Obama urges economic fairness in State Of The Union

[Gauda]

Government control over the printing of money is important when Fiat money is involved. If our dollar was based on Gold or Silver, as it had been for nearly 3000 years, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. The first great depression was only allowed to happen because of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, with a gold standard, it would of never happened.

Who is us in 'our dollar'?

The USA seems to have adopted a derivative silver standard a little before the end of the 18th century, and changed to a gold standard only halfway through the 19th century. After some changes along the way in their policies (it turns out there are many ways to have a gold-standard), the US eventually abandoned the gold standard under Nixon, in 1971; some time after the great depression in the 1930s.

Also, the dollar is fairly recent, the earliest use in America might have been the Dutch lion dollar which came along from Europe quite quickly after Europeans started settling America. Its use was formalized around the same time as the United States adopted the derivative silver standard a little before the end of the 18th century.

[metatron]

Government control over the printing of money is important when Fiat money is involved. If our dollar was based on Gold or Silver, as it had been for nearly 3000 years, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. The first great depression was only allowed to happen because of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, with a gold standard, it would of never happened.

Who is us in 'our dollar'?

The USA seems to have adopted a derivative silver standard a little before the end of the 18th century, and changed to a gold standard only halfway through the 19th century. After some changes along the way in their policies (it turns out there are many ways to have a gold-standard), the US eventually abandoned the gold standard under Nixon, in 1971; some time after the great depression in the 1930s.

Also, the dollar is fairly recent, the earliest use in America might have been the Dutch lion dollar which came along from Europe quite quickly after Europeans started settling America. Its use was formalized around the same time as the United States adopted the derivative silver standard a little before the end of the 18th century.

Again, here is the show of a lack of understand of how economies have worked. In the early 20th century, 1913 to be precise, introduced something called "Federal Reserve Notes" Which are what we know to be American Dollars today. That was in addition to the already circulating currency known as gold certificates:

Federal Reserve Notes originally had to be based on gold coins, but quickly the banks started printing out more bills then gold available at the time. Banks were lending out more then they had, since Federal Reserve Notes were supposed to be guaranteed money. The automobile industry started producing more cars then the demand, thus creating hyper-deflation that crashed that sector of the market, that then crashed the banking system. If Gold Certificates were kept, and printed by the bank to the amount of gold it had, that couldn't of happened.

[Gauda]

Government control over the printing of money is important when Fiat money is involved. If our dollar was based on Gold or Silver, as it had been for nearly 3000 years, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. The first great depression was only allowed to happen because of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, with a gold standard, it would of never happened.

Who is us in 'our dollar'?

The USA seems to have adopted a derivative silver standard a little before the end of the 18th century, and changed to a gold standard only halfway through the 19th century. After some changes along the way in their policies (it turns out there are many ways to have a gold-standard), the US eventually abandoned the gold standard under Nixon, in 1971; some time after the great depression in the 1930s.

Also, the dollar is fairly recent, the earliest use in America might have been the Dutch lion dollar which came along from Europe quite quickly after Europeans started settling America. Its use was formalized around the same time as the United States adopted the derivative silver standard a little before the end of the 18th century.

Again, here is the show of a lack of understand of how economies have worked. In the early 20th century, 1913 to be precise, introduced something called "Federal Reserve Notes" Which are what we know to be American Dollars today. That was in addition to the already circulating currency known as gold certificates:

Federal Reserve Notes originally had to be based on gold coins, but quickly the banks started printing out more bills then gold available at the time. Banks were lending out more then they had, since Federal Reserve Notes were supposed to be guaranteed money. The automobile industry started producing more cars then the demand, thus creating hyper-deflation that crashed that sector of the market, that then crashed the banking system. If Gold Certificates were kept, and printed by the bank to the amount of gold it had, that couldn't of happened.

You are very certain of your views on this, but as you probably know but fail to say; your explanation is only one of many explanations for the Great Depression. Yours seems to be taken from the Austrian school which emphasized that the long-term expansion of the money-supply caused the crisis. This is certainly not a mainstream view, and most economists seem to hold the opposite view; that the contraction of the money supply after the stock crash turned a normal recession into a great depression. Another view, related to the latter views, is that lack of effective demand caused by rising inequality caused the depression. These are all legitimate views, and I'm really not convinced that you have a clear understanding of how economies work. You seem to have clear political views, but that's a different thing.

[metatron]

Government control over the printing of money is important when Fiat money is involved. If our dollar was based on Gold or Silver, as it had been for nearly 3000 years, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. The first great depression was only allowed to happen because of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, with a gold standard, it would of never happened.

Who is us in 'our dollar'?

The USA seems to have adopted a derivative silver standard a little before the end of the 18th century, and changed to a gold standard only halfway through the 19th century. After some changes along the way in their policies (it turns out there are many ways to have a gold-standard), the US eventually abandoned the gold standard under Nixon, in 1971; some time after the great depression in the 1930s.

Also, the dollar is fairly recent, the earliest use in America might have been the Dutch lion dollar which came along from Europe quite quickly after Europeans started settling America. Its use was formalized around the same time as the United States adopted the derivative silver standard a little before the end of the 18th century.

Again, here is the show of a lack of understand of how economies have worked. In the early 20th century, 1913 to be precise, introduced something called "Federal Reserve Notes" Which are what we know to be American Dollars today. That was in addition to the already circulating currency known as gold certificates:

Federal Reserve Notes originally had to be based on gold coins, but quickly the banks started printing out more bills then gold available at the time. Banks were lending out more then they had, since Federal Reserve Notes were supposed to be guaranteed money. The automobile industry started producing more cars then the demand, thus creating hyper-deflation that crashed that sector of the market, that then crashed the banking system. If Gold Certificates were kept, and printed by the bank to the amount of gold it had, that couldn't of happened.

You are very certain of your views on this, but as you probably know but fail to say; your explanation is only one of many explanations for the Great Depression. Yours seems to be taken from the Austrian school which emphasized that the long-term expansion of the money-supply caused the crisis. This is certainly not a mainstream view, and most economists seem to hold the opposite view; that the contraction of the money supply after the stock crash turned a normal recession into a great depression. Another view, related to the latter views, is that lack of effective demand caused by rising inequality caused the depression. These are all legitimate views, and I'm really not convinced that you have a clear understanding of how economies work. You seem to have clear political views, but that's a different thing.

I just want to point out, Peter Schiff, one of the contemporary heads of the austrian school of economy is one of the only economists to have predicted the housing bubble of '08 and the impending recession, to the point where Art Laffer called him insane and so did Ben Stein. Ben Stein and Art Laffer lost millions of dollars a day because of their stock in Merrill Lynch.

[Dazey]

I get treated a whole lot better in many shopping establishments then I ever do in a hospital.

How many of those establishments would welcome you with open arms if you had no money?

[Dazey]

I just want to point out, Peter Schiff, one of the contemporary heads of the austrian school of economy is one of the only economists to have predicted the housing bubble of '08 and the impending recession, to the point where Art Laffer called him insane and so did Ben Stein. Ben Stein and Art Laffer lost millions of dollars a day because of their stock in Merrill Lynch.

Not really of specific relevance here but I just wanted to point out that Ben Stein is a complete cretin! The man's an idiot of the highest order so anything he says has to be discounted without consideration.

[metatron]

I get treated a whole lot better in many shopping establishments then I ever do in a hospital.

How many of those establishments would welcome you with open arms if you had no money?

None of them, but that's alright. Why would you have no money? Well, you chose not to work, or you chose to get some fancy gadgets. It's not the establishments fault you have no money.

[Dazey]

I get treated a whole lot better in many shopping establishments then I ever do in a hospital.

How many of those establishments would welcome you with open arms if you had no money?

None of them, but that's alright. Why would you have no money? Well, you chose not to work, or you chose to get some fancy gadgets. It's not the establishments fault you have no money.

Why would I have no money? Is that a serious question? Do you really think that most unemployed people "choose" not to work?Do you happen to have tens of thousands of dollars burning a hole in your pocket? Well I dunno maybe you do but we live in a world now where people who do work incredibly hard and have never claimed welfare still find themselves having to be careful with money. Now the point I'm making is what happens if one of those people is struck down with a serious illness or has a nasty accident resulting in a long term hospital stay?

If they have no insurance because of cost or whatever reason and suddenly find themselves hit with a £50,000 medical bill is that fair? What about people with long term chronic illnesses who may have had full cover and saved for a rainy day but have to give up work and hence lose their health insurance? Is it fair that despite the fact they made all the provision that could reasonably be expected of them that they now face bankruptcy and losing their home? Or is it maybe okay for 1% of your tax dollars to go towards making sure that nobody in the country ever has to experience this?

I mean you say this is socialism and it's taxing the workers to take care of the lazy feckless layabouts but that's simply not the case. In the UK we don't pay extortionate taxes at least no more than you do and yet somehow it's possible to give every man woman and child free universal healthcare.

The thing is we are also able to take out private cover but here's the best thing about that, the fact that there is a government system in place means people have a choice and insurance companies aren't the ones making the rules. If you want to charge a stupid yearly premium people simply won't buy it so that's the best of both worlds is it not? In the US the money men have you over a barrell because there's no such thing as an alternative.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Dazey Does Dallas

[metatron]

I get treated a whole lot better in many shopping establishments then I ever do in a hospital.

How many of those establishments would welcome you with open arms if you had no money?

None of them, but that's alright. Why would you have no money? Well, you chose not to work, or you chose to get some fancy gadgets. It's not the establishments fault you have no money.

Why would I have no money? Is that a serious question? Do you really think that most unemployed people "choose" not to work?Do you happen to have tens of thousands of dollars burning a hole in your pocket? Well I dunno maybe you do but we live in a world now where people who do work incredibly hard and have never claimed welfare still find themselves having to be careful with money. Now the point I'm making is what happens if one of those people is struck down with a serious illness or has a nasty accident resulting in a long term hospital stay?

If they have no insurance because of cost or whatever reason and suddenly find themselves hit with a £50,000 medical bill is that fair? What about people with long term chronic illnesses who may have had full cover and saved for a rainy day but have to give up work and hence lose their health insurance? Is it fair that despite the fact they made all the provision that could reasonably be expected of them that they now face bankruptcy and losing their home? Or is it maybe okay for 1% of your tax dollars to go towards making sure that nobody in the country ever has to experience this?

I mean you say this is socialism and it's taxing the workers to take care of the lazy feckless layabouts but that's simply not the case. In the UK we don't pay extortionate taxes at least no more than you do and yet somehow it's possible to give every man woman and child free universal healthcare.

The thing is we are also able to take out private cover but here's the best thing about that, the fact that there is a government system in place means people have a choice and insurance companies aren't the ones making the rules. If you want to charge a stupid yearly premium people simply won't buy it so that's the best of both worlds is it not? In the US the money men have you over a barrell because there's no such thing as an alternative.

there are plenty of jobs available. Just too many people think flipping burgers is beneath them as opposed to viewing it as opportunity

[Dazey]

there are plenty of jobs available. Just too many people think flipping burgers is beneath them as opposed to viewing it as opportunity

So how do you feed family and pay your medical bills flipping burgers? There's nothing wrong with taking any job that's going but how's that an argument against state assistance especially when it comes to healthcare? That didn't answer any of my questions rather it reinforced my point. Yes people should look on any job as an opportunity but Maccy D's burger flippers don't get a very generous benefits package I'm willing to bet! So are you saying that the guy who decides to suck it up and take whatever work he can get should have to go without healthcare cover?

Edited January 26, 2012 by Dazey Does Dallas

[Graeme]

On yerself Dazey boy... you're kicking arse here!

[metatron]

there are plenty of jobs available. Just too many people think flipping burgers is beneath them as opposed to viewing it as opportunity

So how do you feed family and pay your medical bills flipping burgers? There's nothing wrong with taking any job that's going but how's that an argument against state assistance especially when it comes to healthcare? That didn't answer any of my questions rather it reinforced my point. Yes people should look on any job as an opportunity but Maccy D's burger flippers don't get a very generous benefits package I'm willing to bet! So are you saying that the guy who decides to suck it up and take whatever work he can get should have to go without healthcare cover?

Where does that guys money go? That works at mickydicks. Instead of buying Iphone 8Gfuckballs, maybe they should start to learn how to invest in themselves, as opposed to being consumers. It's not somewhere government needs to step in and take care of us though. It's our own stupid decisions that got us there.

[Graeme]

there are plenty of jobs available. Just too many people think flipping burgers is beneath them as opposed to viewing it as opportunity

So how do you feed family and pay your medical bills flipping burgers? There's nothing wrong with taking any job that's going but how's that an argument against state assistance especially when it comes to healthcare? That didn't answer any of my questions rather it reinforced my point. Yes people should look on any job as an opportunity but Maccy D's burger flippers don't get a very generous benefits package I'm willing to bet! So are you saying that the guy who decides to suck it up and take whatever work he can get should have to go without healthcare cover?

Where does that guys money go? That works at mickydicks. Instead of buying Iphone 8Gfuckballs, maybe they should start to learn how to invest in themselves, as opposed to being consumers. It's not somewhere government needs to step in and take care of us though. It's our own stupid decisions that got us there.

That's it, just stereotype those who can't afford private healthcare as lazy shits who overspend on luxuries... look at the system you're promoting and you see that having a majority of people in a low-income situation is entirely necessary to keep those at the top accumulating more than any human being could possibly need at the direct expense of those less fortunate, why do you think you've got those ongoing protests in 90-odd cities around the U.S.? Because they've recognised that the distribution of wealth is completely insane, why does it make sense to have so much in the hands of so few because those so few got lucky... And that's it, it really is luck. To use an incendiary example, Paris Hilton's a vacuous parasite who's never done an honest day's work in her life, yet has earned an obscene amount of money because of fortuitous circumstances of birth... Let's say she has 6 iPhones and has done nothing for them, while others struggle to afford one whilst maybe working several jobs.

My grandmother worked several jobs whilst trying to bring up a family, it didn't make her rich, meanwhile her brother is a multi-millionaire with three houses in Australia because by the time he rolled around, his parents could afford to send him to University... He wasn't even the cleverest of the siblings, that was the eldest, but when she was at a crucial age she had to leave school and get a job just to help support her parents and siblings through school and thus never got the entry grades (also was a woman). That's what this is about, providing chances for people like her to maximise their potential despite disadvantaged circumstances, if they don't do it off their own back then that's fair enough... But you seem to be arguing that everyone can work their way to success through a capitalist system and I'm trying to show you that the inequalities it creates negate that principle, you will get the odd person breaking through from rags to riches, but that's it. The occasional person, which is exactly the way capitalism works, the small off the back of the many. Most will not manage no matter how hard they work, and not everyone can be an entrepreneur, it doesn't mean you should be miserable and impoverished.

On a Macro scale you could look at the way a small amount of the global population rides along in comfort and wealth on the backs of the majority of the world's population. In the way you were blaming the woman who could not afford her healthcare for overspending her limits (whilst having no actual knowledge of her circumstances, just agenda), can the people of developing nations who now work manufacturing goods for us to enjoy at an absolute pittance be held to blame for not being part of an aggressive, historical industrialised economy like the British Empire? They're the ones footing the bill for us in terms of the environmental impacts as well. One Republican presidential candidate was reported to have said "Climate Change is not a major problem facing civilisation." whilst lobbying to become the leader of the biggest polluting force in Global History... Tell that to the people of Bangladesh.

The Free Market cannot sustain itself because ultimately it never knows when to say "enough is enough." The interests are always merely in maximising profits and accumulating more... There will come a time when the world has no more to give. Unless we start moving towards a system where people are willing to accept a sufficiency rather than demanding excess, maybe leaving some oil in the ground for a change, we are going to run ourselves into the ground and there will be a lot of bodies along the way. And I think, in their heart of hearts, the people doing this know this... which makes them heartless, self-serving bastards. Greed, lack of empathy and a belief that everyone should live their lives like you are ultimately responsible for all of this.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Graeme

[DirtyDeeds]

I am sorry you are so sheltered and have experienced so little, metatron. There are places you can go to remedy that, though. Your local food pantries, soup kitchens, and other outreaches are a great place to start. You will learn much, and quickly.

[metatron]

there are plenty of jobs available. Just too many people think flipping burgers is beneath them as opposed to viewing it as opportunity

So how do you feed family and pay your medical bills flipping burgers? There's nothing wrong with taking any job that's going but how's that an argument against state assistance especially when it comes to healthcare? That didn't answer any of my questions rather it reinforced my point. Yes people should look on any job as an opportunity but Maccy D's burger flippers don't get a very generous benefits package I'm willing to bet! So are you saying that the guy who decides to suck it up and take whatever work he can get should have to go without healthcare cover?

Where does that guys money go? That works at mickydicks. Instead of buying Iphone 8Gfuckballs, maybe they should start to learn how to invest in themselves, as opposed to being consumers. It's not somewhere government needs to step in and take care of us though. It's our own stupid decisions that got us there.

That's it, just stereotype those who can't afford private healthcare as lazy shits who overspend on luxuries... look at the system you're promoting and you see that having a majority of people in a low-income situation is entirely necessary to keep those at the top accumulating more than any human being could possibly need at the direct expense of those less fortunate, why do you think you've got those ongoing protests in 90-odd cities around the U.S.? Because they've recognised that the distribution of wealth is completely insane, why does it make sense to have so much in the hands of so few because those so few got lucky... And that's it, it really is luck. To use an incendiary example, Paris Hilton's a vacuous parasite who's never done an honest day's work in her life, yet has earned an obscene amount of money because of fortuitous circumstances of birth... Let's say she has 6 iPhones and has done nothing for them, while others struggle to afford one whilst maybe working several jobs.

My grandmother worked several jobs whilst trying to bring up a family, it didn't make her rich, meanwhile her brother is a multi-millionaire with three houses in Australia because by the time he rolled around, his parents could afford to send him to University... He wasn't even the cleverest of the siblings, that was the eldest, but when she was at a crucial age she had to leave school and get a job just to help support her parents and siblings through school and thus never got the entry grades (also was a woman). That's what this is about, providing chances for people like her to maximise their potential despite disadvantaged circumstances, if they don't do it off their own back then that's fair enough... But you seem to be arguing that everyone can work their way to success through a capitalist system and I'm trying to show you that the inequalities it creates negate that principle, you will get the odd person breaking through from rags to riches, but that's it. The occasional person, which is exactly the way capitalism works, the small off the back of the many. Most will not manage no matter how hard they work, and not everyone can be an entrepreneur, it doesn't mean you should be miserable and impoverished.

On a Macro scale you could look at the way a small amount of the global population rides along in comfort and wealth on the backs of the majority of the world's population. In the way you were blaming the woman who could not afford her healthcare for overspending her limits (whilst having no actual knowledge of her circumstances, just agenda), can the people of developing nations who now work manufacturing goods for us to enjoy at an absolute pittance be held to blame for not being part of an aggressive, historical industrialised economy like the British Empire? They're the ones footing the bill for us in terms of the environmental impacts as well. One Republican presidential candidate was reported to have said "Climate Change is not a major problem facing civilisation." whilst lobbying to become the leader of the biggest polluting force in Global History... Tell that to the people of Bangladesh.

The Free Market cannot sustain itself because ultimately it never knows when to say "enough is enough." The interests are always merely in maximising profits and accumulating more... There will come a time when the world has no more to give. Unless we start moving towards a system where people are willing to accept a sufficiency rather than demanding excess, maybe leaving some oil in the ground for a change, we are going to run ourselves into the ground and there will be a lot of bodies along the way. And I think, in their heart of hearts, the people doing this know this... which makes them heartless, self-serving bastards. Greed, lack of empathy and a belief that everyone should live their lives like you are ultimately responsible for all of this.

[Dazey]

Where does that guys money go? That works at mickydicks. Instead of buying Iphone 8Gfuckballs, maybe they should start to learn how to invest in themselves, as opposed to being consumers. It's not somewhere government needs to step in and take care of us though. It's our own stupid decisions that got us there.

I'm sorry but what the hell are you rambling about seriously? How do we go from doing a day's work on minimum wage to 8Balls and iPods? Seriously where do you get your logic from? You start one sentence by saying people think they're too good to suck it up and flip burgers for a living then belittle the very same people by calling it "mickydicks" and saying they don't deserve basic human rights because they must all be smack head gadget junkies? Your arguments may be ridiculous but at least show some consistency and stop contradicting yourself at every turn!

Right here we go again! YOUR point was that everybody should look on ANY employment as an opportunity right? I agree BUT you need to realise that not every one of these opportunities provides a decent standard of living. Let me anticipate your response and say that yes I know that if somebody works hard in a shitty job and tries to better himslef he can do that and he has nobody to rely on but himself? That was it wasn't it? Pretty much what you were gonna say?

Well let me offer a response in that case. Yes I agree with that point I really do but let's say that this person who for whatever reason finds themselves working in a 7-Eleven or a Diner to make ends meet? Maybe they're attending the local community college and trying to earn a few bucks to get their GED in order that they may make a better life for themselves huh? Now this could take a few years? Let's say two or three until they can get themselves better qualified and get that job they always wanted? Well as long as they don't spend it all on iPads and Crack eh?

Now let's say that after a couple of years said person has passed their diploma and managed to scrape enough together just about cover the security deposit on a decent apartment? Things are looking up yes? Now let's say they end up in hospital for a few weeks through accident or illness? See in a normal system that would mean delaying their plans by a few months and maybe a little hardship for being of work sick whereas in your ideal world said person could kiss goodbye to all the work and effort they've put in to drag themselves up from the gutter and look forward to the next ten years of paying off a stonking great medical bill!

Thing is not only has that person lost out but now they're stuck in poverty because even the most industrious and hard working people need a break sometimes. Thing is by supporting people to a reasonable extent you allow them to make the most of themselves and contribute more to society. Seriously does it make more sense to give a little help to the little guy who wants to make something of himself and reap the benefits when he gets that good job and starts paying taxes or just to say fuck it it's not the government's job to help its citizens and keep these people on welfare and minimum wage contributing pretty much nothing?

You seem to be harbouring the feeling that anybody who accepts a penny of government assistance is somehow a parasite with nothing to contribute to society who should be ashamed of themselves. I don’t know your background but you seem incredibly immature and naïve about the world around you. Have you ever seen financial hardship yourself? Have you ever had to work two jobs to put yourself through College before? Have you ever known what’s it’s like to be made redundant in the middle of a recession and suddenly lost not only any source of income overnight but also your medical insurance AND your home? Well I have and it’s not pretty! I went from earning in excess of $60,000 a year one day to nothing the next! I went into the office on Tuesday and was told not to come in on Wednesday! I was given no notice and no redundancy and I didn’t manage to find another job for nearly 8 months!

Could I have taken a job just flipping burgers? Nope! Reason? Because I’d taken out insurance to cover a number of my outgoings and that was worth more a month than minimum wage would ever pay me! Problem was that didn’t stretch to housing and car payments so I ended up as a college graduate Engineer at 30 years old living back at home scraping by on the meagre unemployment benefit the government grudgingly paid me just managing to keep my head above water!

This is the reason we have these systems in place! It wasn’t much but it stopped me from going under! Now two and a half years later I’m in a better paid job albeit 150 miles away and if I’m lucky then by August I should finally have cleared all the debts I was forced to accrue in that 8 month period!

Thing is that this is in a supposedly socialist nation by your reckoning. The safety net is for people like me who need a little help in these kind of situations. God knows what would have happened to me if I’d been working in the US at the time and I don’t even want to think about what would have happened if I’d got sick over that period!

Seriously your point of view is so myopic as to be comical it really is! Every man for himself simply doesn't work in practice! There has to be a balance between Capitalist and more left leaning values! You encourage business and creation of wealth but you also need checks and balances to keep the 1% from stepping on the little guy and exploiting the masses. This is the job of a government and yours needs to start doing that job!

Edited January 27, 2012 by Dazey Does Dallas

[Graeme]

there are plenty of jobs available. Just too many people think flipping burgers is beneath them as opposed to viewing it as opportunity

So how do you feed family and pay your medical bills flipping burgers? There's nothing wrong with taking any job that's going but how's that an argument against state assistance especially when it comes to healthcare? That didn't answer any of my questions rather it reinforced my point. Yes people should look on any job as an opportunity but Maccy D's burger flippers don't get a very generous benefits package I'm willing to bet! So are you saying that the guy who decides to suck it up and take whatever work he can get should have to go without healthcare cover?

Where does that guys money go? That works at mickydicks. Instead of buying Iphone 8Gfuckballs, maybe they should start to learn how to invest in themselves, as opposed to being consumers. It's not somewhere government needs to step in and take care of us though. It's our own stupid decisions that got us there.

That's it, just stereotype those who can't afford private healthcare as lazy shits who overspend on luxuries... look at the system you're promoting and you see that having a majority of people in a low-income situation is entirely necessary to keep those at the top accumulating more than any human being could possibly need at the direct expense of those less fortunate, why do you think you've got those ongoing protests in 90-odd cities around the U.S.? Because they've recognised that the distribution of wealth is completely insane, why does it make sense to have so much in the hands of so few because those so few got lucky... And that's it, it really is luck. To use an incendiary example, Paris Hilton's a vacuous parasite who's never done an honest day's work in her life, yet has earned an obscene amount of money because of fortuitous circumstances of birth... Let's say she has 6 iPhones and has done nothing for them, while others struggle to afford one whilst maybe working several jobs.

My grandmother worked several jobs whilst trying to bring up a family, it didn't make her rich, meanwhile her brother is a multi-millionaire with three houses in Australia because by the time he rolled around, his parents could afford to send him to University... He wasn't even the cleverest of the siblings, that was the eldest, but when she was at a crucial age she had to leave school and get a job just to help support her parents and siblings through school and thus never got the entry grades (also was a woman). That's what this is about, providing chances for people like her to maximise their potential despite disadvantaged circumstances, if they don't do it off their own back then that's fair enough... But you seem to be arguing that everyone can work their way to success through a capitalist system and I'm trying to show you that the inequalities it creates negate that principle, you will get the odd person breaking through from rags to riches, but that's it. The occasional person, which is exactly the way capitalism works, the small off the back of the many. Most will not manage no matter how hard they work, and not everyone can be an entrepreneur, it doesn't mean you should be miserable and impoverished.

On a Macro scale you could look at the way a small amount of the global population rides along in comfort and wealth on the backs of the majority of the world's population. In the way you were blaming the woman who could not afford her healthcare for overspending her limits (whilst having no actual knowledge of her circumstances, just agenda), can the people of developing nations who now work manufacturing goods for us to enjoy at an absolute pittance be held to blame for not being part of an aggressive, historical industrialised economy like the British Empire? They're the ones footing the bill for us in terms of the environmental impacts as well. One Republican presidential candidate was reported to have said "Climate Change is not a major problem facing civilisation." whilst lobbying to become the leader of the biggest polluting force in Global History... Tell that to the people of Bangladesh.

The Free Market cannot sustain itself because ultimately it never knows when to say "enough is enough." The interests are always merely in maximising profits and accumulating more... There will come a time when the world has no more to give. Unless we start moving towards a system where people are willing to accept a sufficiency rather than demanding excess, maybe leaving some oil in the ground for a change, we are going to run ourselves into the ground and there will be a lot of bodies along the way. And I think, in their heart of hearts, the people doing this know this... which makes them heartless, self-serving bastards. Greed, lack of empathy and a belief that everyone should live their lives like you are ultimately responsible for all of this.

So you admit the system sucks? I certainly don't see a conclusive retort about how amazing and essential it is. More of a petty dig. I think I win this one .

Edited January 27, 2012 by Graeme

[Ace Nova]

there are plenty of jobs available. Just too many people think flipping burgers is beneath them as opposed to viewing it as opportunity

So how do you feed family and pay your medical bills flipping burgers? There's nothing wrong with taking any job that's going but how's that an argument against state assistance especially when it comes to healthcare? That didn't answer any of my questions rather it reinforced my point. Yes people should look on any job as an opportunity but Maccy D's burger flippers don't get a very generous benefits package I'm willing to bet! So are you saying that the guy who decides to suck it up and take whatever work he can get should have to go without healthcare cover?

Where does that guys money go? That works at mickydicks. Instead of buying Iphone 8Gfuckballs, maybe they should start to learn how to invest in themselves, as opposed to being consumers. It's not somewhere government needs to step in and take care of us though. It's our own stupid decisions that got us there.

That's it, just stereotype those who can't afford private healthcare as lazy shits who overspend on luxuries... look at the system you're promoting and you see that having a majority of people in a low-income situation is entirely necessary to keep those at the top accumulating more than any human being could possibly need at the direct expense of those less fortunate, why do you think you've got those ongoing protests in 90-odd cities around the U.S.? Because they've recognised that the distribution of wealth is completely insane, why does it make sense to have so much in the hands of so few because those so few got lucky... And that's it, it really is luck. To use an incendiary example, Paris Hilton's a vacuous parasite who's never done an honest day's work in her life, yet has earned an obscene amount of money because of fortuitous circumstances of birth... Let's say she has 6 iPhones and has done nothing for them, while others struggle to afford one whilst maybe working several jobs.

My grandmother worked several jobs whilst trying to bring up a family, it didn't make her rich, meanwhile her brother is a multi-millionaire with three houses in Australia because by the time he rolled around, his parents could afford to send him to University... He wasn't even the cleverest of the siblings, that was the eldest, but when she was at a crucial age she had to leave school and get a job just to help support her parents and siblings through school and thus never got the entry grades (also was a woman). That's what this is about, providing chances for people like her to maximise their potential despite disadvantaged circumstances, if they don't do it off their own back then that's fair enough... But you seem to be arguing that everyone can work their way to success through a capitalist system and I'm trying to show you that the inequalities it creates negate that principle, you will get the odd person breaking through from rags to riches, but that's it. The occasional person, which is exactly the way capitalism works, the small off the back of the many. Most will not manage no matter how hard they work, and not everyone can be an entrepreneur, it doesn't mean you should be miserable and impoverished.

On a Macro scale you could look at the way a small amount of the global population rides along in comfort and wealth on the backs of the majority of the world's population. In the way you were blaming the woman who could not afford her healthcare for overspending her limits (whilst having no actual knowledge of her circumstances, just agenda), can the people of developing nations who now work manufacturing goods for us to enjoy at an absolute pittance be held to blame for not being part of an aggressive, historical industrialised economy like the British Empire? They're the ones footing the bill for us in terms of the environmental impacts as well. One Republican presidential candidate was reported to have said "Climate Change is not a major problem facing civilisation." whilst lobbying to become the leader of the biggest polluting force in Global History... Tell that to the people of Bangladesh.

The Free Market cannot sustain itself because ultimately it never knows when to say "enough is enough." The interests are always merely in maximising profits and accumulating more... There will come a time when the world has no more to give. Unless we start moving towards a system where people are willing to accept a sufficiency rather than demanding excess, maybe leaving some oil in the ground for a change, we are going to run ourselves into the ground and there will be a lot of bodies along the way. And I think, in their heart of hearts, the people doing this know this... which makes them heartless, self-serving bastards. Greed, lack of empathy and a belief that everyone should live their lives like you are ultimately responsible for all of this.

Please do not take any offense but if you re-read this thread, not only have you looked extremely contradictory towards your own statements, you also have failed to provide any reasonable defense to most of your logic. If this would have been a debate, you probably wouldn't have even scored a point.

Believe it or not, you're not the only one...after watching the Florida Republican debate last night, it's clear that the Republicans have little to no answers to many of the major issues. If I were to use last night's debate and compare it to the State of Union address, the State of the Union address would win in a landslide.

Oh, and let me finish by saying that I am non partisan, registered independent.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Kasanova King

[metatron]

It's hard to keep focus on an argument when 4 different people are whining about 4 different sectors. One's talking about how his nana is the better sibling, why? well, because her brother was rich, and she wasn't, and she's my nana, so she's better. The other seems convinced that the government needs to provide for him and his own health, since he can't do it himself. He also doesn't understand what oppurtunity is, nor nicknames for restaurants like mickydicks.

So lets keep it to one attack at once, and I'll answer them, just don't go on a tangent.

As for the Debate last night, Santorum is a dolt, Gingrich understands economy, but has a terrible foreign policy, Mitt Romney is a Devil in Sheeps Clothes and Dr Paul is the only voice of reason on that stage.

So what your telling me Deeds, is you agree with a warmongering president/dictator who outright in his state of the union address asked for socialism, and essentially used the same speech 3 years running?

Here's a topic, I'd like to hear you all tell me what you think Socialism is, and what it'll lead too. I'm curious to see if you all understand the system.

[Dazey]

It's hard to keep focus on an argument when 4 different people are whining about 4 different sectors. One's talking about how his nana is the better sibling, why? well, because her brother was rich, and she wasn't, and she's my nana, so she's better. The other seems convinced that the government needs to provide for him and his own health, since he can't do it himself. He also doesn't understand what oppurtunity is, nor nicknames for restaurants like mickydicks.

You've actually avoided addressing anybody's points in any depth once again! Well done you! Did you actually read any of my post? Oh and what's your current situation if you don't mind me asking cos I'm looking for a reason as to why you're so utterly ignorant! So what hardships have you had to go through to get where you are today? How long have you spend working hard to get where you are now in a low paid job without benefits? Oh and I do provide for my own healthcare it comes out of my taxes every month. You say I don't understand what opportunity is yet the example we were talking about was one you provided yourself!

Edited January 27, 2012 by Dazey Does Dallas

[metatron]

It's hard to keep focus on an argument when 4 different people are whining about 4 different sectors. One's talking about how his nana is the better sibling, why? well, because her brother was rich, and she wasn't, and she's my nana, so she's better. The other seems convinced that the government needs to provide for him and his own health, since he can't do it himself. He also doesn't understand what oppurtunity is, nor nicknames for restaurants like mickydicks.

You've actually avoided addressing anybody's points in any depth once again! Well done you! Did you actually read any of my post? Oh and what's your current situation if you don't mind me asking cos I'm looking for a reason as to why you're so utterly ignorant! So what hardships have you had to go through to get where you are today? How long have you spend working hard to get where you are now in a low paid job without benefits? Oh and I do provide for my own healthcare it comes out of my taxes every month. You say I don't understand what opportunity is yet the example we were talking about was one you provided yourself!

I came from a father who was an alcoholic and wished he didn't have a son, and a mother who went through cancer treatments through most of my youth. I saw first hand there, how the private sector works better. When they first found her to have cancer, she was given 2 choices, to go with universal health care, and wait 2-3 months for surgery, or she could pay for it herself, and get it done in 2-3 days. Needless to say, she chose to go to private sector, and for a long time, we paid that bill, and since she couldn't work, we had to live off her savings. Instead of getting mad at the system for how much it cost, I understand that injecting government into a sector will make the prices of that commodity rise, in this case, health care. Because my mother was sick, and my father a useless alcoholic, my grandparents mostly raised me. Now, I'm the manager of a successful firm, make a nice salary, and live with my wife. I'm also a politician now, joining one of Canada's political parties. I've come from nothing, and made my way.

Did I avoid your question?

[Graeme]

It's hard to keep focus on an argument when 4 different people are whining about 4 different sectors. One's talking about how his nana is the better sibling, why? well, because her brother was rich, and she wasn't, and she's my nana, so she's better. The other seems convinced that the government needs to provide for him and his own health, since he can't do it himself. He also doesn't understand what oppurtunity is, nor nicknames for restaurants like mickydicks.

So lets keep it to one attack at once, and I'll answer them, just don't go on a tangent.

As for the Debate last night, Santorum is a dolt, Gingrich understands economy, but has a terrible foreign policy, Mitt Romney is a Devil in Sheeps Clothes and Dr Paul is the only voice of reason on that stage.

So what your telling me Deeds, is you agree with a warmongering president/dictator who outright in his state of the union address asked for socialism, and essentially used the same speech 3 years running?

Here's a topic, I'd like to hear you all tell me what you think Socialism is, and what it'll lead too. I'm curious to see if you all understand the system.

Where did I say that? My gran isn't the oldest sibling I was talking about... I was showing that in many instances luck rather than virtue allows people to excel within this system, even from within similar backgrounds. You seem entirely determined not to take that concept by the horns and try to justify it and why it is right and should be defended and fought for.

[metatron]

It's hard to keep focus on an argument when 4 different people are whining about 4 different sectors. One's talking about how his nana is the better sibling, why? well, because her brother was rich, and she wasn't, and she's my nana, so she's better. The other seems convinced that the government needs to provide for him and his own health, since he can't do it himself. He also doesn't understand what oppurtunity is, nor nicknames for restaurants like mickydicks.

So lets keep it to one attack at once, and I'll answer them, just don't go on a tangent.

As for the Debate last night, Santorum is a dolt, Gingrich understands economy, but has a terrible foreign policy, Mitt Romney is a Devil in Sheeps Clothes and Dr Paul is the only voice of reason on that stage.

So what your telling me Deeds, is you agree with a warmongering president/dictator who outright in his state of the union address asked for socialism, and essentially used the same speech 3 years running?

Here's a topic, I'd like to hear you all tell me what you think Socialism is, and what it'll lead too. I'm curious to see if you all understand the system.

Where did I say that? My gran isn't the oldest sibling I was talking about... I was showing that in many instances luck rather than virtue allows people to excel within this system, even from within similar backgrounds. You seem entirely determined not to take that concept by the horns and try to justify it and why it is right and should be defended and fought for.

I don't think anyone should be given anything, especially not based on dumb luck. I believe hard work and dedication should be rewarded, rather than a diploma. I agree too many people currently get breaks, and I don't agree with that, we need to all remember what hard work is though, and quit being lazy.

[Dazey]

I came from a father who was an alcoholic and wished he didn't have a son, and a mother who went through cancer treatments through most of my youth. I saw first hand there, how the private sector works better. When they first found her to have cancer, she was given 2 choices, to go with universal health care, and wait 2-3 months for surgery, or she could pay for it herself, and get it done in 2-3 days. Needless to say, she chose to go to private sector, and for a long time, we paid that bill, and since she couldn't work, we had to live off her savings. Instead of getting mad at the system for how much it cost, I understand that injecting government into a sector will make the prices of that commodity rise, in this case, health care. Because my mother was sick, and my father a useless alcoholic, my grandparents mostly raised me. Now, I'm the manager of a successful firm, make a nice salary, and live with my wife. I'm also a politician now, joining one of Canada's political parties. I've come from nothing, and made my way.

Did I avoid your question?

The private sector works best for those who can afford it who I'm willing to bet aren't usually the same people you were talking about earlier who would swallow their pride and take an opportunity flipping burgers yes? The point is that a two tier system works nicely all over the world. We have private and state healthcare over here as they do in most of the rest of europe and the premiums aren't ridiculous yet we also have a public system for those less well off. This may not be possible in the US but don't fool yourself into thinking that's because it's impossible it's simply because the money men are already in too much control! Also if you're talking about somebody who has the money lying around to pay for private cancer treatment on two or three days notice we're clearly talking about a different demographic! Oh and if you're from Canada then when was the last time you had to pay a couple hundred dollars just for a checkup at your doctor?

Edited January 27, 2012 by Dazey Does Dallas

[metatron]

I came from a father who was an alcoholic and wished he didn't have a son, and a mother who went through cancer treatments through most of my youth. I saw first hand there, how the private sector works better. When they first found her to have cancer, she was given 2 choices, to go with universal health care, and wait 2-3 months for surgery, or she could pay for it herself, and get it done in 2-3 days. Needless to say, she chose to go to private sector, and for a long time, we paid that bill, and since she couldn't work, we had to live off her savings. Instead of getting mad at the system for how much it cost, I understand that injecting government into a sector will make the prices of that commodity rise, in this case, health care. Because my mother was sick, and my father a useless alcoholic, my grandparents mostly raised me. Now, I'm the manager of a successful firm, make a nice salary, and live with my wife. I'm also a politician now, joining one of Canada's political parties. I've come from nothing, and made my way.

Did I avoid your question?

The private sector works best for those who can afford it who I'm willing to bet aren't usually the same people you were talking about earlier who would swallow their pride and take an opportunity flipping burgers yes? The point is that a two tier system works nicely all over the world. We have private and state healthcare over here as they do in most of the rest of europe and the premiums aren't ridiculous yet we also have a public system for those less well off. This may not be possible in the US but don't fool yourself into thinking that's because it's impossible it's simply because the money men are already in too much control! Also if you're talking about somebody who has the money lying around to pay for private cancer treatment on two or three days notice we're clearly talking about a different demographic!

My mom wasn't rich, not in the least. She had a bit of money saved up, and it broke us, I won't deny it. It took our house, and we lived with my grandparents. She worked hard and continues to do so now. The government touching any sector of the market will jack prices up. Plus, The federal reserve printing money under moniker of Quantitative Easening is creating hyper inflation and rising costs even more. Taking that power away from the fed, put it back to the power of congress is a great place to start. Reintroducing libertybonds also would be a great place to start, let people invest in the country. Also, much easier then obamacare, would be to just let people get personal tax deductions for health care. Why not take it away from insurance companies.