple, easy to understand terms, and have them talk to the public and explain how these ideas will affect the debt and ways to help ease it down, that would certainly help. Not many people out there are financial experts, so they hear all these big numbers and hear all this mumbo jumbo about this and that and how it will or won't affect the debt (and that's supposing that their statement about its effects is true) and they get confused and scared.

Bottom line, math sucks . It's necessary, but it's a pain in the butt and unless you're a math whiz, it's confusing as hell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The Republicans feel the EXACT same way about Democrats. You gotta love Democracy.
LOL, indeed. Except I fail to see how they could see the Democrats as mean-spirited and ruthless. In order for the Democrats to be that way they'd have to grow a spine first .

And holy crackers, that's a long post. Sorry, everyone.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 08:41 PM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,296
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Great, now people will think we have death panels in Canada!

(I'd like to know which Canadian act of legislature establishes abd empowers the "death panels" that purpleoscar refers to. For the record.)
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 09:10 PM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
Just so you know, as a progressive I take a lot of my conservative friends seriously and I've never once asked them to stop believing in what they believe. Divergent opinions and the right to hold and express them is what makes free societies like Canada and the United States - as opposed to the former Soviet Union - so great.

No. Actually I don't take YOU seriously for the reasons mentioned by Diemen above.
Don't buy it. From start to finish the thread has followed the "pile on the token conservative" path. The amount of ad-hominems is just ridiculous at this point.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 09:18 PM   #71
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Local Time: 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Don't buy it. From start to finish the thread has followed the "pile on the token conservative" path. The amount of ad-hominems is just ridiculous at this point.
Well, I haven't read every post but my attacks against the conservative ideology have stemmed from logical reasoning that has been well explained.
__________________
pcfitz80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 09:21 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
If we can get someone who knows how to explain economics in simple, easy to understand terms, and have them talk to the public and explain how these ideas will affect the debt and ways to help ease it down, that would certainly help. Not many people out there are financial experts, so they hear all these big numbers and hear all this mumbo jumbo about this and that and how it will or won't affect the debt (and that's supposing that their statement about its effects is true) and they get confused and scared.

Bottom line, math sucks . It's necessary, but it's a pain in the butt and unless you're a math whiz, it's confusing as hell.
I'm pretty surprised at this argument from an intelligent poster. The basics of economics can be learnt in a few hours good tuition. With the internet, ot's pretty easy. People have a responsibility not to live beyond their means, and to learn the basics of economics. If people are in large debt it is usually at least partially their own stupid fault. Liberals want personal responsibility to be devolved and contracted to government all the time.

Earlier in the thread, conservatives were told they were 'unempathetic' because they don't agree with financing the unproductive lifestyles of junkies and similar ne'er do wells and leaches off society. I'd say the opposite - I'd say the real lack of empathy consists in the left liberal tendency to advocate a welfare state for all, all the time. A welfare state for junkie ne'er do wells is a form of moral evil, and largely, it's left-liberals, and not conservatives that advocate it.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 09:38 PM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I'm pretty surprised at this argument from an intelligent poster. The basics of economics can be learnt in a few hours good tuition. With the internet, ot's pretty easy. People have a responsibility not to live beyond their means, and to learn the basics of economics. If people are in large debt it is usually at least partially their own stupid fault. Liberals want personal responsibility to be devolved and contracted to government all the time.
Well, I was half-joking, but I was also stating that because, right or wrong, that does seem to be the mindset of many people in the country. What should seem so simple doesn't always seem to come across that way to many people. For instance, I was always good at spelling, so I don't understand how people can misspell simple words, or how they can mistake various forms of a word, or so on, but I know many instances of people who do that. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Math wasn't my strongest subject in school, but I personally don't honestly think it "sucks".

You are right, people do need to learn to live within their means and to understand economics well. I do believe fully in personal responsibility for your actions. But as you said, with many people, the fault is partially theirs, yes, but there are also circumstances beyond your control that factor in, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Earlier in the thread, conservatives were told they were 'unempathetic' because they don't agree with financing the unproductive lifestyles of junkies and similar ne'er do wells and leaches off society. I'd say the opposite - I'd say the real lack of empathy consists in the left liberal tendency to advocate a welfare state for all, all the time. A welfare state for junkie ne'er do wells is a form of moral evil, and largely, it's left-liberals, and not conservatives that advocate it.
True, but one could also argue that a lot of modern conservative policy (at least here in the States, I don't know how it is overseas) is what leads to welfare needing to be created. Forcing women to keep having babies they can't afford to take care of and bad job creation policies (the Bush administration didn't do much to help foster job creation here in the U.S., after all) thus making it harder for people to find jobs are just a couple examples.

Again, too, we also presume that welfare is only helping out the bad people. And while they do benefit from it, unfortunately, and while they shouldn't be, at the same time, there's also many out there who do need it. You shouldn't live your life off of welfare, no, 'cause that's not what it's there for. But it should at least be there in case somebody does happen to need it.

As for junkies, they need rehab before they need anything else. Proper rehab, too, none of this "30 days and you're done and healed" crap.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 10:34 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
So many people who live in those other countries that I've talked to have little to no complaint with their systems-hell, there's people here that could tell you that. They actually laugh at us for seemingly misunderstanding the way their healthcare system works. Of course, no system is perfect, a public option would have its issues just like any other, but seems many I know like their system better than ours . Guess it's in the eye of the beholder.
It's definitely debatable. The Canada system vs. the French & Japan system vs. the Taiwan system vs. the Swiss system. I don't think the debate is over yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
I'd like to see that full interview. It's easy to make it seem like that's what he said when you only take snippets of it out of context. Let me see the full thing, and then I'll comment.
Well I certainly don't want the status quo because as I said earlier it's a major problem if people don't pay into the system and expect to get government benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Keep in mind, the operative word here is "OPTION". You don't HAVE to take public insurance if you don't want to. But it's there for people who would like it. If we can survive with a public mail system and a private mail system, if we can survive with public schools and private schools, if we can survive with public buildings and private buildings, I don't see why we can't have competing public and private health options.
There already is public and private in the U.S.. The debate is over whether rationing should be run by the private sector or the public sector. Which is more efficient. Currently the U.S. is faster for lineups but others like Michael Moore prefer a Canadian system even with larger lineups.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
What exactly did you encounter with these so-called "death panels"? How in the world are they "death panels"?
They are just doctors and social workers that try and nudge you towards more cheaper therapy. My Mom was so far gone at that point it didn't matter but they are there. Government has to ration against those that they think don't have a future. For example they may not want to do costly surgery to improve a person's quality of life if they have another more debilitating disease that is thought to be terminal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
I've been in the healthcare situation this year, too, with my dad. The private insurance didn't do squat for us other than add on bill after bill after bill for us to sit there and wonder how the hell we were going to pay it off.
Healthcare is getting more expensive as technology improves and it will cost either way. Some Americans prefer to borrow the money and pay it off, though I'm sympathetic to having some government (like MedicAid) to help poor people who can't afford expensive treatments.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
How are the green jobs "bullshit"? What about the EPA threats bothers you specifically? And didn't Bush propose a stimulus, too? Don't many presidents propose a stimulus? We have to get our economy moving again somehow. What's your plan to solve the problem, if not a stimulus?
The stimulus didn't work. All it did was keep some industries afloat but we have to get out ASAP before the debt gets bigger. This is something the Democrats are starting to realize now. Read the above article from the National Review on stimulus. BTW Japan has been doing stimulus since the '90s.

EPA looks at CO2 as a pollutant. It's already been proven the opposite and the IPCC 2007 report EPA based their decision on is full of holes. The AGW point of view is embarrassing now. It just looks like the EPA is being used because the Senate doesn't want to pass cap and trade. BTW if we only used green energy products we would have to deindustrialize. Good luck selling that to the electorate!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
If there's regulation of Wall Street the government's already got its hands in the whole thing. There's got to be some control on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-maybe not ownership, per se, but some control. It's sort of like when you give a teenager their first taste of freedom and they go out and blow all their money or crash the car or something. Until they can prove themselves to be responsible again, the parents step in and keep an eye on things. Such is the case here. The financial industry has proven itself horribly irresponsible, so somebody needs to come in and watch them. Not permanently. Just for a while, until they grow up and act responsible. Remember, Obama has said that he has no desire to control everything, he doesn't WANT to sit there and tell car companies or financial companies or whatnot what to do. But right now, he doesn't have much of a choice.
Well I'm glad he doesn't want to own it (time ticking and waiting for Obama's pullout plan). It will be fun to see how long that will be. It didn't help that the government pushed for more risky debts to fight what they called "red lining" when poor people were denied mortgages. Remember this crisis was mainly due to people not paying their mortgages and cheap interest rates that helped fuel it. It's not completely a market failure. American Unions at car companies also asked for higher wages beyond the competitors so it made those vehicles less enticing. If you have more money to make your vehicles better and your competitor spends more on wages and pensions you know what will happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Agreed on BP, there wasn't a whole lot he could do there. Radical associations, however...well, he's long ago distanced himself from Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, and I can't think of any other radical people he's associating with at this time. But even so, you can know or be around radical people and not automatically support what they say or do.
Don't forget hiring Van Jones, Anita Dunn, and John Holdren.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
So make it understandable. That was Obama's problem, he didn't argue his case clearly enough. The scare tactic people took over, and some Americans unfortunately brought into their fearmongering.
If Obama argued his case clear enough it would have taken longer and there would be more changes than he would probably have wanted. It was a political gamble and he knows it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
The government, even if they stand up there and say they'll cut benefits in healthcare and social security, will never do it. Just like we'll never see cuts in defense, even though we could certainly cut some things there, too. Because for all the crowing and complaining, the fact is, people love their Medicare and their Social Security. Again, remember the nonsensical "Get your government hands off my Medicare!" cry? There's a reason those benefits still exist to this day: because people LIKE them. They provide needed services to people. There'll be changes, you're right, but it'll never be cut. Not unless a president who really wants to see how much he/she can alienate the public comes along with the nerve to do so. I'd say the minimum suggestion would be the most likely scenario.
The minimum suggestion will be most likely but of course if the U.S. keeps adding more stimulus debt they may have to drastically cut like in Greece. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
If they can't pay taxes for a specific reason (i.e., disabled and not able to work as a result), that's not really their fault, though. If they have the means to get a job but don't simply because they don't want to, then I see your argument. Course, if people wind up benefiting from the taxes that productive people pay, that may in turn allow them the chance to get jobs down the line so that they're part of the productive taxpaying society instead of piggybackers.
I'm not against helping poor and sick people but there is definitely a problem with free riders with illegal immigration and people who feel Constitutionally they can't be forced to buy insurance. There are now 3 government healthcare entitlements. There will have to be some streamlining and Obama is trying to get it from Medicare. It's a mess but I don't think it will be status quo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
I think people will be happy to pay taxes if they know the taxes will actually go to the right places. Whether it's a big amount or a small amount, as long as they see the benefits from their contribution, they'll be fine with the idea. And if society improved to the point where more people were able to get much better-paying jobs, we wouldn't notice the amount of tax as much.
Yes but better paying jobs lead to higher taxes in a progressive tax system. You methodology would work better in a flat tax system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Didn't sound like it from that video. Many polls I saw during the debate stated that Americans were for a changed healthcare system. Obama was talking about universal healthcare pre-election, and obviously that struck a chord with many, because he won.
He won because there was a economic crisis and Bush got all the blame and the Republicans were old and tired at this point being in power so long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
I don't think Americans were bothered by the idea of universal healthcare. I think if there was any reason for the comedown in support, it was because we got to see the sausage-making process regarding the healthcare bill, and we saw Obama and the Democrats giving in so often to the Republicans and weakening the bill more and more, and we saw the bickering and the scare tactics and the constant re-votes and the back and forth passing between the House and Senate, and we just got burned out on the idea.
There was unpopularity with the public as well. Many Americans don't want increased rationing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
You are right, the free ride problem does need to be dealt with. We need a means in place to punish those who use the system, because what they're doing is not fair to the public at large. Just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't think the Republicans will remove MedicAid, Medicare and this new entitlement all at once. I do hope they will decouple it from the employer based system which is a holdover from WWII.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
There probably will be a bit of rationing, yes. But I'm guessing we'd try and make it so that those who need medical care right away (i.e., life-threatening conditions) can get that taken care of, and then we work our way down from most important to least important. Or, we could set it up so every hospital had its specialty areas, so anyone who went there could go to whatever specific area they needed to get treated, and there's no waiting. Or something like that.
Don't forget people who need joint operations. I think Americans actually want the Canadian promise that they will be covered with the American quality of service. No country has done this yet so if someone can figure this one out kudos to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
But how much of that opposition was founded?
Well Van Jones was a communist 9/11 truther who supported the dead end green jobs to save the economy. Anita Dunn's favorite philosophers are Mother Theresa and Mao. John Holdren is a Mathusian AGW supporting czar. Yuck!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Well, I'm sure that was the message that was stated when the car industry came into being and the horse/carriage industry wasn't needed anymore. I don't mean to sound so blase or cruel by saying that, because I don't like hearing about people losing their jobs, either. But the fact is, we are ten years into a new century, one would think we would be making some more progress by now. It's like when I heard about that mining accident in West Virginia earlier this year. My mom's first thought (and mine, too) was, "We're still mining? Why?"
Hey! What about mining Nickel batteries for Hybrids? All joking aside the green technology isn't good enough to replace those jobs as we saw in Spain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
And I do agree with you on that-we should make sure the technology works properly first before we put it out there. So let's see if we can find a way to make this new energy in a cheaper way, that way we won't have to increase prices and we can get more money saved up to help get people more jobs in the new industry. They may not be able to replicate job for job, no, but if they can get training in whatever new jobs are available, they may learn new skills or improve on ones they've already had or something. 'Cause I certainly don't want people wandering around jobless, so if we can find a way to keep them working, that'd be great.
Sounds good. That may take decades but we have enough fossil fuels for that. When these technologies are even close enough to fossil fuels I'll definitely support that switch over and be glad to tell the Middle East to get terrorist funding elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Indeed. I'm just saying that if he really didn't care about the other side's complaints, he would've just shoved all his stuff through as quickly as possible, no attempt at compromise, nothing.
Well some people felt that's what he did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
And that's probably why he didn't go head first into altering the economy, he just figured he'd continue with and tweak Bush's strategy and while that was simmering, he'd go on to work on something else in the meantime.
Well cap and trade would alter the economy like never before so it looked to me like he was going head long into it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Then I guess we have to make a choice. Do we lose these nice benefits we enjoy so much, or do we pay a bit more to help keep them going? 'Cause the government can't win either way-raise taxes and people get in an uproar. But when a bridge collapses, or a school can't afford new books, or a road is unsafe to drive on, those very same people are going, "Why isn't this being fixed?" Well... Gotta make up your minds, people.
I agree it's the public's fault utlimately. The electorate gets the government they deserve. The Economist some years back did a study and found the obvious: Most people want more government benefits and lower taxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Work is only painful if you make it painful. Go in with a negative attitude and the job's gonna suck for you. And some jobs can be quite enjoyable in some form or fashion.
I agree but I was talking about the actual effort people put in. At the end of the day people are tired and want more to show for it to keep the motivation. Most people aren't in jobs that are entertaining or self-motivating so money is usually more of a motivation. Of course if you can love what you do all the better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Many of the people nowadays who do manage to keep a majority of what they make don't share it and don't work. I guarantee you the CEOs in this financial mess haven't worked a day in their lives for a very long time, if ever. Meanwhile, my parents had some jobs that didn't pay much, but they always, always went to those jobs, no questions asked. They may not have liked every job, they may not have wanted to go every day, but they did. Because they had to support a family. And they wanted to have money to help themselves and others should they need it.
I'm definitely not a big fan of CEOs that rip off shareholders with bonuses that aren't earned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Some of the inability to save is due to people's bad spending habits and lack of intelligent decision-making, but some of it is also due to the fact that no matter how hard they try, they simply can't save, because they blow their money just taking care of the necessities. Add in unexpected medical bills, economic downturns that cause people to lose jobs and have difficulty finding new ones, and things of that nature and it makes it harder for people who truly want to save money be able to do so.
Yeah but that's always the case. I still think people blew money on vacations and big houses they couldn't afford. The consumerism this past 20 years was MASSIVE. Low interest rates and easy credit cards made it worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
The last part, no offense, sounds slightly paranoid. Of course we shouldn't have the government run our lives entirely, but that's why we have these systems in place, so that people who do hit a bad spot can have some help until they get back on their feet. Our country could do well to learn to help each other out a little more often. We've had Medicare and Social Security in place for years, we've had public schools in place for years, and yet no mass government control over our lives has happened yet. If the government was trying to control us, they wouldn't leave any of this stuff as an option. They'd just say, "You're doing things this way, no questions asked". I'd like to think I'll be able to sense when the government's reaching beyond its bounds to unreasonable lengths. And if I do, trust me, I'll be the first one sounding the call.
Remember these programs were to solve poverty. It was called the "war on poverty". These programs keep building on each other and when government screws up it also continues to be the solution.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
And I understand the fear about the debt. I'm not enthused about paying off 10 years worth of other people's crap decisions, too. Which is why I wish people had thought about that these past 10 years before they enthusiastically supported all sorts of things, but we can't change that, so hopefully we'll learn from this (though, do we ever?) and learn how to be more responsible with our money.
We have to learn. Yes hopefully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
If we can get someone who knows how to explain economics in simple, easy to understand terms, and have them talk to the public and explain how these ideas will affect the debt and ways to help ease it down, that would certainly help. Not many people out there are financial experts, so they hear all these big numbers and hear all this mumbo jumbo about this and that and how it will or won't affect the debt (and that's supposing that their statement about its effects is true) and they get confused and scared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
There are those out there but most of them are conservatives and libertarians. The Keynesian point of view is very popular in academia though I don't know if they will stay the same after eternal stimulus. People should turn off the TV and read more.

And holy crackers, that's a long post. Sorry, everyone.

Angela
Wrapping quotes is SO SLOW. I tried to keep it brief.
__________________
purpleoscar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 10:38 PM   #75
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post

Earlier in the thread, conservatives were told they were 'unempathetic' because they don't agree with financing the unproductive lifestyles of junkies and similar ne'er do wells and leaches off society. I'd say the opposite - I'd say the real lack of empathy consists in the left liberal tendency to advocate a welfare state for all, all the time. A welfare state for junkie ne'er do wells is a form of moral evil, and largely, it's left-liberals, and not conservatives that advocate it.
I haven't read every post, so I'm not sure which post you're referring to, but I think the whole "welfare state for all, all the time" is just as bad of an argument.

Both extremes are wrong. Giving free reign to allow the divide between the rich and poor to grow even further is wrong. And creating an environment where the providers will continuously pay for those that can but don't try is wrong as well. There is middle ground.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com