%@#%@ the unions!

[Tom Ace]

So, how do you define a good life or "doing good?"

Well, it's at least well over the poverty line. The poverty line for an individual is just under $10,000, and for a family of four it's $20,000. I wouldn't say $30,000 for a family of four is doing at all well.

What would you say is "doing good" or a good life?

So, get that degree, then you can screw off the rest of your life? What about they guy that gets his degree then turns into a junky, or the guy that got a degree but gets into fist fights with his boss at every job? Is it just a degree then you should be guaranteed a decent income the rest of your life no matter what? What about someone who cheats their way through college then can't do simple things in their job? I've seen an engineer who didn't know how to calculate a slope.

How much personal responsibility do you require out of an individual?

This whole tirade could have been avoided by reading just slightly carefully. I said that someone working hard shouldn't have to worry about poverty at all, and someone who also gets a good education shouldn't be anywhere near poverty. The "also" is kind of key, considering it makes the meaning of my point be "someone who works hard and gets a good education shouldn't be anywhere near poverty".

I think I mentioned that a few pages ago. Culture not so much tax rates are what keeps generations poor... Nice to see you coming around a bit.

Oh, for God's sake. We originally were talking about tax rates. The discussion has moved to other topics as well, including the general economy and poverty. The reasons for poverty are not simple, but the tax and economic system we have in the country is also contributing to the problem. Yes, we have to do more than fix the tax system to fix poverty, but fixing economic issues, including the tax system, is very helpful towards reducing poverty.

So, is that a failure of government or parents? What should we do? Push for a big public emphasis on the benefits of education and working hard? Should we deny poor people the right to raise their children? Or should we just give the children who grow up without being taught how to make it in the world prosperity? It's not their fault their parents didn't force them to study instead of roaming the streets, so lets just give them a nice house and car? Do you think that would end the perpetuation of that culture of entitlements and not working hard for what you want or make it worse?

This isn't even worth responding to. Come up with something better than this, and I'd be happy to respond. Hint: It would involve not jumping to conclusions about my ideas and not intentionally misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Life is too hard, so the government should do the work for you?

You were doing well for a little while there, but then you let your emotions and bias start doing your talking again. It's too bad. We could have gotten somewhere if you hadn't reverted to nonsense like this.

I don't buy into that idea. Life IS hard, for everyone (some more than others.)

Life doesn't have to be that hard, depending on your definition of "hard".

But thats the way its always been, for all civilizations. Life will always be hard to some extent, you will always have to work. Government can't take that fact away.

It would be better if you stopped to realize that there's no need for you to say this, as I'm not advocating people not working and having government take care of everyone.

And, as you've noted its very easy, once you get the right attitude, to make it in our society, so I don't get what the issue is.

When did I note that? I find it hard to believe that I noted something that was false. What thing that I said are you now twisting around?

Whens the last time you heard anything about the power of the Danish entrepreneur changing the shape of world? Can you name any famous Danish inventors that changed the face of society? Sure there are some, but its not what their known for.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Yes, more and more public handouts can create more "equality", meaning less rich and less poor. But at the expense of personal liberty and freedoms. Its a difference in a countries philosophies, and I like ours. Whats nice, is in our free society, your free to roam the world.

No, a system that's not geared towards the rich creates more equality. And no, it doesn't take less personal liberty to achieve more equality. The difference in the philosophies is that one tries to form a system that is best for the whole country, while the other tries to form a system that only works well for a minority of the country.

And what's nice is that in those other societies I want us to be more like you're free to roam the world, and you're free to make a lot of money just like here, and you have just as much freedom as we have.

French President Sarkozy spelled it out well in a speech to congress in 2007.

It's hard for me to believe he said that, but if so, it must have been in some bizarre context. Either that or he's as clueless as you and Rush Limbaugh about this country.

We can argue in good faith all day long about the details... bump the tax rate up a bit, cut spending here or there, what to do about health care, 100 weeks or unemployment or more, etc... But I think the nexus of your argument isn't these details, but an overall philosophy you don't agree with. And that is not something that can really be debated, its a matter of faith really.

It is a difference of philosophies, but it's not a matter of faith. My philosophy is based on creating a healthy society that works for everyone involved. It's based on the idea of putting in some effort and living a good life. I'm not sure what yours is based on.

You think the government should give everyone what they need, America thinks everyone should earn and work for it.

And after all this time you still don't understand what I want, even after I've explained it in great detail. No, I don't think the government should give everyone what they need. I'll try one more time, but if you choose to ignore what I'm actually saying in favor of what you want me to be saying, I don't know what more I can do.

What I want is a society more like Canada or Denmark. I want a society where there is room for economic mobility, where as long as you are working at an acceptable level, you don't have to worry about poverty. I want the average middle-class family to be able to afford things like a good house, good transportation, a good education, healthcare, along with the basics and some extras. I don't want any of that handed to them. I want them to earn it. I want you to be able to get rich, and when you get rich to pay the appropriate amount of taxes.

I want poor people to be rare. I want there to be a lot of services to help poor people to not be poor. Sometimes that means just helping them financially. Sometimes it means providing them with the tools to get better jobs. Sometimes it means both. I want those who simply aren't able to provide for themselves to be taken care of. I want everyone else to take care of themselves, but to also have a safety net if they make a bad decision or have some bad luck. I don't want people to rely on government assistance unless they need to, and only for the length of time they need to.

Does that make it clear enough, or are you going to come up with some more mischaracterizations?

 

[Tom Ace]

I think wikipedia sums it up best, for all you one cause folks.



And:

And what part of that have you seen me disagree with? All you posted was that the recession was caused by the housing bubble which was caused by bad loans being given out. Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't claim that added regulation or any kind of liberal policy led to the recession.

 

[Tom Ace]

All of those are regulations. It was taken directly from the government's website.



Ok, so you're confused... that's what I did. I posted them. Those right there were new regulations.

OK, let's see whether I can make you understand. What you posted only said that banks might be evaluated in certain different ways. It didn't say "Banks have to start giving out loans to more poor people" or "Banks have to start giving out 1,000 mortgages a year without a down payment". Those things would be regulations. Saying that a board is going to evaluate banks according to certain criteria is not adding regulations.

So, with that in mind, please explain to me which part of your previous post was added regulation.

And just for fun, you might want to read the Wiki entry for the Community Reinvestment Act.

 

[byteware]

Life doesn't have to be that hard, depending on your definition of "hard".

Ahh... how cute. I remember when I was this kind of naive idealistic kid.

 

[byteware]

OK, let's see whether I can make you understand. What you posted only said that banks might be evaluated in certain different ways. It didn't say "Banks have to start giving out loans to more poor people" or "Banks have to start giving out 1,000 mortgages a year without a down payment". Those things would be regulations. Saying that a board is going to evaluate banks according to certain criteria is not adding regulations.

So, with that in mind, please explain to me which part of your previous post was added regulation.

And just for fun, you might want to read the Wiki entry for the Community Reinvestment Act.

Ok, so we've established that you neither understand what I posted, nor understand what a regulation actually is...

Had you said that from the get go, then you would have saved us both a bunch of trouble, because it just looked like you were avoiding it, because it proved you wrong.

I've got to back and get that link... I'll update that in a moment.

Edited:

Wow, I posted a bunch of them... ok, let me break it down for you. I posted Clinton's updated Compliance test.

Prior to the regulatory changes, the compliance test involved offering services to all areas to indicate that redlining did not occur.

All of these tests that you can read so clearly, involve actual loans.

Offering loans to low income people who obviously don't qualify no longer qualified as compliant. You actually had to make loans to the assessment areas to be compliant...

That's the long and the short of it.

 

[byteware]

OK, let's see whether I can make you understand. What you posted only said that banks might be evaluated in certain different ways.

You do realize that part of Federal Regulations is how compliance is evaluted... right?

Do they even teach government in school anymore?

 

[Tom Ace]

Ahh... how cute. I remember when I was this kind of naive idealistic kid.

I would hope you'd be able tp remember 2 days ago. So, tell me, why does life have to be hard? I'm not talking about loved ones dying, or having to work full-time. Those things only make life life.

 

[Tom Ace]

Ok, so we've established that you neither understand what I posted, nor understand what a regulation actually is...

Had you said that from the get go, then you would have saved us both a bunch of trouble, because it just looked like you were avoiding it, because it proved you wrong.

I've got to back and get that link... I'll update that in a moment.

Edited:

Wow, I posted a bunch of them... ok, let me break it down for you. I posted Clinton's updated Compliance test.

Prior to the regulatory changes, the compliance test involved offering services to all areas to indicate that redlining did not occur.

All of these tests that you can read so clearly, involve actual loans.

Offering loans to low income people who obviously don't qualify no longer qualified as compliant. You actually had to make loans to the assessment areas to be compliant...

That's the long and the short of it.

So, essentially there were rules in place to reduce discrimination in loans, and these rules were changed. You're still not showing any added regulation. It would be nice if you'd either show this supposed added regulation or stop posting.

 

[Tom Ace]

You do realize that part of Federal Regulations is how compliance is evaluted... right?

Do they even teach government in school anymore?

If you ever want to step out of your bubble into reality, and learn from a grown-up, let me know. I'd be happy to teach you what you need to know.

 

[Xyro]

The arguments being posted in this thread are getting a bit too personal for our liking. I think it's best we lock the thread here, before tempers fray any further.