[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Old people utilizing Medicare is a fact, no? People getting social security checks, the same. Perhaps it is not a *great* return on investment, but it is not a tax either.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it accurate to classify as a tax.

Bessie, when the goverment takes your money against your will and uses it for services that you may or may not want and there is no way to opt out...that's the very definition of a tax! It's YOU who changing the definition to suit your own purpose.

If it's not a tax, what is it?

(posting from an iPhone sucks)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Bessie, when the goverment takes your money against your will and uses it for services that you may or may not want and there is no way to opt out...that's the very definition of a tax! It's YOU who changing the definition to suit your own purpose.

If the compulsory payment is what you consider a tax, fine, but there is a difference between a service paid for with tax payer dollars and a fee being imposed that you do not benefit from.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If the compulsory payment is what you consider a tax, fine, but there is a difference between a service paid for with tax payer dollars and a fee being imposed that you do not benefit from.

Like I asked, if this isn't a tax...what is it? It's not like I get back MY OWN money. It takes many taxpayers to pay for The "services" that one person recieves. plus, they use the money for other things, they've benn raiding it for decades. This is no different than any payment for services taken from the general fund.

I don't mean to harp on this, I just don't get how this is NOT a tax?

[besson3c]

Are we having a semantic argument? If so, I apologize since it was me that was harping on "accuracy". The point I was trying to make was simply that there is a difference between paying a fee vs. funding a public service.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'm convinced that much of liberalism is equal parts deep-rooted cynicism that the person clings to and revels in imparting to as many other people as possible, mixed with equal parts distortion and purposeful mischaracterization of anything to the contrary.

Where to even start?

First off, the liberal definition of 'success' is some warped, distorted and shallow worldview that of course, is unobtainable. To a liberal, to say 'anyone can succeed' gets turned into some warped nonsense where success is defined as everyone being wealthy, having everything they want, basically everyone leading the same life and being the same person.

Wrong, but that's the way you'd like it to be portrayed, so you can continue with your usual diatribe. No one is claiming that everyone should be wealthy, but there are basic standards of fairness that should be adhered to.

Success as defined by a realist, is simply that one can achieve their own independence, be able to survive on their own and live a fulfilling life. A realist knows that takes on as many different forms as their are different people.


To a lib, it's all boiled down to just some cynical sniveling over amounts of money and possessions, and how it compares to what someone else has. Then it's hand-wringing over how can we get a big and insanely powerful enough government to take over and make everything 'equal'. The entire mindset is ridiculously shallow, and you libs prove it everytime you spout it- but of course being mired in it, you can't see it.

Wrong again, and if you'd look, you'd see it isn't the "liberals" alone who have promoted big government.

And again, there's the purposeful mischaracterization of ideas; no realist says strictly that 'everyone can succeed'. Realists know that anyone, meaning not everyone, but any given individual can succeed based on certain criteria: that they apply themselves, that they have realistic goals that match their knowledge and skill, that they have the drive, will, ambition, etc. to achieve what is for them success, and probably most importantly, that they live where narrow-minded busybodies can't rob them of all opportunity for success.

A lefty probably can't even process that last paragraph. Anyone? Say what? What about race? Gender? Sexual orientation? How much money a person has? How much stuff they have? How much stuff they have not? What about this crutch? That excuse? This that and the other meaningless trait that a lib zeros in on, focuses on, obsesses over, and uses to define everything about entire groups of people.

Anyone can succeed. Liberals simply don't have a proper definition of ANY of the three words that make up that sentence.

Anyone- meaning individuals, not all your crazy "in need of rescue by a nanny-state" stereotypes. Anyone is not EVERYone. It's reality that not EVERYone will meet the criteria needed for success, or even if they do -for myriad reasons as varied as life itself- simply won't. So what? There's no nanny-state program that can toss enough of someone else's money down a rathole to 'fix' this; it's simply part of life.

Can- not- WILL. (An entire universe of difference between those two words- sails over the heads of a cynical lefty)

Succeed- see above.

Wrong again (and not surprisingly so). Your ramblings fail to take into account so many other psycho/social factors, and are based on your narrow minded views of how you, and only you, see the world, you can't see how other people might think differently. It's great that you saw hope, and that you had something trigger or set in place your sense of being able to achieve your dreams, but the reality is that not everyone sees the same tv show you do.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

but there is a difference between a service paid for with tax payer dollars and a fee being imposed that you do not benefit from.

Oh that's so cute.

You get services for every tax dollar they wring out of you ?

You blessed soul.

-t

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

First off, that's not even remotely true, and just illustrates you're operating from some shallow definition of success. You're honestly, with a straight face trying to present it as 'fact' that no minority or female was ever self-sufficient and led a successful life, due to racism or sexism or anything else? Talk about an extremely warped and pessimistic outlook. I would think such a ridiculous view would even be insulting to minorities and women, and a huge pat on the back "job well done!" to racists and bigots. It's patently absurd. You really think this way?

"Shallow definition of success"?

Your definition is clearly stated: "self-sufficient and led a successful life." Is that the definition you're using to contend that racism/sexism is not an issue? "Self-sufficient." Oh gee, way to throw them a frickin bone there.

Because see, I was starting my definition of "success" from the viewpoint of "can become as successful as that white Christian man walking across the street."

And there is nothing - nothing - about your country's recent history that suggests that a whatever kind of not-white-European-man, or any type of woman (compounded if not white of course!), could ever be as potentially successful as that average white man walking across the street. Nothing. For you to even suggest that would make you into a liar, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

You libs

I'm a smaller-government conservative.

Yes, but how long does one keep clinging to the past as a bludgeon to keep people believing they can't succeed in the present and future? What real point does all the cynicism do? In my own experience, the people I've met who most believe that minorities and women can't succeed, are always liberals. Always.

...and those same minorities and women, right?

Unless your position is that "teh liberals" have brainwashed the entire minority/female population into thinking like this (which of course it very well could be ), you have an identifiable voting base with very vocal concerns. Is there any surprise they're getting entitlements of some sort?

Really, what is the point of all that? At what point do we say, "The past is in the past, now let's move forward, starting right now, with THIS generation." What does it serve to keep droning on about past injustices as if they can never be overcome? Why even think that way? It's totally alien to me, but it seems to be a deeply clung-to belief of liberals that I honestly think part of you will be unhappy to ever let go of. I don't understand that mindset, never will.

Ahhhh, but it's the exactly same problem as with the agriculture subsidies, which is why I brought them up: once you give them, it's a million times more difficult to take them away. Isn't it?

greg

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The answer isn't bigger government and more government control. The answer is more private competition to deliver superior services to the customer coupled with better oversight - and oversight should be performed not only by governments but also by private consumer protection organizations.

I completely agree. So - how do we achieve that? Because with the current rules, under the current structure, things are/were headed in exactly the opposite way. Through laissez-faire, we've had less private competition as more big financial institutions gobble up the little ones, more actions and policies that are hostile to customers, and more risks taken with other peoples' resources.

If, with the current rules and structure, we see things going in the direction opposite what we want, then I'd think the prudent action would be to change the rules and structure. This could come in the form of regulation, reform, encouraging more small startup, helping increase the influence of private consumer protection, etc. It doesn't necessarily mean bigger government, just different government. And yes, government is necessarily part of the equation, since it set the rules that allowed this mess in the first place.

This is not to say government should be anti-business. But it shouldn't be pro-business either. It should act in a way to balance the rights of all its constituents.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

"Shallow definition of success"?

Your definition is clearly stated: "self-sufficient and led a successful life." Is that the definition you're using to contend that racism/sexism is not an issue? "Self-sufficient." Oh gee, way to throw them a frickin bone there.

Because see, I was starting my definition of "success" from the viewpoint of "can become as successful as that white Christian man walking across the street."

EXACTLY what I was talking about. Like I said, you're so mired in it, you can't even see it.
"To a lib, it's all boiled down to just some cynical sniveling over amounts of money and possessions, and how it compares to what someone else has.
"
And yep, your definition of 'success' is just as I said, some shallow sniveling based on jealousy of "white Christian men".

The irony about you liberals (and you're definitely a lefty despite whatever posturing you make to the contrary) compared to racists and bigots, is that the later actually don't have any illusions about minorities or women being able to succeed- they're merely afraid of them doing so, and so try to prevent them from doing so when possible.

A racist, for example, who's able to hold power over minorities, will be affraid of a black person becoming their boss or in some way having power over them, but they definitely know it's possible. You libs on the other hand don't even believe it's possible for a black person to be successful- as evidenced by your own words and the fact that you get irate by anyone even suggesting you're full of crap by always insisting on it.

Which viewpoint is more backwards and warped? To me, they're almost equally backwards.

And there is nothing - nothing - about your country's recent history that suggests that a whatever kind of not-white-European-man, or any type of woman (compounded if not white of course!), could ever be as potentially successful as that average white man walking across the street. Nothing. For you to even suggest that would make you into a liar, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

And yet another exhibit of what I'm talking about. To your warped worldview, minorities and women are helpless, and somehow incapable of being as 'successful' (meaning once more, your shallow warped view of that word) as some white person that you obviously view as superior to them and more capable of success! Your own words reveal this mindset quite clearly. You're clearly very insistent on this belief, so you can't even pretend I'm making it up.

Again, I have to wonder, why is this warped view somehow supposed to be more 'forward-thinking' than someone who simply doesn't view white Christian males' or whoever else as somehow more capable of success. That's as backward a view as any racist ever held about minorities.

I'm a smaller-government conservative.

Your warped views on race, and insistence on the permanent victim-hood of minorities are as lefty as they get.

Unless your position is that "teh liberals" have brainwashed the entire minority/female population into thinking like this (which of course it very well could be ), you have an identifiable voting base with very vocal concerns. Is there any surprise they're getting entitlements of some sort?

Wow, did you actually just suggest that all or even most minorities are "getting entitlements of some sort" and worse, that this would somehow be a good thing? And that they all think the same way? *The entire minority/female population.* Wow! You really cast a BIG net in your stereotyping, don't you?

So basically your view is that all minorities are wards of the state in some way, and spend all thier time envious over those superior 'white Chirstian males' who somehow all have something better than any minority... or for that matter, any female. (At last check, well over half the population!)

You really need to get outside more often. I don't even know where such a warped mindset comes from. This is supposed to be 'progressive'? It's just warped.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong again

Another typical post of yours without a shred of substance.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

"To a lib, it's all boiled down to just some cynical sniveling over amounts of money and possessions, and how it compares to what someone else has."

And yep, your definition of 'success' is just as I said, some shallow sniveling based on jealousy of "white Christian men".

This is awesome

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This is awesome

Very Stephen Colbertish...

[BadKosh]

Racist is not bigot. The terms seem to be misunderstood.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

EXACTLY what I was talking about. Like I said, you're so mired in it, you can't even see it.
"To a lib, it's all boiled down to just some cynical sniveling over amounts of money and possessions, and how it compares to what someone else has.
"
And yep, your definition of 'success' is just as I said, some shallow sniveling based on jealousy of "white Christian men".

The irony about you liberals (and you're definitely a lefty despite whatever posturing you make to the contrary) compared to racists and bigots, is that the later actually don't have any illusions about minorities or women being able to succeed- they're merely afraid of them doing so, and so try to prevent them from doing so when possible.

A racist, for example, who's able to hold power over minorities, will be affraid of a black person becoming their boss or in some way having power over them, but they definitely know it's possible. You libs on the other hand don't even believe it's possible for a black person to be successful- as evidenced by your own words and the fact that you get irate by anyone even suggesting you're full of crap by always insisting on it.

Which viewpoint is more backwards and warped? To me, they're almost equally backwards.


And yet another exhibit of what I'm talking about. To your warped worldview, minorities and women are helpless, and somehow incapable of being as 'successful' (meaning once more, your shallow warped view of that word) as some white person that you obviously view as superior to them and more capable of success! Your own words reveal this mindset quite clearly. You're clearly very insistent on this belief, so you can't even pretend I'm making it up.

Again, I have to wonder, why is this warped view somehow supposed to be more 'forward-thinking' than someone who simply doesn't view white Christian males' or whoever else as somehow more capable of success. That's as backward a view as any racist ever held about minorities.


Your warped views on race, and insistence on the permanent victim-hood of minorities are as lefty as they get.



Wow, did you actually just suggest that all or even most minorities are "getting entitlements of some sort" and worse, that this would somehow be a good thing? And that they all think the same way? *The entire minority/female population.* Wow! You really cast a BIG net in your stereotyping, don't you?

So basically your view is that all minorities are wards of the state in some way, and spend all thier time envious over those superior 'white Chirstian males' who somehow all have something better than any minority... or for that matter, any female. (At last check, well over half the population!)

You really need to get outside more often. I don't even know where such a warped mindset comes from. This is supposed to be 'progressive'? It's just warped.

Another typical post of yours without a shred of evidence. Just your opinion.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I completely agree. So - how do we achieve that? Because with the current rules, under the current structure, things are/were headed in exactly the opposite way. Through laissez-faire, we've had less private competition as more big financial institutions gobble up the little ones, more actions and policies that are hostile to customers, and more risks taken with other peoples' resources.

If, with the current rules and structure, we see things going in the direction opposite what we want, then I'd think the prudent action would be to change the rules and structure. This could come in the form of regulation, reform, encouraging more small startup, helping increase the influence of private consumer protection, etc. It doesn't necessarily mean bigger government, just different government. And yes, government is necessarily part of the equation, since it set the rules that allowed this mess in the first place.

This is not to say government should be anti-business. But it shouldn't be pro-business either. It should act in a way to balance the rights of all its constituents.

The problem is...we haven't had laissez-faire anything. Never have and I'm sure never will. Our markets and our businesses are heavily regulated and taxed and it is those regulations combined with cronyism that have led to most of our current problems. Heavier regulations always favor the larger companies by making business too expensive and difficult for the little guys to compete.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The problem is...we haven't had laissez-faire anything. Never have and I'm sure never will. Our markets and our businesses are heavily regulated and taxed and it is those regulations combined with cronyism that have led to most of our current problems. Heavier regulations always favor the larger companies by making business too expensive and difficult for the little guys to compete.

I would argue that cronyism and laissez-faire are closely related.

And...what would you call it when financial institutions are taking undue risk with others' assets and everyone, including government, looks the other way? Sounds like a case of laissez-faire to me. Is it ABSOLUTE? No, nothing is. Laissez-faire doesn't have to mean there's an absolute free-for-all. In this case, I think it means that someone found some loopholes to exploit (which, yes, there will always be), and nothing was done about it (which, no, doesn't have to be the case).

So - I'll repeat my question. How do we then achieve a more competitive environment in financial services? Because I'm all for it.

[BadKosh]

I guess as long as Affirmative Action policies are in place someone is getting an unfair advantage. It also suggests that those who want AA in place think it is required because those who its designed to 'help' are somehow inferior.

[dcmacdaddy]

CRASH,

Your argument with StM seems to be based on conflicting assumptions about what it means to be "self-sufficient" and/or "successful". So, to help improve and/or clarify the debate, tell us what criteria/parameters you use to determine if someone is "self-sufficient and [has] led a successful life"?

In other words, what do you define as "self-sufficient"? What do you define as "a successful life"?
What physical, social, psychological, educational, professional actions can/must a person take to be deemed "self-sufficient"?
What physical, social, psychological, educational, professional accomplishments can/must a person have to be deemed "successful"?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I would argue that cronyism and laissez-faire are closely related.

And...what would you call it when financial institutions are taking undue risk with others' assets and everyone, including government, looks the other way? Sounds like a case of laissez-faire to me. Is it ABSOLUTE? No, nothing is. Laissez-faire doesn't have to mean there's an absolute free-for-all. In this case, I think it means that someone found some loopholes to exploit (which, yes, there will always be), and nothing was done about it (which, no, doesn't have to be the case).

So - I'll repeat my question. How do we then achieve a more competitive environment in financial services? Because I'm all for it.

First... just to be clear... when I say cronyism, I am referring to businesses colluding with government. In this case cronyism has nothing to do with laissez-faire. In fact, this kind of cronyism is the antithesis of laissez-faire, since government should not be involved with the operation of business at all (or nearly so) under this type of system. This includes making backroom deals that benefit some corporations, to the detriment of others. I personally wouldn't use the word cronyism in reference to corporations dealing with each other. In my mind, cronyism has a negative connotation and I don't believe there's anything wrong with corporations dealing with each other in any way they wish... so long as there is no deceit, fraud, theft, etc., i.e. actual crimes.

Which reminds me of another pet peeve of mine which has nothing to do with your post. There seems to be a lot of anger right now at all these large corporations for taking bailout money, and I don't understand it. To me, this is akin to the man who discovers his wife cheating on him and focuses most of his anger on the man with whom she cheated, rather than the actual source of the betrayal. While I do agree that a certain amount of contempt for the corporation is justified for this, it is the government who has taken our money, and made these deals with corporations against our will. They are the ones who have betrayed our trust, and are solely deserving of the blame.

But I digress...

I don't believe that more or new and exciting regulation is the answer at all. We have been increasing the number of laws and regulations for decades and it not only hasn't helped, it has made things worse. As a proponent of true laissez-faire capitalism I think we should stop telling companies what to do, stop giving them any of our tax money...period, and if they dig a hole and jump in, let them pull themselves out or it can collapse around them.

Under such a system, there will still be crooks and fools, but this can't be avoided under any system, and without goverment interference it becomes much easier to be profitable legitimately. Without goverment assistance, collusion, bailouts, etc., there is less incentive to gamble. IMO any goverment involvement should be directed solely on protecting people from being defrauded, stolen from, etc..

I realize that true free market capitalism isn't very popular. Even most on the right think there should be a certain amount of regulation. I think that this is due mostly to people like yourself being misled into thinking that what we have had in America... or anywhere else for that matter... IS a true free market when it is nowhere even close. How can you hold up the current situation as an example of a failure of free market capitalism when the market isn't free AND NEVER HAS BEEN?

This whole issue is about the peoples' and the goverment's desire for control, whether those who simply want power, or those who think that evil corporations need to be held under the heel of a boot, or those who mistakenly feel that if the just try hard enough they can prevent bad things from happening. The problem is that the more you try to control someone, the more they will try to wriggle from your grasp and use means to break free that they otherwise might not.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

First... just to be clear... when I say cronyism, I am referring to businesses colluding with government. In this case cronyism has nothing to do with laissez-faire. In fact, this kind of cronyism is the antithesis of laissez-faire, since government should not be involved with the operation of business at all (or nearly so) under this type of system. This includes making backroom deals that benefit some corporations, to the detriment of others. I personally wouldn't use the word cronyism in reference to corporations dealing with each other. In my mind, cronyism has a negative connotation and I don't believe there's anything wrong with corporations dealing with each other in any way they wish... so long as there is no deceit, fraud, theft, etc., i.e. actual crimes.

Fair enough, and I agree that the worst possible scenario is government colluding with business. I guess I was just thinking that a lot of collusion of this sort would basically be government looking the other way when business implements questionable practices - which is where laissez-faire comes in. The bailouts are a whole other matter...

I think for the most part, society benefits most when government is effective in its role as a foil for corporate excess.* Because as much as many fear the giant monolith of government, I fear the giant monolith of 'too big to fail' corporate control. Neither giant monolith is good for us - hence the WORST outcome when they collude.

*Kind of like how government is most effective when one party controls the legislative branch, and another controls the executive branch!

Which reminds me of another pet peeve of mine which has nothing to do with your post. There seems to be a lot of anger right now at all these large corporations for taking bailout money, and I don't understand it. To me, this is akin to the man who discovers his wife cheating on him and focuses most of his anger on the man with whom she cheated, rather than the actual source of the betrayal. While I do agree that a certain amount of contempt for the corporation is justified for this, it is the government who has taken our money, and made these deals with corporations against our will. They are the ones who have betrayed our trust, and are solely deserving of the blame.

In each situation, both parties (business/government, wife/lover) are at fault and deserving of contempt, IMHO. I agree with your assessment that government/wife deserve a higher DEGREE of contempt, but anyway...

But I digress...

I don't believe that more or new and exciting regulation is the answer at all. We have been increasing the number of laws and regulations for decades and it not only hasn't helped, it has made things worse. As a proponent of true laissez-faire capitalism I think we should stop telling companies what to do, stop giving them any of our tax money...period, and if they dig a hole and jump in, let them pull themselves out or it can collapse around them.

Under such a system, there will still be crooks and fools, but this can't be avoided under any system, and without goverment interference it becomes much easier to be profitable legitimately. Without goverment assistance, collusion, bailouts, etc., there is less incentive to gamble. IMO any goverment involvement should be directed solely on protecting people from being defrauded, stolen from, etc..

IMO this is the source of most regulation to begin with - it's put in place to protect consumers, prevent fraud, safe employment practices, etc. Those groups benefit from those things, but so do businesses. They can have more people buy their products if they demonstrate they've met an accepted government standard, or attract talent more easily because people know they have recourse if they encounter illegal labor practices. Bottom line - I wouldn't say all regulation has made things worse.

Before there was much regulation at all - i.e. prior to the Sherman Antitrust Act, we saw basically the same thing - a bunch of monopolists getting 'too big to fail'.

I realize that true free market capitalism isn't very popular. Even most on the right think there should be a certain amount of regulation. I think that this is due mostly to people like yourself being misled into thinking that what we have had in America... or anywhere else for that matter... IS a true free market when it is nowhere even close. How can you hold up the current situation as an example of a failure of free market capitalism when the market isn't free AND NEVER HAS BEEN?

You're wrong in your assumption about me. I fully understand we don't, and never will, have a perfectly free market. We will never encounter perfect competition in any market, and will never encounter the other extreme of a complete and utter monopoly. But I would also argue that effective competition isn't an automatic assumption in every market (really, actually, in very few) - it's something we as a society have to work for and promote. There are too many factors - local logistics, barriers to entry, laws/subsidies from other countries, etc. to allow for that. In other words, market entropy does not result in perfect competition, and does not guarantee what we would consider a 'free' market. A true free market is an aspiration, not an everyday reality.

This whole issue is about the peoples' and the goverment's desire for control, whether those who simply want power, or those who think that evil corporations need to be held under the heel of a boot, or those who mistakenly feel that if the just try hard enough they can prevent bad things from happening. The problem is that the more you try to control someone, the more they will try to wriggle from your grasp and use means to break free that they otherwise might not.

I don't think corporations are evil - I think they do exactly what we as a society have designed them to do - maximize their bottom line. There's nothing wrong with that, but in some cases, it creates externalities that interfere with the rights of others. That's where government has a role to step in and use the tools available to it - yes, including regulation - to balance those rights.

Let's not forget that corporations are a construct of government to begin with. So if you were to get government completely out of it, the whole concept of a corporation would go with it, and business owners would be left liable for their actions. IMO, as soon as government creates the concept of a corporation and eliminates that individual liability, they have a responsibility to ensure that the concept is used for the benefit of society and not its detriment. 'With great power comes great responsibility' and all that...