Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

BUSINESSMEN ARE EATING BABIES

3 (7%)

I'm a socialist

5 (11.6%)

Businesses need heavier regulation, and social programs should be expanded

12 (27.9%)

Businesses need heavier regulation, but current social programs are too expensive

1 (2.3%)

Regulation is stifling growth, but we should expand social programs

1 (2.3%)

Regulation is stifling growth, and current social programs are too expensive.

4 (9.3%)

Regulation is stifling growth, but current social programs are working well.

0 (0%)

Current regulation is fine, but we should expand social programs.

0 (0%)

Current regulation is fine, but current social programs are too expensive.

2 (4.7%)

Businesses need heavier regulation, but current social programs are working well.

0 (0%)

Both current regulation and social programs are working fine.

2 (4.7%)

I'm a libertarian.

4 (9.3%)

I'm heavily conservative.

1 (2.3%)

LIBERALS ARE EATING BABIES

1 (2.3%)

I'm a communist

3 (7%)

I'm a fascist

4 (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 43

[Virex]

Yeah, education is about a fourth of the price over there, which helps a lot. Still, the US has a lot of grants for students, no? We just get a flat rate whatever we do (unless your parents are really poor, then you get some extras). Not that it really matters because I was talking about the job market over here. Other expenses are however higher, and to get to 500 a month monthly expenses you'll have to jump through some hoops, but it is very possible.

The choice isn't between picking fruit and doing nothing. It is between picking fruit while going ever further into debt and doing everything you can to get a job that matches your skills and meets your needs.

Getting a job is significantly easier if you already have a stable financial position and a work rhythm. Plus, a large gap on your CV is a mayor killer at job applications.

[Nadaka]

Grants? not really. The only common grants are Pell grants, and their maximum payment is a small fraction of the cost of tuition for anything beyond 2 years at a vocational school. Maybe one in a few thousand gets enough grants and scholarships for a free or nearly free education. Everyone else uses student loans. Loans that must be repaid no matter what. Loans that can only have their payments postponed if you are unemployed, if you have any income at all you must pay, even if your income is less than your monthly payment.

Besides that, the cost of living in most of the US for a single person is almost twice the income from a full time minimum wage job.

[Bauglir]

There are programs you can enter that cap the amount of a loan you have to pay back for some student loans. I've got some Direct and PLUS loans, and there were options that forgave any remaining debt after a certain number of years, if I either went into public service or qualified in other ways (such as having not taken out a PLUS loan), but I don't qualify so I couldn't go with them. If I had, I could've cut about 10000 dollars off, IIRC.

[Zrk2]

Oh you guys, the libertarians' 'problem' with the various gov't aid programs (is that sufficiently inclusive for everyone?) force people to contribute, whereas libertarians feel people should be free to contribute or not to those programs. Oh course, if you don't contribute then don't bitch when you are out of work...

I think they are a very good idea but the issue is that people should not be forced to pay into them regardless of what happens if they choose not to. The end is irrelevant to what takes place, all that matters is protecting the right of people to dispose of their wealth as they choose.

Addendum: Obviously this will never work in the current world because people are amoral and so there will always be those about abusing this system and conning those who choose to follow the rules, meaning that gov't intervention will always be necessary.

[Bauglir]

My own view on it is, yes, that would be ideal, but the increase in freedom gained for the people helped by the program (to be able to pay for food and rent) is far more significant than the loss of freedom imposed on the disproportionately wealthy by taxes that are, while disproportionately high on them, less disproportionally high than their actual income.

The line I typically draw here is 8 or more digits' worth of dollars in your personal bank account is where you no longer lose any meaningful freedom, no matter how much you're taxed (within the range ever reached by American tax rates, and probably a bit more as well).

I don't think I necessarily disagree with you by saying that, just pointing out my own thoughts.

[knaveofstaves]

Oh you guys, the libertarians' 'problem' with the various gov't aid programs (is that sufficiently inclusive for everyone?) force people to contribute, whereas libertarians feel people should be free to contribute or not to those programs. Oh course, if you don't contribute then don't bitch when you are out of work...

I think they are a very good idea but the issue is that people should not be forced to pay into them regardless of what happens if they choose not to. The end is irrelevant to what takes place, all that matters is protecting the right of people to dispose of their wealth as they choose.

Addendum: Obviously this will never work in the current world because people are amoral and so there will always be those about abusing this system and conning those who choose to follow the rules, meaning that gov't intervention will always be necessary.

Everything you say is true as far as it goes. Unfortunately for libertarians, your philosophy goes mere inches.

La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain. You are concerned about the amorality of the fraudster, stealing his daily bread from Social Security? They found $358.4 million (PDF) in OASDI fraud in FY 2010 (page 26), and it cost them $102.6 million to find it (page 36), so net $255.8 million in a year.

Are you also concerned about the amorality of the bankers, who have extorted $28 billion from the Treasury, holding the economy hostage with their indefensibly risky investments? The magic internet machine tells me that's 109.5 years of Social Security fraud in one go. How can you possibly justify mentioning the former without considering the latter?

[Muz]

Personally, I think the biggest problem in the world economy is that people make money without contributing anything to society. It defeats the purpose of money, it makes it borderline as bad as theft. Hell, even entertainment, beggars selling tissues, etc, is overall good for society. I mean things like pretty much what finance is about. Many insurance companies, gambling companies.

It depends greatly on the country you're in.

I mean like in Malaysia, I think the economic climate is perfect. Lots of benefits for SMEs. Little to no usury, the banks make money through direct investment instead of playing a loan shark. Business is so great that you see shops everywhere, almost like 1 shop for every 3 houses where I live. There's no conflict between businessmen and 'the people', everyone knows that business brings happiness. Social mobility is superb; you'll find lots of rural sons of laborers becoming professors and CEOs. The only problem is in the 1 party political system, and nearly every problem is caused by politics. Oh, and maybe wages are a bit too low, hard to make enough money to pay for everything, yet nobody is starving/homeless unless they choose to be homeless to buy a nice car.

In Australia, things are also fine and dandy, though you'll see people wanting a change for the sake of change. Problem is that the economy is so damn strong that living costs spike. I'd say that gambling and interest are a bit too high though, and investors are too cautious. It's difficult to start a business because of extreme wages, people who start up a shop are practically adventurers because there's no guarantee of success. But most lower class people can afford almost anything they want, and there's plenty of social welfare.

In the US, well, you guys have said enough about it.

[Zrk2]

Oh you guys, the libertarians' 'problem' with the various gov't aid programs (is that sufficiently inclusive for everyone?) force people to contribute, whereas libertarians feel people should be free to contribute or not to those programs. Oh course, if you don't contribute then don't bitch when you are out of work...

I think they are a very good idea but the issue is that people should not be forced to pay into them regardless of what happens if they choose not to. The end is irrelevant to what takes place, all that matters is protecting the right of people to dispose of their wealth as they choose.

Addendum: Obviously this will never work in the current world because people are amoral and so there will always be those about abusing this system and conning those who choose to follow the rules, meaning that gov't intervention will always be necessary.

Everything you say is true as far as it goes. Unfortunately for libertarians, your philosophy goes mere inches.

La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain. You are concerned about the amorality of the fraudster, stealing his daily bread from Social Security? They found $358.4 million (PDF) in OASDI fraud in FY 2010 (page 26), and it cost them $102.6 million to find it (page 36), so net $255.8 million in a year.

Are you also concerned about the amorality of the bankers, who have extorted $28 billion from the Treasury, holding the economy hostage with their indefensibly risky investments? The magic internet machine tells me that's 109.5 years of Social Security fraud in one go. How can you possibly justify mentioning the former without considering the latter?

I don't believe I mentioned either, just fraud in general. Anyway, thank you for the examples, they are both disgusting and the bankers are worse in that they don't even need it, not that need in any way makes up for committing fraud.

Personally, I think the biggest problem in the world economy is that people make money without contributing anything to society. It defeats the purpose of money, it makes it borderline as bad as theft. Hell, even entertainment, beggars selling tissues, etc, is overall good for society. I mean things like pretty much what finance is about. Many insurance companies, gambling companies.

It depends greatly on the country you're in.

I mean like in Malaysia, I think the economic climate is perfect. Lots of benefits for SMEs. Little to no usury, the banks make money through direct investment instead of playing a loan shark. Business is so great that you see shops everywhere, almost like 1 shop for every 3 houses where I live. There's no conflict between businessmen and 'the people', everyone knows that business brings happiness. Social mobility is superb; you'll find lots of rural sons of laborers becoming professors and CEOs. The only problem is in the 1 party political system, and nearly every problem is caused by politics. Oh, and maybe wages are a bit too low, hard to make enough money to pay for everything, yet nobody is starving/homeless unless they choose to be homeless to buy a nice car.

In Australia, things are also fine and dandy, though you'll see people wanting a change for the sake of change. Problem is that the economy is so damn strong that living costs spike. I'd say that gambling and interest are a bit too high though, and investors are too cautious. It's difficult to start a business because of extreme wages, people who start up a shop are practically adventurers because there's no guarantee of success. But most lower class people can afford almost anything they want, and there's plenty of social welfare.

In the US, well, you guys have said enough about it.

You make a good point. 'Welfare capitalism' a la Henry FOrd would be the ideal method; companies voluntarily help their employees because they realize happy employees are productive employees.