• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

And Mitt Picks...

The you think those millions come out of thin air?
He needs an economy for that. Educated workers. Transport. Security. People dont get rich on their own. Its possible to become poor on your own, but not rich. Dont kind yourself.

But I benefit from all of that as well do I not?

Maybe this is a better question. How do I (who makes more than the median household income in the US) benefit more from the system than the minimum wage guy flipping burgers at the local fast food joint?
 
But I benefit from all of that as well do I not?

Maybe this is a better question. How do I (who makes more than the median household income in the US) benefit more from the system than the minimum wage guy flipping burgers at the local fast food joint?

Because you're money is coming from somewhere.. its hard to explain, but picture the entire economy in your head, and visualise how government effects it. I mean, the entire system is really based of the old tithing system, which was based on economic factors (if you take a fixed amount the poorest will fair terribly and die, if you take everything no one gives anything).
 

First let's examine your claim "he started from scratch". Mitt came from a wealthy family that supported him during his education and early career, not exactly starting from scratch. Anything to support your claim, "created thousands of jobs on his own."

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney says he didn't inherit money from his parents

"Mitt Romney, making the case that he made his own wealth, said, "I didn't inherit money from my parents."

Indeed, he was already a wealthy man by the time his father, George, died in 1995. He did receive an inheritance but says he gave it away. We don't have independent confirmation of that. But a family-funded endowment at BYU started in 1998 to support the George W. Romney Institute of Public Management, bolstering Romney's claim.

Did Romney's career benefit from having well-to-do parents? It certainly eased his way, with their financial help allowing him to focus on his studies. But there's good evidence he also worked hard to make his own success, graduating with honors at BYU and Harvard, and building a reputation at Boston Consulting Group and Bain that ultimately catapulted him to wealth.

Romney wasn't entirely clear about the inheritance he gave away when he said he "didn't inherit money" from his parents. But he's right that such a gift wasn't key to his success. We rate his claim Half True."
 
That's where I have a problem with the theory. In theory both Romney and I benefit from the same system. We live under the same political system. We benefit (and suffer) from the same economy. We are protected by the same army. We are represented by the same people. We are governed by the same laws. So, in theory, we benefit the same. Why should one of us pay more and the other pay less for the same benefits?

Romney was born into a different social network then most. This network has a great deal of influence on the laws, tax codes, enforcement, and greater access to educational opportunities, capital, tax havens.
 
Romney was born into a different social network then most. This network has a great deal of influence on the laws, tax codes, enforcement, and greater access to educational opportunities, capital, tax havens.

Yeah, even friends I know in private schools have already so much more connections, its a ridiculous head start in life, although I try not to begrudge them.
 
Romney was born into a different social network then most. This network has a great deal of influence on the laws, tax codes, enforcement, and greater access to educational opportunities, capital, tax havens.

None of that is his fault. We are all dealt a certain hand in life. Some of us have more advantages than others just by virtue of our birth. Heck, Chelsea Clinton graduated from college and her first job was at a law firm making over six figures. Why did she get that job? Her dad is an ex-President. That's about it. We all get advantages and disadvantages in life. So what. Life isn't fair.
 
None of that is his fault. We are all dealt a certain hand in life. Some of us have more advantages than others just by virtue of our birth. Heck, Chelsea Clinton graduated from college and her first job was at a law firm making over six figures. Why did she get that job? Her dad is an ex-President. That's about it. We all get advantages and disadvantages in life. So what. Life isn't fair.


And this is exactly why the government has to make sure everyone has the right to the basics - healthcare, education, housing, food, water, etc. To help make things less unfair and more right and just.
 
And this is exactly why the government has to make sure everyone has the right to the basics - healthcare, education, housing, food, water, etc. To help make things less unfair and more right and just.

Why? Life isn't fair. I don't think life should be fair, nor do I think it's the government's job/role/right to try to make things "fair". Albert Pujols makes like $20 mil a year because he can hit a baseball. I make $20k 'cuz I flip burgers. Maybe I work 3-4 part time jobs and I'm working 80 hours a week and taking home $30k at the end of the day. Should the government step in and decide that Pujols should be limited to how much money he can make? He works less than I do and earns nearly 100 times what I earn. That's not fair? Or how about the guy in the cube next to me. He's a slacker, but he's also a suck up. So he does less work, but is promoted more often. That's not fair either. Should the feds step in and fix that too?
 
Why? Life isn't fair. I don't think life should be fair, nor do I think it's the government's job/role/right to try to make things "fair". Albert Pujols makes like $20 mil a year because he can hit a baseball. I make $20k 'cuz I flip burgers. Maybe I work 3-4 part time jobs and I'm working 80 hours a week and taking home $30k at the end of the day. Should the government step in and decide that Pujols should be limited to how much money he can make? He works less than I do and earns nearly 100 times what I earn. That's not fair? Or how about the guy in the cube next to me. He's a slacker, but he's also a suck up. So he does less work, but is promoted more often. That's not fair either. Should the feds step in and fix that too?

And you see this, this is why you aren't a moderate even though you claim to be. You are very much on the right, and quite far to the right too.
 
And you see this, this is why you aren't a moderate even though you claim to be. You are very much on the right, and quite far to the right too.

I am on some things sure. I am a card carrying Libertarian. At the end of the day I don't feel like it is the feds job to fix my life or fix anyone else's life. I would cut off my right arm if it got them to leave me the f alone for the rest of my life, but that's not realistic. To me the feds are like your overbearing mother. They want their fingers in every facet of your life and feel like it's their responsibility to fix every issue (real or imagined) that they think you have. We tolerate this from our relatives to some extent because their heart is in the right place. That is definitely not the case for the feds though. At some point though we say, "Leave me alone and stop trying to fix my life."
 
I am on some things sure. I am a card carrying Libertarian.
Oh great, Libertarianism, the only group less nutty than Communists and fascists. Im sure Americas wonderful healthcare system eloquently illustrates what a shitty system keeping the government out of important things is.
I see American libertarians moaning about how they would move to Switzerland "but they have a healthcare mandate omg".

At the end of the day I don't feel like it is the feds job to fix my life or fix anyone else's life.
Well I mean that should be the states' job but the states clearly suck at doing these things.

I would cut off my right arm if it got them to leave me the f alone for the rest of my life, but that's not realistic.
I wouldnt cut off a limb to make China a democracy if I was Chinese. Well i guess if the feds would leave you alone foreign powers could invade US states one by one and stop you pumping crap in to the air.

They want their fingers in every facet of your life and feel like it's their responsibility to fix every issue (real or imagined) that they think you have. We tolerate this from our relatives to some extent because their heart is in the right place. That is definitely not the case for the feds though. At some point though we say, "Leave me alone and stop trying to fix my life."
Lucky that your life doesnt need fixing as you were born into an integrated family and are intelligent.
 
Oh great, Libertarianism, the only group less nutty than Communists and fascists. Im sure Americas wonderful healthcare system eloquently illustrates what a shitty system keeping the government out of important things is.
I see American libertarians moaning about how they would move to Switzerland "but they have a healthcare mandate omg".

I've not heard any libertarians or any Americans for that matter wanting to move to Switzerland. But I certainly haven't polled all of them.

Well I mean that should be the states' job but the states clearly suck at doing these things.

Here's a wacky idea? Why not make it my responsibility to fix my problems? I know. Personal responsibility. Silly thought. Not the state's job. Not the feds job. Not your neighbor's job. Not your family's job. How about it being your responsibility to fix you?

I wouldnt cut off a limb to make China a democracy if I was Chinese. Well i guess if the feds would leave you alone foreign powers could invade US states one by one and stop you pumping crap in to the air.

Big difference between providing national defense (passive service) and trying to actively fix my life by decreeing what I can and can't do with my money, taking it from me if they feel I'm using it irresponsibly, and fostering a life long dependence on Uncle Sam to help me out 'cuz I'll never be able to make it in this world by myself.

Lucky that your life doesnt need fixing as you were born into an integrated family and are intelligent.

And yet I suceeded in screwing up my life all on my lonesome. I did wake up one day completely broke, overdrawn at the bank and living in a crappy 400 sq ft duplex with bills on my desk that I literally had no money to pay. Yet somehow I sit here 7-8 years later and I have no debt except my house that I am paying off early and I make $25k more than I did back then. Somehow I did all of this without the feds "fixing" me. So yeah, I do think people can fix themselves. We are intelligent beings. Not animals who have to be kept.
 
Yep, just keep'em barefoot and pregnant and when they reach 40, traded them in for two 20 year old's.:rolleyes:

Paul Ryan appears to believe fertilized eggs deserve more rights than women.

Ryan may not be able to bring himself to acknowledge women at all, but as Scott Lemieux at the American Prospect notes, Ryan does believe that fertilized eggs deserve 14th Amendment protections, even though the amendment specifically notes that one must be "born" to be a person.

However, Ryan has voted directly against legislation
 
They can be evil. But the poor can be evil as well. Evil doesn't seem to be limited by social status.

Yeah, isn't education wonderful.:p

Shame on the Rich - ScienceNOW

"When participants were manipulated into thinking of themselves as belonging to a higher class than they did, the poorer ones, too, began to behave unethically. In one test, subjects were asked to compare themselves with people at the top or the bottom of the social scale (Donald Trump or a homeless person, for example.) They were then permitted to take candies from a jar ostensibly meant for a group of children in a nearby lab. Subjects whose role-playing raised their status in their own eyes took twice as many candies as those who compared themselves to "The Donald," the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
 
None of that is his fault. We are all dealt a certain hand in life. Some of us have more advantages than others just by virtue of our birth. Heck, Chelsea Clinton graduated from college and her first job was at a law firm making over six figures. Why did she get that job? Her dad is an ex-President. That's about it. We all get advantages and disadvantages in life. So what. Life isn't fair.

Yep, how many $millions do you spend per year on lobbyist, campaign donations, public relations, accountants, tax lawyers, etc...

In a pure capitalistic model, these expenditures wouldn't be made. The real world there is government, if you like it or not.

The question is who are the leaders going to govern for, you, or the ones that can dispense money. This is how tax loop holes are created, labor unions and competition are destroyed.

Asymmetric power is not fair, which is why humans struggle to make life more fair. In large parts of the world royalty has been disbanded which was the dominant form of government in the not too distant past.

Study reveals human drive for fair play

"Dr Nick Wright, who led the study, explains: "Whether or not fairness is a uniquely human motivation has been a source of controversy. These findings show that humans, unlike even our closest relatives chimpanzees, reject an unfair offer of a primary reward like food or water -- and will do that even when severely thirsty. However, we also show this fairness motivation is traded-off against self-interest, and that this self-interest is not determined by how their objective need for water but instead by their subjective perception of thirst. These findings are interesting for understanding how subjective feelings of fairness and self-interested need impact on everyday decisions, for example in the labour market.""
 
I can at least respect the libertarians for being consistent. One of the things I can't stand about the Republicans is their hypocrisy in always saying how they want the government out of peoples lives, UNLESS they want to tell people what to do with their bodies, who they can marry, what they can smoke, etc. Problem is, libertarianism might sound good on paper, but it simply won't work in the real world. Same as socialism might sound good to some on paper, but it just wouldn't work in a country as big and diverse as the US.
Common sense should put most people somewhere in the middle.
 
I can at least respect the libertarians for being consistent. One of the things I can't stand about the Republicans is their hypocrisy in always saying how they want the government out of peoples lives, UNLESS they want to tell people what to do with their bodies, who they can marry, what they can smoke, etc. Problem is, libertarianism might sound good on paper, but it simply won't work in the real world. Same as socialism might sound good to some on paper, but it just wouldn't work in a country as big and diverse as the US.
Common sense should put most people somewhere in the middle.

I think it would take a true cultural change for libertarianism to work. We've fostered a culture of dependence on the government for everything for far too long. If we waved a magic wand tomorrow and the government (state, local and federal) were no longer providing all the social programs and aid that they do there are are people who would literally starve on the streets because they have never developed the skills to take care of themselves. I'm not talking about people who are elderly or infirm. I'm talking about able bodied people who are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, but have never had to so they've never developed that ability.
 
I think it would take a true cultural change for libertarianism to work.
This is why I think libertarianism is just as mad as communism. Communism needed a cultural change too.
People are not all equal, some are smarter, some are more physically able, some have missed opportunities by chance.
 
This is why I think libertarianism is just as mad as communism. Communism needed a cultural change too.
People are not all equal, some are smarter, some are more physically able, some have missed opportunities by chance.

No, they're not all equal. But I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to try to level the playing field.
 
Libertarianism worked fine when the country was founded. The country has been in decline as we move further away from it.
 
Libertarianism worked fine when the country was founded. The country has been in decline as we move further away from it.

Let me give you a clue, the US is no longer an agrarian and craftsman society, nor is the earth the center of the universe, sorry you didn't twitter.
 
Let me give you a clue, the US is no longer an agrarian and craftsman society, nor is the earth the center of the universe, sorry you didn't twitter.

It has nothing to do with the type of society we were. It has to do with personal freedom and personal responsibility.
 
It has nothing to do with the type of society we were. It has to do with personal freedom and personal responsibility.

And these things exist in social democracy likewise, and that system *actually works*, and does so without massive waste of resources like the US lassez-faire system.
 
It has nothing to do with the type of society we were. It has to do with personal freedom and personal responsibility.

"personal freedom and personal responsibility." is a worn out tagline. To say the environment has no influence is just plain silly.
 
Back
Top Bottom