Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem

1235729

Comments

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Jesus said some pretty awesome stuff, allegedly.



    Well, if it is only allegedly, don't you think you ought to confirm it before appealing to it?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    I don't think John Galt did the Christian thing at all. A free energy machine? Solve all the world's energy problems? That's just too much to hoard. The Jesus thing to do would be to share it with the world and bring about a new age of peace.



    Perhaps. Perhaps it would have brought about a new era of peace or perhaps people would have found other things to fight about, other reasons to steal and coerce.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Galt's worldview and actions are abhorrent. It's disgusting.



    Possibly, yes. But do you find anything at all abhorrent or disgusting about using theft and coercion to achieve one's goals?
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    First, I disagree wholeheartedly that there was any theft or coercion going on. However...even if we assume what you say is correct...



    GENOCIDE >> THEFT & COERCION



    This isn't a case of two wrongs making a right, in your view. This is a second, monumental, INSANELY disproportionate wrong somehow making a right.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    First, I disagree wholeheartedly that there was any theft or coercion going on.



    Really?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    However...even if we assume what you say is correct...



    GENOCIDE >> THEFT & COERCION



    Agreed. However, in my view, you have watered down the definition of "genocide" to fit your argument.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    This isn't a case of two wrongs making a right, in your view. This is a second, monumental, INSANELY disproportionate wrong somehow making a right.



    Agreed. But I don't agree with your claim that what that character did was the same thing as genocide. You have watered down the definition of "genocide" (or dramatized the magnitude of his actions) to fit your argument.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    The death of 90% of society? Better? MASS MURDER ON A SCALE THIS WORLD HAS NEVER BEFORE WITNESSED? BETTER?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    The death of 90% of society? Better? MASS MURDER ON A SCALE THIS WORLD HAS NEVER BEFORE WITNESSED? BETTER?



    See my comments above about your overly dramatic characterization of these events.
  • john galtjohn galt Posts: 957member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Ah, the ignorant, evasive answer. I'll ask again. In Atlas Shrugged, what do you think brought about the collapse of society?



    You brought this ridicule on yourself BR. You made an outrageous accusation, and invited a flippant answer. The best any troll like you can expect from such a fantastic display of ignorance is to be ignored.



    I suggest you look up the word I thoughtfully linked above. You will find your picture next to the definition. I also suggest you research "genocide" while you're at it.



    Quote:

    ... in my view, you have watered down the definition of "genocide" to fit your argument.



    No. Not "watered down". It's a repugnant misappropriation of an irrefutably specific act. By equating this character's iron-willed refusal to accede to the demands of a corrupt society - having withstood theft, coercion, and finally torture - to genocide is an affront to the millions upon millions of real human beings brutally slaughtered by socialist dictators throughout the history of mankind.



    Ghandi, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King... "genocidal maniacs" all, according to your reasoning. If one can call it that.



    It's not funny. It's sick.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Hacker infiltration ends D.C. online voting trial



    Quote:

    Last week, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics opened a new Internet-based voting system for a weeklong test period, inviting computer experts from all corners to prod its vulnerabilities in the spirit of "give it your best shot." Well, the hackers gave it their best shot -- and midday Friday, the trial period was suspended, with the board citing "usability issues brought to our attention."



    Here's one of those issues: After casting a vote, according to test observers, the Web site played "Hail to the Victors" -- the University of Michigan fight song.



    I can't wait to see how they manage our healthcare.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Panel: Gov't thwarted worst-case scenario on spill



    Quote:

    WASHINGTON – The White House blocked efforts by federal scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could have been.



    That finding comes from a panel appointed by President Barack Obama to investigate the worst offshore oil spill in history.



    In documents released Wednesday, the national oil spill commission reveals that in late April or early May the White House budget office denied a request from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make public the worst-case discharge from the blown-out well.



    BP estimated the worse scenario to be a leak of 2.5 million gallons per day. The government, meanwhile, was telling the public the well was releasing 210,000 gallons per day - a figure that later grew closer to BP's figure.



    There is nothing more threatening to big government than an informed public.



    Spill Panel Faults Obama Response Effort



    Quote:

    "Despite the acknowledged inaccuracies of the [government] scientist's estimate and despite the existence of other and potentially better methodologies for visually assessing flow rate…5,000 bbls/day was to remain the government's official flow-rate estimate for a full month until May 27, 2010," the staff paper says.



    The paper adds that it is "possible that inaccurate flow-rate figures may have hindered the subsea efforts to stop and to contain the flow of oil at the wellhead."



    A White House spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.



  • john galtjohn galt Posts: 957member
    Quote:



    Perhaps the Philippine government ought to send representatives to the US to ensure our elections are conducted legally.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    89,000 stimulus checks of $250 (that's $22,250,000 for those of you counting at home) were sent to dead or incarcerated people. Less than half of it was returned.



    I guess the Dems were just trying to reward their voting base.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    By way of anecdote, I just had a conversation with a coworker who I had chatted with a few months back about health insurance.



    Back then I had told her about my experience at my previous employer - where it was considerably cheaper to put me and my wife on the employer's health plan and take out a separate, individual policy for my 3 year old son.



    She said she would relay that information along to her daughter, who was looking at getting insurance for her child.



    Fast forward to today. My coworker informed me that her daughter is not able to get an individual policy for her child. Insurance providers no longer offer them. Rather than comply with regulations set forth in Obamacare, Insurers have chosen to discontinue the product altogether.



    Now my coworker's daughter has to put her child on the employer's plan, which is much more expensive.



    That's one less option for the American people when it comes to their healthcare. One more increase in out of pocket costs for working Americans. And it will be used by the statists as one more reason to give the government more control over the system in order to "fix the problem". A problem created by government in the first place.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    So you blame the government. I would blame the GREEDY ASS INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    So you blame the government. I would blame the GREEDY ASS INSURANCE COMPANIES.



    Of course you would.



    My coworker, however, understands that had Obamacare not passed, her daughter would still be able to get an inexpensive individual policy for her child.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    That's the myopic view. Her real rage should be directed toward the insurance companies who once again are revealed to NOT GIVE TWO FLYING FUCKS about anything other than their bottom lines. Are you telling me that the insurance companies had NO CHOICE but to dodge the new law by shutting down certain plans? That the insurance companies were CORRECT in being the ass bastards they are?



    You make the link as follows...



    Healthcare reform passes--->Insurance companies do shitty things---->HEALTHCARE REFORM'S FAULT DERP DERP!



    Put the blame on the SHITTY ACTS.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    The insurance companies cared about providing a needed service before the government intervened.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    Your misplaced blame here is very telling. You hate the government so much that you'll excuse the AWFUL acts of these insurance companies because, in doing so, it fits your narrative of the world.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Your misplaced blame here is very telling. You hate the free market so much that you'll excuse the AWFUL acts of government because, in doing so, it fits your narrative of the world.



    We seem to be at an impasse.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Board of Elections gaffe may nullify New York soldiers' overseas absentee ballots



    Quote:

    Sen. Charles Schumer blasted Board of Elections officials Monday for blowing a deadline for sending ballots to troops overseas - putting their chance to vote at risk.



    "Our troops sacrifice their lives to protect our freedoms. They should never, ever be denied the right to vote," Schumer said.



    There are approximately 50,000 New York City residents serving overseas - and 320,000 statewide.



    Elections officials were originally supposed to ship the ballots to troops by Sept. 17. Because New York primaries were held Sept. 14, the federal government granted local officials an extension until Oct. 1.



    But the state Board of Elections last week informed the Department of Defense that officials in New York City, Westchester, Putnam, Erie and Niagara Counties had failed to send the ballots by the Oct. 1 deadline.



    The federal MOVE Act, a bill Schumer sponsored that passed in 2009, requires states to mail ballots to troops 45 days before the general election, scheduled this year for Nov. 2.



    Absentee votes are counted until 13 days after election day.



    Schumer said that sending ballots via regular mail can take up to 13 days, so he urged election officials to send them using overnight delivery to ensure that military votes are counted.



    "Put these ballots on the next plane to Afghanistan," Schumer said. "There is absolutely no excuse for failing to get this done."



    The state board of elections did not immediately return a call. A spokeswoman for the city Board of Elections had no immediate comment.



  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Gallup: 46 Percent Say U.S. Government 'Poses Immediate Threat to the Rights and Freedoms' of U.S. Citizens



    Quote:

    The percentage of Americans who think the federal government poses ?an immediate threat? to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens has increased significantly over the last seven years, rising from 30 percent to 46 percent, according to a Gallup poll conducted Sept. 13-16 and released today.



    Only 51 percent of Americans now say they do not think the federal government poses ?an immediate threat? to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.



    Similarly, the percentage of Americans who think the federal government has too much power has also significantly increased, from 39 percent in 2002 to 59 percent today.



    In its Sept. 13-16 polling, Gallup asked the 46 percent of respondents who said that they think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of Americans in ?what ways? they think the government is posing this threat. The top four answers were that the government has too many laws and is too big in general, that it is too involved in people?s private lives, that it is threatening freedom of speech, and that the health-care law signed by President Barack Obama is a threat.



    Since 2003, Gallup has periodically asked adult Americans this question: ?Do you think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens, or not??



    When Gallup first asked the question in September 2003, 30 percent said, yes, they did think the federal government posed an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens and 68 percent said, no, it did not. In September 2004, 35 percent said, yes, and 63 percent said, no. In September 2005, 37 percent said, yes, and 62 percent said, no. And in September 2006, 44 percent said, yes, and 54 percent said, no.



    This September, 46 percent said, yes, they think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Only 51 percent said, no.



    Gallup asked the 46 percent who said yes, this follow-up question: ?In what ways do you see the government posing an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of its citizens?? The answers broke down as follows:



    Answer | Percentage

    Too many laws/Gov?t too big in general | 18%

    Too much involvement in people's private lives | 17%

    Taking away freedom of speech/violating First Amendment | 15%

    Healthcare law | 11%

    Socialist government | 8%

    Overtaxing/Taxes too high | 7%

    Taking away freedom of religion | 6%

    Gun control/violating Second Amendment | 6%

    Failing to secure borders/Illegal immigration | 3%

    Over-regulation/Too much involvement in business | 3%

    Too much spending | 2%

    Marriage issue | 2%

    Other | 3%

    None/Nothing | 2%

    No opinion | 9%



    Republicans and Independents were more likely than Democrats to say they think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Sixty-six percent of Republicans said this was the case, 49 percent of Independents, and 21 percent of Democrats.



    Since 2002, Gallup has also periodically asked this question: ?Do you think the federal government today has too much power, has about the right amount of power, or has too little power?? When Gallup most recently asked this question in its poll conducted Sept. 13-16, 59 percent said the federal government has too much power, 33 percent said it has the right amount of power, and 8 percent said it has too little power.



    In a poll conducted, Sept. 5-8, 2002, only 39 percent said they thought the federal government had too much power, while 52 percent said it had the right amount of power, and 7percent said it had too little power.



    Gallup has asked this question about the federal government's power ten times over the last eight years. The last time fewer than 50 percent of Americans said they thought the federal government had too much power was in a poll conducted Sept. 13-15, 2004. At that time 42 percent said the federal government had too much power, 49 percent said it had the right amount of power, and 7 percent said it had too little power.



  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Say goodbye to traditional free checking



    Quote:

    NEW YORK – Free checking as we know it is ending.



    The days when you could walk into a bank branch and open an account with no charges and no strings attached appear to be over. Now you have to jump through some hoops — keep a high balance, use direct deposit or swipe your debit card several times a month.



    One new account at Bank of America charges $8.95 per month if you want to bank with a teller or get a paper statement.



    Almost all of the largest U.S. banks are either already making free checking much more difficult to get or expected to do so soon, with fees on even basic banking services.



    It's happening because a raft of new laws enacted in the past year, including the financial overhaul package, have led to an acute shrinking of revenue for the banks. So they are scraping together money however they can.



    Bank of America, which does business with half the households in America, announced a dramatic shift Tuesday in how it does business with customers. One key change: Free checking, a mainstay of American banking in recent years, will be nearly unheard of.



    "I've seen more regulation in last 30 months than in last 30 years," said Robert Hammer, CEO of RK Hammer, a bank advisory firm. "The bottom line for banks is shifting enormously, swiftly and deeply, and they're not going to sit by twiddling their thumbs. They're going to change."



    In the last year, lawmakers in Washington have passed a range of new laws aimed at protecting bank customers from harsh fees, like the $35 charged to some Bank of America customers who overdrafted their account by buying something small like a Starbucks latte.



    These and other fees were extremely lucrative. According to financial services firm Sandler O'Neill, they made up 12 percent of Bank of America's revenue. On Tuesday, the bank took a $10.4 billion charge to its third-quarter earnings because the new regulations limit fees the bank can collect when retailers accept debit cards.



    Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan acknowledged in a conference call that overdraft fees were generating a lot of income. But the bank was also losing customers who were often taken aback by the high hidden fees.



    Checking accounts were being closed at an annual rate of 18 percent, he said, and complaints were at an all-time high.



    So Moynihan ended overdraft charges on small debit card transactions. He says the rate of account closings have since dropped 27 percent.



    To make up for lost fees, he also started thinking of new products. In August, the bank introduced a new "eBanking" account, where customers were offered a free checking account if they banked online. The catch: If they opt for paper statements, or want access to tellers for basic transactions, they would be charged a monthly fee of $8.95.



    "Customers never had free checking accounts," Bank of America spokeswoman Anne Pace said. "They always paid for it in other ways, sometimes with penalty fees."



    This summer, Bank of America also started offering "emergency cash" for a $35 fee to customers who went to the ATM for withdrawals that would exceed their bank balance. Moynihan said 50 percent of these customers opted to go ahead with the fee.



    "We are now in an era where consumers will be buying products from banks, even if it's a checking account," said Brian Riley, senior research director for bank card practice at consultant TowerGroup. He noted that several banks have started charging $7.50 for paper statements.



    "Paper and print costs around $2.25, add postage to that, and if banks are losing income from other avenues, someone has to pay for it," said Riley.



    Economic research firm Moebs Services says free checking usage has been steadily rising in recent years before falling this year. Last year 81.5 percent of U.S. banking customers had free checking, but that fell to 72.5 percent this year.



    Large banks are also under additional pressure because of curbs from new laws on high-risk trades with complex derivatives. Their trading desks have been large revenue and profit generators for banks in recent years.



    Michael Moebs, the founder of Moebs Services, said it is now up to the smaller Main Street banks to see an opening and grab customers from the big banks.



    "Free checking could become a mainstay of community banks and credit unions in the future," Moebs said.



    Thank you, government, for meddling more in the free market.



    Thank you, government, for causing private companies in the financial and health industries to either raise prices on their products and services, or discontinue certain products or services altogether.



    Thank you, government, for completely disregarding the Constitution.
Sign In or Register to comment.