2 pages of not voting

10/6/2008 1:54:49 PM

No borders
No hate
No presidents
Oh eight!

That's what I'll be chanting soon. McCain's in Albuquerque this afternoon.

10/6/2008 2:04:33 PM

go get 'em tiger.

10/6/2008 2:16:00 PM

A little ridiculous because I did voter registration in the same area.

I'll register you to vote and then tell you I don't want any masters a few weeks later.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 2:19 PM. Reason : want]

10/6/2008 2:19:06 PM

VOTE FOR THE EMPIRE

10/6/2008 2:24:21 PM

^^ I respect you for your zeal, though it often comes into conflict with reality.

10/6/2008 4:24:29 PM

sorry, wetthebed, but none of those things you listed are "fairness." All of those are tyranny. Fairness is treating everyone the fucking same, no matter what.

10/6/2008 5:05:34 PM

Ironically, I've never heard a rich man dis a poor man, but many a times have I heard a poor man dis a rich man. I think the rich man's actions speak for himself: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19981120/ai_n10124032

Not defending the rich (cause there are a lot of cocky rich people out there), just bring to light the idiocy of the poor man.

Of course, none of us reading this thread are really poor. So, the poor man isn't represented well in these types of forums.

10/6/2008 5:06:03 PM

Quote :

"Fairness is taxing the rich few and providing relief to the vast majority of people "

I cannot for the life of me see what is fair about that. I'm not rich, but I don't want to fuck rich people out of their money for my own benefit. I'm a big boy and I'll take care of myself. Sure, rich people should pay more, but not an inordinate PERCENTAGE more. That is completely fucked.

Quote :

"Fairness is the ability for anyone to be taken care of when they are sick "

Yes, it's called buying health insurance if you feel so compelled.

And yes, the system is a mess and needs some work, but having the federal government (completely unconstitutionally, i might add) step in and do it is a terrible idea.

Quote :

"Fairness is the ability to get an education without being turned upside down "

1. In my opinion, we are already sending too many people to college.
2. What in the hell more do you want? There are already fortyeleven different ways to financially get yourself through college.

Quote :

"Fairness is not being charged more for a mortgage just because you already would have a harder time paying for it "

1. Not everyone has any business being a homeowner. I thought that would never be more apparent than right now, but I guess the concept is still lost on a few.

2. Being charged more for a mortgage on the grounds that you'd have a harder time paying for it is absolutely fair! The bank owns money, you see (and someone, or group of people, owns the bank). So what you have is a situation where people are lending THEIR money to other people, for a profit. Part of why they are charging money for it is because they could be making money with that money somewhere else if they weren't lending it out. Another part is that they know that some dumbass is going to fuck it away and not pay them back, so they have to account for that. The more likely you are to screw them like that, the more they are going to charge you to use their money.

What's unfair about this?

Quote :

"Fairness is getting big oils cock out of your mouth and pushing towards a modern energy source."

Ok, sure. We need to be pushing for a long term solution. In the meantime, I'm not going to walk across town, I'm not going to light my house with candles, and I'm going to keep the rooms I am in at approximately...room temperature.

Writing off oil in the short term is no different than something a few of the current crop of Republicans have been guilty of: gearing policy towards the way you wish things to be rather than the way things are.

Quote :

"Fairness is change to policy that feeds the rich, ignores the middle class and suppresses the poor and that change is in reach. "

I'm sorry, but society is going to divide into classes. It's not only natural, it's beneficial. We need more plumbers than brain surgeons, and we need to put our most capable people where they can make the greatest impact for us. We do a lot to enable social and economic mobility--some people are happy with where they're at, which is fine, or are too lazy to do any better, or are simply just not capable of being a lawyer or a rocket scientist.

If you want to increase mobility, in my opinion, there is a simple thing that would probably offer more bang for the buck than anything else, and that is to implement some real education in personal finance. Our society is woefully ignorant of this subject.

Quote :

"Fairness is treating everyone the fucking same, no matter what. "

that isn't without exception, (early days of affirmative action, for example...although i think these policies have now outlived their utility) but it's closer than the absurd shit that wethebest and most of the left seems to have a boner for.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 5:13 PM. Reason : sadfasd]

10/6/2008 5:10:31 PM

Quote :

"I respect you for your zeal, though it often comes into conflict with reality."

I take the Howard Zinn position, so I'm not actually opposed to voting. I just think people shouldn't focus so much on process. That's not where change comes from. Obama or McCain, we need revolution.

Quote :

"We need more plumbers than brain surgeons, and we need to put our most capable people where they can make the greatest impact for us."

We don't need to tie consumption to profession. There's plenty for everyone.

10/6/2008 5:25:50 PM

then either you are saying that we need an equal number of brain surgeons and plumbers (good luck justifying that one), or you're saying that we should pay plumbers and brain surgeons equally (which is what i think you're saying, that we should live communally, etc...)

Fuck being a brain surgeon, then. No way I'm learning all that when I could make the same money as a plumber.


...and just like that, you are killing ants with sledgehammers, but don't have sledgehammers where you need them.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 5:29 PM. Reason : asdfads]

10/6/2008 5:28:39 PM

As you probably know, I take a different view of human motivation. People don't simply work for money. There's sanctification that comes from doing a job well, particularly when it benefits the community. Such intrinsic motivation often produces better than results.

10/6/2008 5:33:46 PM

Except that your assumption ignores everything we know about human beings.

10/6/2008 5:44:35 PM

Not so. Luckily, it's support by considerable psychological research.

10/6/2008 5:47:54 PM

Sources?

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 5:52 PM. Reason : nevermind, I'm not having this argument]

10/6/2008 5:50:40 PM

You know I'm going to drop a link anyway.

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1931/secI4.html

If that's not enough, well, open up the reeducation camps. (On a strictly voluntary basis, of course.)

10/6/2008 5:55:12 PM

OMFG GEOCITIES!!!

that is proof, man

10/6/2008 6:01:56 PM

Yeah, yeah. The site cites peer-reviewed research.

10/6/2008 6:04:35 PM

Quote :

" People don't simply work for money. There's sanctification that comes from doing a job well, particularly when it benefits the community."

I'm the last person that would argue against this.

That said, everything else together would not be enough to make up for money if money were taken completely out of the occassion.

It's like saying that sugar is not the only ingredient that makes a cake taste good. Oh yeah? No shit. Good luck baking a cake without it, though.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 6:16 PM. Reason : spare me the splenda argument and just take the analogy. ...plus spenda is nasty, anyway.]

10/6/2008 6:14:45 PM

If nothing else, we can agree that Splenda's nasty.

10/6/2008 6:17:58 PM

Quote :

"I think the rich man's actions speak for himself: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19981120/ai_n10124032 Not defending the rich (cause there are a lot of cocky rich people out there), just bring to light the idiocy of the poor man. Of course, none of us reading this thread are really poor. So, the poor man isn't represented well in these types of forums."

Well you are forgetting the tax benefits of donating to charities. Many of the rich donate to charities for the same reason they do anything else. Profit. Also I guarantee those are almost all disease charities and not much social charities. Thats great too but it goes against the point you were making.

Quote :

"Sure, rich people should pay more, but not an inordinate PERCENTAGE more. That is completely fucked."

It would be great if it could be that way but there simply isn't enough money. Ideally, once you equally tax everyone a reasonable amount then you have enough money to do everything that needs to be done but that just isn't the case. So after that you have to start from the top and tax down until you have enough money. Why from the top? obviously because they are the ones who are able to bear the brunt of extra taxes and if you taxed the bottom or middle (who the rich have to thank for making them rich) then you would be taking food off of their table and roofs from their head as opposed to taking titanium plating off of yachts. Thats why its fair. Just like the "save the women and children first" idea is fair.

Quote :

" Yes, it's called buying health insurance if you feel so compelled. "

Again, unfair because this forces the working class to choose between health care or food on the table.

Quote :

"1. In my opinion, we are already sending too many people to college."

How can you send too many people to college? I get it now. You are scared of competition. You want to continue to keep the poor down so they aren't able to compete with you for a job.

Quote :

" 1. Not everyone has any business being a homeowner. I thought that would never be more apparent than right now, but I guess the concept is still lost on a few."

This is where me and you differ. I belive in the american dream and the idea that anyone can do anything. You on the other hand are an elitist and believe in serfdom and people being sol for being born into poverty. Fundamental difference.

Quote :

"Another part is that they know that some dumbass is going to fuck it away and not pay them back, so they have to account for that. The more likely you are to screw them like that, the more they are going to charge you to use their money."

DTI is a horrible method of determining if somebody is going to pay their mortgage or not and is borderline discrimination. "likelihood to run away and not pay them" has nothing to do with that. If somebody is paying rent they can pay mortgage. Everybody pays their mortgage before any other loans so thats just silly. Also the fact that you are going to make people who are closer to being in a bind pay increasingly more is stupid because its like you want them to default or something. Exploitation at its finest.

Quote :

" Ok, sure. We need to be pushing for a long term solution. In the meantime, I'm not going to walk across town, I'm not going to light my house with candles, and I'm going to keep the rooms I am in at approximately...room temperature. Writing off oil in the short term is no different than something a few of the current crop of Republicans have been guilty of: gearing policy towards the way you wish things to be rather than the way things are."

Nobodys talking about getting rid of oil. I'm talking about putting more money into the development of our modern fuel.

Quote :

"I'm sorry, but society is going to divide into classes. It's not only natural, it's beneficial. We need more plumbers than brain surgeons, and we need to put our most capable people where they can make the greatest impact for us. We do a lot to enable social and economic mobility--some people are happy with where they're at, which is fine, or are too lazy to do any better, or are simply just not capable of being a lawyer or a rocket scientist. If you want to increase mobility, in my opinion, there is a simple thing that would probably offer more bang for the buck than anything else, and that is to implement some real education in personal finance. Our society is woefully ignorant of this subject."

Nobodys arguing classes. Its just the gap between classes that needs to be changed, specifically the bottom needs to be raised. A reevaluation of basic rights needs to be made. Everyone should start out with education, shelter, food, and health care. If people have to make major sacrifices to gain any of those of substitute one with the other then theres a problem.

Having a super rich class is great as long as everybody else has the basic necessities and the rich being rich is not a burden on society.

Quote :

""Fairness is treating everyone the fucking same, no matter what."

This is true but not void in capitalism.

Quote :

"Fuck being a brain surgeon, then. No way I'm learning all that when I could make the same money as a plumber."

You better be a brain surgeon because you love it and not because you love my money or else i dont want you in my head. Greedy bastard.

10/6/2008 6:49:57 PM

Quote :

"A reevaluation of basic rights needs to be made. Everyone should start out with education, shelter, food, and health care."

It sure is a shame that NONE OF THOSE are rights, nor are they things over which the federal government was given authority by the Constitution. But naaaah, fuck that thing, right?

10/6/2008 7:26:26 PM

Quote :

"This is where me and you differ. I belive in the american dream and the idea that anyone can do anything. You on the other hand are an elitist and believe in serfdom and people being sol for being born into poverty. Fundamental difference."

Sorry, but I have to make a comment about this comment. You see, there is a fundamental problem with this statement. You assume "anyone can do anything." Not true.

I quote James Truslow Adams:

"The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position."

Thomas Wolfe said,

"...to every man, regardless of his birth, his shining, golden opportunity ….the right to live, to work, to be himself, and to become whatever thing his manhood and his vision can combine to make him."

What does it mean? Plain and simple -> Not everyone will own a nice home nor do they deserve a nice home. They deserve what their manhood can get them. The american dream is limited by your will, drive, and passion.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 9:10 PM. Reason : quotes.]

10/6/2008 9:10:07 PM

^nobody said everybody deserves a nice home. nobody has ever said that so why would you say it like that? NOBODY SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. Everybody has the right to own a home even if its a small home or large home whatever fits them. You somehow suggest a notion that people are able to pay much more for rent but not able to own a home when their mortgage would likely be less than their rent. That just doesn't add up. It sounds more to me like you want to continue to exploit these people into paying your mortgage for you while you get free equity off of them. If they owned their own then your exploitation market would lose demand.

And another suggestion of fairness is that mortgage rates should be determined only by principle.

Quote :

"It sure is a shame that NONE OF THOSE are rights, nor are they things over which the federal government was given authority by the Constitution. But naaaah, fuck that thing, right? "

which was written in the 1700s at a time when land, resources and opportunity was virtually unlimited. It can be reinterpreted for todays world. Just like how the 2nd ammendment was put in place to fight british, natives and cowboys but now that those threats are long gone it itself is the biggest danger to peoples safety. But lets just keep living in the 1700s why don't we while other parts of the world move forward.

10/6/2008 10:47:19 PM

Quote :

"which was written in the 1700s at a time when land, resources and opportunity was virtually unlimited. It can be reinterpreted for todays world. Just like how the 2nd ammendment was put in place to fight british, natives and cowboys but now that those threats are long gone it itself is the biggest danger to peoples safety. But lets just keep living in the 1700s why don't we while other parts of the world move forward."

ahhh. So when your right to free speech is no longer "needed," will you gladly give it up? When your right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures is no longer "needed," will you gladly give it up? You are a fool if you think the 2nd Amendment applied only to natives and "cowboys." Nevermind the fact that "cowboys" didn't exist for at least another fucking CENTURY. But yes, let's scrap the Constitution, because it is getting in the way of what we want to do. Let's ignore all the foresight that those men had, because they didn't have an ipod. I would argue that such limitations are even more important today, as the explain exactly what it means to be American. They explain exactly what our founders wanted. And pissing them away as being "1700s thinking" is being too short-sighted. Far more short-sighted than the founders ever were.

10/6/2008 10:52:48 PM

Quote :

"^nobody said everybody deserves a nice home. nobody has ever said that so why would you say it like that? NOBODY SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. [b]Everybody has the right to own a home even if its a small home or large home whatever fits them.[/]b You somehow suggest a notion that people are able to pay much more for rent but not able to own a home when their mortgage would likely be less than their rent. That just doesn't add up. It sounds more to me like you want to continue to exploit these people into paying your mortgage for you while you get free equity off of them. If they owned their own then your exploitation market would lose demand. And another suggestion of fairness is that mortgage rates should be determined only by principle. "

You just said, "anyone can do anything." And I said, "Not true."

I don't get it. You're saying people should pay the same to own a home compared to renting? Do you understand the free market? Capitalism?

10/6/2008 11:17:58 PM

of course not. he's a liberal.

10/6/2008 11:18:24 PM

All you have to do is ask yourself "what would they think today?" Obviously free speech is independent of time. I'm not done thinking about it but I'm trying to use my imagination and so far think searches and seizures are also independent of time. You obviously can't expect something written in the 1700s to be 100% applicable forever, can you?

Quote :

"You're saying people should pay the same to own a home compared to renting? "

No, I'm saying in todays world, people actually pay about the same or less to own a home compared to renting. I was in the business 3 years...

10/6/2008 11:22:35 PM

Quote :

"It sure is a shame that NONE OF THOSE are rights,"

Yeah, they are.

10/6/2008 11:28:19 PM

Quote :

"Well you are forgetting the tax benefits of donating to charities. Many of the rich donate to charities for the same reason they do anything else. Profit. Also I guarantee those are almost all disease charities and not much social charities."

dude...if i have a dollar, and i give it to charity, i don't get taxed on that dollar, so i saved myself a quarter. spending a dollar to save a quarter is not profit.

and how do you figure that social charities don't get any love? back when i donated to charity, i donated exclusively to social charities.

Quote :

"It would be great if it could be that way but there simply isn't enough money."

Sure there is. There just isn't enough money to do all of the unnecessary and unconstitutional things that you want to do. therefore, the solution isn't to make it happen by doing something totally unfair--it's to live within your means, which is a concept that is lost on us, from the federal government down to the individual.

Quote :

"(who the rich have to thank for making them rich)"

this argument is silly. you could just as easily say that the poor have the rich to thank for being employed at all and even having food on the table, not to mention for all of the programs they enjoy that the rich pay for.

Quote :

"Thats why its fair. Just like the "save the women and children first" idea is fair. "

That has nothing to do with fair, and neither does saving women or children first--that's a nice thing to do, but not fair.

Quote :

"Again, unfair because this forces the working class to choose between health care or food on the table."

not in many cases--it forces people to choose between health insurance and things they don't need (where in many cases, they choose the latter). in any case, i already said that the healthcare system needs work--it's just that socializing it is stupid.

Quote :

"How can you send too many people to college? I get it now. You are scared of competition. You want to continue to keep the poor down so they aren't able to compete with you for a job. "

no, that has nothing to do with it, and it figures that you would come up with such a dumbass reason to attribute my statement to.

We are sending people to college who really just aren't capable enough to have much use for it. It's become Highschool 2. This is a subject that could fill its own thread, though, so I'll stop here.

Quote :

"This is where me and you differ. I belive in the american dream and the idea that anyone can do anything. You on the other hand are an elitist and believe in serfdom and people being sol for being born into poverty. Fundamental difference. "

No, I'm a huge believer in social and economic mobility, but home ownership simply doesn't make sense at all times for all people. If anyone believes in the American Dream, it's me. You believe in entitlement and doing things regardless of whether or not it makes any sense.

Quote :

"If somebody is paying rent they can pay mortgage. Everybody pays their mortgage before any other loans so thats just silly."

Dude, how in the hell do you figure that if you can afford to rent you can afford to buy?

and obviously not everyone is putting that level of priority on their mortgages.

Quote :

"Also the fact that you are going to make people who are closer to being in a bind pay increasingly more is stupid because its like you want them to default or something."

No, I don't want them to default, and the people loaning them money sure as hell don't want them to. I (we) want them to not get a loan to begin with if they can't afford it (which higher rates for less qualified people tends to facilitate), and if it's my money, and I'm taking a greater risk on it, I am totally right to expect a greater return.

Quote :

"You better be a brain surgeon because you love it and not because you love my money or else i dont want you in my head. Greedy bastard. "

I guess you missed the next thing I wrote.

10/7/2008 12:25:08 AM

Quote :

"You better be a brain surgeon because you love it and not because you love my money or else i dont want you in my head. Greedy bastard."

Yeah I don't want a brain surgeon who LOVES being a brain surgeon, I want a brain surgeon who is GOOD at brain surgery.

Someone may be the most talented brain surgeon, physicist, engineer, etc. in the world, and enjoy whichever one of those he does. But what he really loves is carpentry.

In a capitalist system, the money they can get for the first careers outweighs their love for carpentry, so we have the best people doing the most difficult jobs.

In your system, they would be a carpenter, because that's what they want to do, and they can make as much as those other careers. While someone less talented will be doing the brain surgery, because he "loves it".

10/7/2008 12:39:07 AM

Quote :

" Everybody has the right to own a home even if its a small home or large home whatever fits them. "

No, they don't. I think that we, at the state level or lower, should ensure that people are provided with a minimal amount of shelter of some sort, but that does not entail home ownership in any way, and it certainly is not the job or the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Quote :

"You somehow suggest a notion that people are able to pay much more for rent but not able to own a home when their mortgage would likely be less than their rent. "

dude, there is no way. i mean, the mortgage payment itself might be a little lower in many cases, but the total cost most certainly is not.

Quote :

"And another suggestion of fairness is that mortgage rates should be determined only by principle"

where in the blue fuck does this idea come from? how in the hell is that fair, much less reasonable and prudent? Christ, leftists really are fucking crazy.

but fine, if you want to set rates by principle only, then I maintain that we are already doing that. Lenders loan out THEIR money at whatever rate they see fit--that's a principle to live by.

Quote :

"which was written in the 1700s at a time when land, resources and opportunity was virtually unlimited. It can be reinterpreted for todays world."

uh, we've only touched a drop in the bucket of American land, and in many ways, opportunities are less limited than they were in the 1700s.

...and yes, the Constitution absolutely can be reinterpreted for today's world--that is a beautiful thing in its design. It should be done by way of amendment, not circumvention or ignoring.

If you're going to pick and choose which parts to follow, is it OK if I do the same?

Quote :

"All you have to do is ask yourself "what would they think today?" "

that's oftentimes code for "How can I disregard the Constitution at will, yet justify it?" In the military, we refer to it as having your "excuse matrix" ready.

It's our fucking Constitution--we can change it however we want, within the proper channels. Yeah, it's cumbersome to do so, but that's by design and a good thing.

Quote :

"Yeah, they are. "

According to who?

I cite the supreme law of the land. Who's in your corner?

Quote :

"No, I'm saying in todays world, people actually pay about the same or less to own a home compared to renting. I was in the business 3 years... "

No wonder you're in another line of work these days.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. The mortgage payment itself might be a little less in many cases, but by the time you factor in insurance, maintainance, taxes, and in many cases HOA fees and PMI (which will almost always be the case for the entry level, first-time homebuyer), there is no fucking way it's cheaper to buy, at least not in terms of monthly or yearly expense. Yes, in the long term, buying usually makes more financial sense, but that doesn't make it a right. That's like saying that people have the right to own stock, or cars, or bullion. Home ownership simply doesn't make sense for everyone, all the time. You need to get your financial foundation set first, for one thing (the lack of which is a lot of why there are so many foreclosures right now--people were thinking like YOU instead of ME). In other cases, even if you have the money, it just isn't the best option (I'm an example of this--I could put 20% down on a house, but it makes more sense for me to rent at the moment). Home ownership is not the end-all.


^ exactly.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 5:33 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 5:34 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

10/7/2008 5:24:17 AM

Quote :

"but fine, if you want to set rates by principle only, then I maintain that we are already doing that. Lenders loan out THEIR money at whatever rate they see fit--that's a principle to live by."

I LOLed.

Quote :

"No, they don't. I think that we, at the state level or lower, should ensure that people are provided with a minimal amount of shelter of some sort, but that does not entail home ownership in any way, and it certainly is not the job or the jurisdiction of the federal government."

I have and idea. If he thinks people should be donating their income for people to own homes of whatever size they need, he should donate his own money to that cause rather than try to force everybody else to.

Quote :

"...and yes, the Constitution absolutely can be reinterpreted for today's world--that is a beautiful thing in its design. It should be done by way of amendment, not circumvention or ignoring."

Don't you just fucking love it when people try to apply this same logic to the second amendment? "Times have changed, back then you needed protection but now we don't, we have the police." They fail to mention the whole part where the police have no legal obligation to protect you or even respond to any of your requests for assistance. The other thing that amazes me is that they don't notice the gangsters, thugs, etc. running around killing people left and right. These people are criminals and, by definition, disregard any laws they please. Hence, outlawing firearms has no impact on their illegal activities or weapons ownership other than to encourage it. Plus it creates a massive illegal arms market (The "channels" are already in place, much of it through the same "channels" as the drug trade) and encourages the arms dealers to acquire real assault weapons rather than the often stolen (And generally previously legally owned) US weapons that some idiots currently refer to as "assault weapons." The criminals would absolutely LOVE it if nobody could be armed. It would make their "jobs" a whole lot easier.

Quote :

"If you're going to pick and choose which parts to follow, is it OK if I do the same?"

Sounds good to me. It looks like we wont have to be hearing any more of his free speech. It's no longer protected under our interpretation of the constitution.

10/7/2008 7:28:28 AM

Quote :

"dude...if i have a dollar, and i give it to charity, i don't get taxed on that dollar, so i saved myself a quarter. spending a dollar to save a quarter is not profit. and how do you figure that social charities don't get any love? back when i donated to charity, i donated exclusively to social charities."

you saved a quarter and now you can tell people you aren't greedy. Goes a long way. Many rich people only donate to charities that concern them such as a family member with cancer or a child with autism.

Quote :

"There just isn't enough money to do all of the unnecessary and unconstitutional things that you want to do. therefore, the solution isn't to make it happen by doing something totally unfair--it's to live within your means, which is a concept that is lost on us, from the federal government down to the individual."

If health care and education are unconstitutional then something is wrong with the constitution. You have got to be simple minded to not know basic right from wrong and have to check if its written to determine if its right or wrong. If these basic rights are not within our means then theres is an even bigger problem with the wealth distribution in this country than I originally thought. Again let me remind you that with unregulated capitalism, 4 people would own everything.

Quote :

"this argument is silly. you could just as easily say that the poor have the rich to thank for being employed at all and even having food on the table, not to mention for all of the programs they enjoy that the rich pay for."

Nope, because the rich aren't actually doing anything anymore. Their money is their skill. If you got rid of every rich person, things would go on as normal and they would be replaced but if you got rid of every person that enjoys government programs, it would be catastrophic and many vital parts of society would stop functioning.

Quote :

"not in many cases--it forces people to choose between health insurance and things they don't need (where in many cases, they choose the latter). in any case, i already said that the healthcare system needs work--it's just that socializing it is stupid."

How can you tell them they don't need these things but you need 35 million in an account and titanium plating on your yacht. You need those things but they don't need, lets say, a tv or a few nice pieces of clothing. You need 7 homes but they don't need 1.

Quote :

"We are sending people to college who really just aren't capable enough to have much use for it. It's become Highschool 2. This is a subject that could fill its own thread, though, so I'll stop here."

Capable to have use for it? If they are capable of making it through they are capable to have use for it. Most decent jobs require college now but thats right, you don't want these people to ever be able to have anything. Maybe if you allow them to move up then you won't have to keep paying extra for them to have basic essentials.

Quote :

"Dude, how in the hell do you figure that if you can afford to rent you can afford to buy? and obviously not everyone is putting that level of priority on their mortgages. "

Most everyone is, car repos just aren't as big of news as home foreclosures. No matter how much money you make, if you lose your job you can't pay anything at all. Also things that aren't in the dti do come before mortgage for many people but not other loans so you further prove why the dti interest system is unfair.

Quote :

"No, I don't want them to default, and the people loaning them money sure as hell don't want them to. I (we) want them to not get a loan to begin with if they can't afford it (which higher rates for less qualified people tends to facilitate), and if it's my money, and I'm taking a greater risk on it, I am totally right to expect a greater return."

Well if thats how you're going to behave then the government is just going to have to step in(ie fha) because we can not allow discrimination to happen in something this important.

Quote :

" Someone may be the most talented brain surgeon, physicist, engineer, etc. in the world, and enjoy whichever one of those he does. But what he really loves is carpentry."

This is just not realistic. Everyone has a number 1 and if you're not doing that, you're not fully happy.

Quote :

"In your system, they would be a carpenter, because that's what they want to do, and they can make as much as those other careers"

Find where I said carpenters would make as much as those because I didn't. Having health care, education, and shelter does not mean making the same thing as a brain surgeon. Get real.

Quote :

" dude, there is no way. i mean, the mortgage payment itself might be a little lower in many cases, but the total cost most certainly is not."

If this was the case everyone would want to rent. Even the rich.

Quote :

"where in the blue fuck does this idea come from? how in the hell is that fair, much less reasonable and prudent? Christ, leftists really are fucking crazy. "

x interest per dollar borrowed. I don't see how you think thats crazy.

Quote :

"I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. The mortgage payment itself might be a little less in many cases, but by the time you factor in insurance, maintainance, taxes, and in many cases HOA fees and PMI (which will almost always be the case for the entry level, first-time homebuyer), there is no fucking way it's cheaper to buy, at least not in terms of monthly or yearly expense. Yes, in the long term, buying usually makes more financial sense, but that doesn't make it a right. That's like saying that people have the right to own stock, or cars, or bullion. Home ownership simply doesn't make sense for everyone, all the time. You need to get your financial foundation set first, for one thing (the lack of which is a lot of why there are so many foreclosures right now--people were thinking like YOU instead of ME). In other cases, even if you have the money, it just isn't the best option (I'm an example of this--I could put 20% down on a house, but it makes more sense for me to rent at the moment). Home ownership is not the end-all."

All the extra costs you list are proportional the the total cost of the house so if its not affordable then someone rich buying a huge house can't afford it either. Bottom line anybody who is steadily employed should have the right to home ownership.

I gurantee you there were people who had their financial foundation set and got foreclosed but the reason they got foreclosed is because the banks, lenders and crowd pretty much forced them into out of greed. Thats why I had to leave the business.

When somebody makes 2k a month, has no expenses and has constantly been paying 1500 a month for rent somehow can't get a mortgage that totals 1k after everything then the only place for me in that business is Washington.

Quote :

"(The "channels" are already in place, much of it through the same "channels" as the drug trade)"

could EASILY be shut down

10/7/2008 12:33:55 PM

Quote :

"you saved a quarter and now you can tell people you aren't greedy. Goes a long way. Many rich people only donate to charities that concern them such as a family member with cancer or a child with autism."

I'll quote you here:
Many of the rich donate to charities for the same reason they do anything else. Profit.

Spending a dollar to save a quarter (or 30 something cents, or whatever your overall income tax rate happens to be) is not profit. Furthermore, what difference does it make to you or especially the beneficiary if they did it to feel good about themselves or to not appear greedy?

...and sure, people tend to donate to things they have a personal connection to. Joe can donate to cancer, Jane can donate to autism, and theDuke866 can donate to programs for helping single mothers.

(which, as a side note, I used to do until it occured to me that a good bit of my income is already strongarmed away from me in taxes to support all sorts of charitable causes that the gov't takes upon itself to support. I then decided that was plenty of charitable contribution.)

Quote :

"If health care and education are unconstitutional then something is wrong with the constitution."

Very well...find enough like minded people and elect representives to amend the Constitution. Until then, leave it up to private entities and local/state governments.

Quote :

"You have got to be simple minded to not know basic right from wrong and have to check if its written to determine if its right or wrong. "

You misunderstand. I am not against education or health care. I am against the federal government handling it, either directly or by the power of the purse. To greatly condense things into one sentence, I am for education and healthcare being handed by a reasonably regulated (i.e., the minimum effective regulation, handled at the lowest effective level) private sector and by state/local governments where it is needed or advantageous.

I'll also quote Barry Goldwater:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents ``interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

Quote :

"Nope, because the rich aren't actually doing anything anymore. Their money is their skill. If you got rid of every rich person, things would go on as normal and they would be replaced"

This is so utterly asinine that I don't even know where to start with it. You mean to tell me that the SKILLED labor and people with knowledge are the ones who are easily replaceable?

...and YOU'RE the one who thinks we need to send every Tom, Dick, and Harry to college?

Quote :

"How can you tell them they don't need these things but you need 35 million in an account and titanium plating on your yacht. You need those things but they don't need, lets say, a tv or a few nice pieces of clothing. You need 7 homes but they don't need 1. "

Nobody needs a titanium yacht, and nobody needs a TV. I don't have either of them.

...and I've already explained that not everyone needs to own a home.

Regardless, need has nothing to do with it. That a rich guy doesn't "need" a yacht is no reason to say "he can afford to buy TVs for those less well off".

Quote :

"Capable to have use for it? If they are capable of making it through they are capable to have use for it. "

Right. You've been to college, I take it. Have you not seen the assortment of dipshit retards all over the place and wondered how on earth they ever got admitted, much less haven't flunked out yet?

Quote :

"Most decent jobs require college now but thats right, you don't want these people to ever be able to have anything. "

You fucking retard, you're reiterating my point. Most decent jobs require college now, because college has become Highschool 2, because we're admitting every dumbshit around to college, thus devaluing a college degree, and wasting all sorts of time, money, and resources that should be focused on the people who truly belong there...not to mention this is why people feel like they HAVE to go to college to do anything worthwhile, which costs a ton of money and a ton of time (which in turn is a lot of money...think of how much money you'd earn even at an entry level job over 4 years, then compound that at some reasonable annualized rate, then compare that to what you'd make during those same four years of college, MINUS the many thousands of dollars you are paying to go there, MINUS the interest on that debt if you have to borrow money to do it.)

Quote :

"No matter how much money you make, if you lose your job you can't pay anything at all. Also things that aren't in the dti do come before mortgage for many people but not other loans so you further prove why the dti interest system is unfair. "

If you are disciplined enough to sock away some reasonable savings, it doesn't totally fuck you over if you lose your job. There's a reason the rule of thumb is 3-6 months of expenses.

Oh, people don't know that? That's why I say that our financial literacy in this country is woefully inadequate, and that we should start educating people on personal finance.

...and you know what else isn't fair? Fucking the world economy in the ass and costing tons of people a bunch of money because you had to have an iPod and a vacation and more can than you should've bought and a $5 cup of coffee every morning and so on, instead of manning up and having a sizeable cash reserve put away like a responsible person, so that you wouldn't be totally tits up when something went wrong and not be able to pay your mortgage.

Quote :

"Well if thats how you're going to behave then the government is just going to have to step in(ie fha) because we can not allow discrimination to happen in something this important. "

that's not discrimination

and then what happens when people say "fuck it, i just won't loan my money out any more if they won't let me charge reasonable interest and be reasonably selective"?
_______________________________

alright, i have to go run and hit the gym. more later.

10/7/2008 2:14:27 PM

Quote :

"If this was the case everyone would want to rent. Even the rich. "

First of all, there are circumstances where it is more sensible to rent, even if you have money.

Second, buying is usually more advantageous in the long term. Renting is usually more advantageous in the short term. (There is also the future value of investing the money you save in the short term by renting, but we'll ignore that for the time being.) Oftentimes, people can't afford to buy right now. It's smarter for them to rent. If they play their cards right, they'll be in a position where buying makes sense somewhere down the line.

Quote :

"x interest per dollar borrowed. I don't see how you think thats crazy. "

Well, a flat rate like that is not as crazy as giving preferential terms to those who are less capable of repaying the loan, which is what it sounded to me like you were proposing.

Still, why do you think lenders charge people with bad credit and bad debt:income ratios higher interest (and often on more restrictive terms)? Even you can't be dense enough to think that it's out of malice, that these for-profit individuals and institutions cast business sense aside for the joy of holding the minions down.

Quote :

"could EASILY be shut down "

What is it they say about the definition of insanity?

10/7/2008 3:59:22 PM

Quote :

"people tend to donate to things they have a personal connection to."

and the rich have no personal connection to everyday people.

Quote :

" Very well...find enough like minded people and elect representives to amend the Constitution. Until then, leave it up to private entities and local/state governments."

Read it again. The government cannot take away rights without amending it but every right a person has isn't exclusively listed in the constitution, and it says that.

Quote :

"This is so utterly asinine that I don't even know where to start with it. You mean to tell me that the SKILLED labor and people with knowledge are the ones who are easily replaceable? "

Skilled laborers and wisemen are not the ones making all the money and of course they are easily replacable because theres only like 100,000 of them.

Quote :

"I don't have either of them."

You have a computer though which is basically a tv and much more.

Quote :

"Right. You've been to college, I take it. Have you not seen the assortment of dipshit retards all over the place and wondered how on earth they ever got admitted, much less haven't flunked out yet?"

and you don't know that they do graduate and haven't flunked out yet. You don't know if they make straight as. All I can do is hope college does its job and makes them better. A more educated population benefits all of society.

Quote :

"You fucking retard, you're reiterating my point. Most decent jobs require college now, because college has become Highschool 2, because we're admitting every dumbshit around to college, thus devaluing a college degree, and wasting all sorts of time, money, and resources that should be focused on the people who truly belong there...not to mention this is why people feel like they HAVE to go to college to do anything worthwhile, which costs a ton of money and a ton of time (which in turn is a lot of money...think of how much money you'd earn even at an entry level job over 4 years, then compound that at some reasonable annualized rate, then compare that to what you'd make during those same four years of college, MINUS the many thousands of dollars you are paying to go there, MINUS the interest on that debt if you have to borrow money to do it.)"

You somehow have the notion that we would be better off if a small % of our population was educated. Why don't we just start cutting people loose at 10 when they are old enough to do a simple job? Over education is never a problem. Yes college degrees are becoming less and less special but there is still grad school if you really want to feel special get a masters, or phd.

Quote :

" If you are disciplined enough to sock away some reasonable savings, it doesn't totally fuck you over if you lose your job. There's a reason the rule of thumb is 3-6 months of expenses.Oh, people don't know that? That's why I say that our financial literacy in this country is woefully inadequate, and that we should start educating people on personal finance."

We should but you don't want people going to college.

You know what totally fucks people over? Rising gas prices, and cost of healthcare. Most people are a sickness away from using up their "smart reserves"

Quote :

"...and you know what else isn't fair? Fucking the world economy in the ass and costing tons of people a bunch of money because you had to have an iPod and a vacation and more can than you should've bought and a $5 cup of coffee every morning and so on, instead of manning up and having a sizeable cash reserve put away like a responsible person, so that you wouldn't be totally tits up when something went wrong and not be able to pay your mortgage."

So if we can't have entertainment or luxuries how are we any better off than a command economy?

Quote :

"that's not discrimination"

charging somebody more for a product because they make less money is nothing but class discrimination.

Quote :

"Still, why do you think lenders charge people with bad credit and bad debt:income ratios higher interest (and often on more restrictive terms)? Even you can't be dense enough to think that it's out of malice, that these for-profit individuals and institutions cast business sense aside for the joy of holding the minions down."

Its not out of malice its simply out of greed. The less money they lend to people buying small homes the more they have to lend to people buying large homes. Thats why capitalism doesn't work for important necessities. If I have 10 shirts for sale and I know a guy is going to come in and buy 5 of them at the end of the day then I'm not going to sell shirts to more than 5 people today. Once a sixth person comes in looking for a shirt why would I sell them a shirt and hope 4 other people come in just like him instead of just waiting for the guy to buy all five at once and be done with it.

10/7/2008 7:40:05 PM

see. healthcare is a right. you heard it here first

10/7/2008 10:41:06 PM

Quote :

"Thats why capitalism doesn't work for important necessities. If I have 10 shirts for sale and I know a guy is going to come in and buy 5 of them at the end of the day then I'm not going to sell shirts to more than 5 people today. Once a sixth person comes in looking for a shirt why would I sell them a shirt and hope 4 other people come in just like him instead of just waiting for the guy to buy all five at once and be done with it."

That would be idiotic. If making and selling shirts is profitable, then why not order 15 shirts instead of only 10? Presuming this is a shop, then all owners pray for the oportunity to spread their fixed costs among a greater number of customers.

What you need to do is visit a super-market sometime. Let us take Food Lion. They sell Red Baron Pizza, which is enjoyed by the poor as a main course and the well off as a quick on-the-go meal. Well, Food Lion is not stupid, they realize that not all customers are equal. Some are rich and just go to whatever store is closest. Meanwhile, some are price concious (read poor) and always check the flyer before deciding where to shop. As such, while Food Lion can charge a comparatively high price all the time and therefore profit off the rich, it would lose all its price concious customers. So, the system we arrive at is MVP cards, sales, and coupons. When the pizza goes on sale the price concious flock to the store a stock up, taking home pizza at $3.33. Meanwhile, the rich could care less and shop whenever they feel like it, taking home the exact same pizza at $4.99. Such behavior makes sense due to a grocery store's ultra-competitive market and its high fixed operating costs.

It has been demonstrated that the long term inflation rate faced by the poor has been substantially lower than that of the rich. That is because the poor spend most of their money on low-end manufactured goods, whose inflation rate has been negative for two decades. For example, the inflation adjusted price of a comparable new car has fallen by half since 1991. Meanwhile, the rich spend most of their money on services and high end goods, whose inflation rate has been double digit for two decades.

It bears pointing out that Medicaid already covers 100% of the medical bills of the poor. If you are sufficiently poor then you are eligible. If you get cancer just quit your job, move in with relatives, and apply for Medicaid.

10/7/2008 11:46:41 PM

Because we're talking about the selling of money, each bank does indeed have a set amount and the rich do care about the price so all of your assumptions are out of the window with money but are good with pizza which is why the government won't ever need to regulate the selling of pizza.

10/7/2008 11:51:12 PM

You are again wrong. the interest charged to borrow is a price for the fixed supply of money just as wages are a price for the fixed supply of workers. But at that market rate, an individual employer can have all the labor he wants, all they have to do is pay more than their competitors.

Well, if a bank wants more funds to loan, all they need to do is pay more for the funds than their competitors. As such, if making loans to the poor is wildly profitable then banks will compete for depositors to make such loans. That they are not strongly implies that such loans to the poor are being shunned for reasons other than not enough funds to go around. Afterall, banks are like grocery stores in that they face significant fixed operating costs, so more customers is always preferable to fewer.

10/8/2008 12:11:15 AM

any grocery store would close their doors today if i told them i would buy every truckload of food as soon as it came off the truck as long as they want. if that happened then government would need to step in.

10/8/2008 12:54:35 AM

Do you think before you speak?

Ok, you own a grocery store. When you first openned you lost money every month for perhaps a year or more. You did this because you knew from experience that in time consumer loyalty would kick in and profits would start rolling. This loyalty (more habbit than anything else) is valuable, afterall it cost you a lot of money to achieve it.

Now, wethebest shows up one day and proclaims what you said. What do you do? Presumably you will jack up the markup on the products, so selling everything to wethebest would be far more profitable than stocking the store. But doing that would destroy whatever customer loyalty you had built up. How do we know wethebest will be here forever to buy the food? Wethebest could stop showing up tomorrow, but your customers have already shifted their habbits to Walmart down the street. More likely, the grocery store will refuse you and politely ask that you come back tomorrow when you will discover another identical truck rushed from warehouses unknown. Then wethebest demands two trucks; then four; then eight; etc.

So, the question is, could Bill Gates buy every loaf of bread in the country? The answer is no. As Bill Gates starts trying to buy all the bread, the price will rise a lot. While an extra $2 per loaf is not much for a household buying a loaf a week, it is devastating to someone trying to buy a billion loafs. But more importantly, as with the grocery store above, traditional modes of transportation are already tied up in long-term contracts. Bread can be more cheaply delivered to a rural grocery store every week for decades than a similar quantity of bread delivered to Bill Gates house once. As such, most of Bill Gates money will vanish into negotiation costs and transportation costs. But, assuming he persists, bakeries will step up production, tapping into the world's store of grain. As the flood of bread increases, even Bill Gates with all his billions could not keep up. After it all, Bill Gates probably managed to produce hard shortages somewhere. The people ate corn based wraps instead. But Bill Gates would be ruined, his companies would be liquidated and he would never be able to do this again. As such, such an eventuality is absurd. It has never happened in recorded history. So why is it the sole basis for your world-view?

10/8/2008 1:41:55 AM

because credit is much less availble than bread. you can't simply make more and there is no alternative

1 bill gates can't buy every loaf but if 10 bill gates 100 oprah winfreys 1000 donald trumps 10,000 alex rodriguezes and so on buy all the bread they can by the time you get down to the little guy there isn't going to be much if any left. but again, if you had guaranteed loyalty from multiple parties why wouldn't you deal with the ones with the larger orders first?

This isn't about a person buying up all of one thing its about a collective class doing it.

10/8/2008 2:05:44 AM

Quote :

"and the rich have no personal connection to everyday people. "

well what the hell charities do you think they donate to? Yachts for Tots?

Quote :

"Read it again. The government cannot take away rights without amending it but every right a person has isn't exclusively listed in the constitution, and it says that. "

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”



This is the 10th Amendment, since you apparently aren't familiar with it. The "powers delegated" it speaks of are the 18 things listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. There is some open-endedness in a couple of of those provisions, but not to the extent that you wish.

Quote :

"Skilled laborers and wisemen are not the ones making all the money and of course they are easily replacable because theres only like 100,000 of them. "

WHY DO YOU THINK THERE ARE ONLY A FEW OF THEM?

Quote :

"and you don't know that they do graduate and haven't flunked out yet. You don't know if they make straight as. All I can do is hope college does its job and makes them better. A more educated population benefits all of society. "

Fine then, have you been out in the "real world" and seen what kind of retards have college degrees? Have you been to your own college graduation and see what kind of retards are there with you?

Furthermore, I'm certainly all for a more educated society. I just don't think that bachelor's degrees across the board are the way to do it.

Quote :

"You somehow have the notion that we would be better off if a small % of our population was educated. Why don't we just start cutting people loose at 10 when they are old enough to do a simple job? Over education is never a problem. Yes college degrees are becoming less and less special but there is still grad school if you really want to feel special get a masters, or phd. "

Again, I'm all for education.

...and you're reiterating my point again. Nowadays, you have to stay in school for 6+ years and pay a shit ton of money to get a master's, which is basically the new bachelor's. This is because we're treating undergraduate college as Highschool, Part 2.

Quote :

"We should but you don't want people going to college. "

Dude, we should start teaching people this in elementary school.

Quote :

"You know what totally fucks people over? Rising gas prices, and cost of healthcare. Most people are a sickness away from using up their "smart reserves" "

Gas prices aren't too bad (especially if you drive a small car instead of the gas guzzler that you really couldn't afford, anyway), and what do you propose that we do about them?

...and for the eleventeenth time, we need to do something about healthcare. Socializing is not it, though.

Quote :

"So if we can't have entertainment or luxuries how are we any better off than a command economy?"

you can have any and all luxuries that you can afford. recognize, though, that if you don't have a ton of money, you can't live the same lifestyle as someone who does, and if you try, you are setting yourself up for failure (as we've seen more clearly than ever lately).

Quote :

"charging somebody more for a product because they make less money is nothing but class discrimination. "

It's not strictly a function of "making less money". It's your credit score (you can have good credit without a big income) and your debt:income ratio--again, you don't need a ton of money--you just need little debt. After that, just limit the amount you're borrowing to an amount consistent with your income and expenses, and you're good to go.

It's exactly the same thing as an insurance company charging you more for an auto policy if you are at fault in an accident.

Quote :

"Its not out of malice its simply out of greed."

Well, man, if that's what you call greed, then greed is the driving force behind our entire economy, and you might as well get used to it.

Quote :

"Thats why capitalism doesn't work for important necessities."

but buying a home is not an important necessity.

fucking A, I've never bought a home, and I'm doing just fine.

10/8/2008 3:29:26 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Lj54edyUk

This remix version is substantially better.

[Edited on October 8, 2008 at 10:50 AM. Reason : (embed failed)]

10/8/2008 10:46:30 AM