Thread: Article about smuggler with nuclear warhead blueprints

Hell, I'd do it for the right price, after all, its not like Im benefitting from the stability of western society. Born poor, living poor, probably die poor. What's my motivation to be a good citizen again?

That's probably the most selfish thing I've ever heard. So because your life is dull and sucks you would ruin everyone else's who actually may enjoy theirs? So because your not happy you are saying no one deserves to be happy? Nice.

I find that if you always want to see the crap in life you will. There is always something negative to be found and if you always look for it you are sure to find it.

Originally Posted by Bubba

That's probably the most selfish thing I've ever heard. So because your life is dull and sucks you would ruin everyone else's who actually may enjoy theirs? So because your not happy you are saying no one deserves to be happy? Nice.

Yeah, I was surprised to see abachler say that. If you're poor in America, it's your fault. My inlaws came here with nothing, got no welfare, couldn't speak the language, but worked hard and made it. Some made it quite well.

If you're poor in America, it's your fault. My inlaws came here with nothing, got no welfare, couldn't speak the language, but worked hard and made it. Some made it quite well.

Sure, working hard and earning money is definitely a good thing. The thing is that most people that get rich are good at business; good at business generally means a professional tightass. Thats fair as far as business goes, but theres nothing more annoying than a tightass friend. I dont know if I'll ever get rich as I'm too careless with money. Most of the richest friends I have are so annoyingly tight I cant share anything w/o demanding some form or payment/debt. Once I successfully identify a tightass its good fun to read their brain as they try and weasle every situation to produce some marginal gain. Then I find ways to wind them up; good fun

Originally Posted by medievalelks

Many don't, because we have a culture of dependency now that expects the government to provide for them from cradle to grave. If you aren't making it, look in the mirror. The reason's in there.

I didn't say everyone makes it - they plainly don't, and most don't try. And I didn't say it was easy.

But the opportunity is there.

I wouldn't put it that negatively, but I think we agree more than we disagree. I mean, looking at it in a different light, a lot of people succeed. You're gonna hit some hard spots and you're gonna fail, but you've got what you love, and that should be all that matters. You could do something else and make a lot of money but there's a point where that isn't so fulfilling especially if you just wade your way through it. And you're going to be doing your work for the majority of your life, and all the time you spend doing something you detest adds up.

But that's what I say. It's not that I'm unconcerned about the income gap or anything like that, but people get focused on the bottom line a lot. Where we disagree I think is that government should be able to help.

I mean if you take a chance and become an artist, or open some type of store, (books or music for example) and it doesn't work out at first, what happens to your life? You can't just leave people out there in total poverty, they need access to reconciliation options if they screwed up their taxes or need to pay a hospital bill. You bought into the American dream - if America let people down so hard the whole promise of freedom and prosperity would look like a bold face lie.

People think currency is something that they can just own, but its made out of blood, tears, and people's hard work. I'm convinced this is the reason people have weird ideas about what money is supposed to be and who it belongs to. But work and sacrifice is what gives it its value and it's one of the reasons people wouild fight to protect the state.

Sorry for butting in. I think we're supposed to be talking about bombs, but whatever.

Originally Posted by citizen

I mean if you take a chance and become an artist, or open some type of store, (books or music for example) and it doesn't work out at first, what happens to your life?

But if the government bails out everyone who fails, that would be pretty costly, no? And doesn't that mean that the government is fostering unfair competition?

Hot dog vendor A and hot dog vendor B open up shops across the street. A beats B in the free market, but B then gets help from the government to stay open.

Isn't that unfair to A? Why should the govt. pick a winner?

And there are options for people who fail - family, friends, church, private charity, etc.

You bought into the American dream - if America let people down so hard the whole promise of freedom and prosperity would look like a bold face lie.

No one is promised prosperity, just the right and freedom to attain it. Personally, I'm too chicken to start a business right now, because I don't want to risk my life savings at my age. If the govt. backed me, I could half arse it and see if it works. If not, no biggie - the rest of you paid for it.

Well my argument wasn't so much about picking favorites, but I tried to point out with example that government could spur business, or at least ease bankruptcy, by opening financial options to the public. Foreclosure should be a fair and hasty process. After foreclosure, a public safety net like welfare is helpful if you really can't find work for a stretch. (Incidentally, a person so unskilled or uneducated really had no point in starting a business, but people make stupid decisions, banks can make bad loans, and no political philosophy really solves that one.) Banking law might also be helpful if we needed serious reform for mortgages or business loans - the life cycle of a dollar is important.

America leaves this to the private sector of the economy still for the most part, though. There are credit unions and ways to consolidate your debt through a bank or agency. What the government should do additionally, at minimum, is review the tax code, close loopholes, and make it easier for people to pay. The easiesat to pay: owing $0, but that's not always good for the ledger.

The point about medical bills was just another area I thought the government could be helpful for most citizens. How insurance and health care works in the U.S. is also through the private sector, but:

* being covered (in full or in part) by your employer was part of making it accessable to citizens;
* as well as providing public options for the very poor and elderly, and
* some states have their own plans for families with children.
The Michigan governor, for example, extended a program called SCHIP to more families here and my family used it until I was too old.

I'm not particularly concerned about who takes care of that either, but I think if private insurance is going to mean anything, more businesses need to participate like they used to. I haven't taken a real crack at the problem, but reforming some of the laws might also be helpful. Read the wikipedia page on EMTALA for example:

Improved health services for uninsured
The most significant effect is that, regardless of insurance status, everyone in need of urgent medical assistance is now legally guaranteed to receive it. Currently EMTALA only requires that hospitals stabilize the emergency. According to some analyses of the U.S. health care safety net, EMTALA is an incomplete and strained program.[8][9]


Cost pressures on hospitals
According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated.[10] When medical bills go unpaid, health care providers must either shift the costs onto those who can pay — mainly those with health insurance or government programs — or go uncompensated. In the first decade of EMTALA, such cost-shifting amounted to a hidden tax levied by providers.[11] For example, it has been estimated that this cost shifting amounted to $455 per individual or $1,186 per family in California each year.[11]

It seems like the law hasn't paved a road for certain people to pay off their hospital care, and business doesn't seem to be providing real financing help.

But the point was that, yes, the government can help people build a successful life, it's just a matter of how it happens and what role public services play, and if they don't exist, then what replaces them.

I'm rambling...