Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? RON PAUL SAYS YES!

[quote name='camoor']I thought it was a fascinating quote. Income inequality is the most it's ever been. I think that's a clear sign that things are worse then normal in this regard.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree that things are in the shitter; I just think that the "BLAME THE FED!" movement is completely misguided because it's as if monied interests only started fucking up the country with the Fed and separate from government to begin with. That simply isn't the case...ever.
 
Workers were healthy, well paid, and happy up until 1913.

Duh. Don't you know anything about history? The invisible hand of the free market worked then!

You call it black lung, but I call it dedication!
 
[quote name='dohdough']Easy, problems that were occuring because of financial crises were nothing new and the largest one so far happened right before the Fed was even established. [/QUOTE]

Wha? Sure, the stuff that went down in 1907 was pretty bad, but how in the heck would you say that was the largest financial crisis?

I'd say the "largest financial crisis" would have been about 16 years after the creation of the Fed... and many things done by the Fed at the time directly fueled the fire that lead into the Great Depression.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Really? Where?
Someone must have hacked my account. Better change my password.


It's been a while since I read the book and saw the documentary but it wasn't a contiguous 20 years and it was mostly in the early 1800's.



Exactly my point. And it's a point that the "See this is why the free market and capitalism sucks" crowd usually misses. We've never had a "pure" libertarian form of free market economics so it's all just words and debate without any proof.[/QUOTE]No country has ever practice true socialism or communism either, but then that doesn't stop anyone from screaming NAZI!!!! whenever they hear socialism or COMMIE!!! when they hear communism.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Wha? Sure, the stuff that went down in 1907 was pretty bad, but how in the heck would you say that was the largest financial crisis?

I'd say the "largest financial crisis" would have been about 16 years after the creation of the Fed... and many things done by the Fed at the time directly fueled the fire that lead into the Great Depression.[/QUOTE]
Whoops, you're right. That was a slip. Just like how I typed Perry instead of Scott last night.

Anyways, the boom and bust is nothing new and only mitigated during the regulations in place because of the New Deal. While the New Deal wasn't the only reason, having the Fed in existence at the time is just as irrelevant as being in existence before and during the Depression as the mechanisms that created the Depression existed long before it and will exist even if we eliminated the Fed tomorrow.
 
I wholly agree that - to much of an extent - the "ups" and "downs" of the market is reflective of the market, having the centralized bank - in the fashion that we do - simply magnifies and expands them.

For example - right now, interest rates are low. Super low. Good, right?
But as wishy-washy as the market is right now, isn't lending money a high-risk endeavor at this point? Thus, shouldn't interest rates be higher? (i.e.: the higher the risk, the higher the reward)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I wholly agree that - to much of an extent - the "ups" and "downs" of the market is reflective of the market, having the centralized bank - in the fashion that we do - simply magnifies and expands them.[/QUOTE]
You're still assuming that the market can't be manipulated or are you saying that what we're seeing is a manipulated market? Even if the Fed magnifies the problem, that would mean that it's just another tool of monied interests that have existed in the first place. So are we agreeing that the monied interests are the problem or are you still focusing on the Fed as the problem instead of a symptom of the problem?

For example - right now, interest rates are low. Super low. Good, right?
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Good if you're the government that needs to fund social and infrastructure projects; bad because you're subsidizing banks on an institutional and structural scale.

But as wishy-washy as the market is right now, isn't lending money a high-risk endeavor at this point? Thus, shouldn't interest rates be higher? (i.e.: the higher the risk, the higher the reward)
Click to expand...
No. This is simplistic jargon. Lending money is still very profitable because banks are receiving heavy subsidation. The only real risk here is to the borrowers because debts don't receive the same kind of subsidatoin as the lenders. But this is only one facet of the financial system. I'm not going to write a treatise on a debt/demand-based economy, but the point will just lead to those at the bottom not having enough money to support those at the top.

What this means is that it has nothing to do with greater risk = greater reward, but low/no risk = great rewards for those at the top and great risk = little/no reward for those as the bottom as a percentile.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Really? Where?
Someone must have hacked my account. Better change my password.[/quote]

I would accuse you of playing dumb, but you know...

We've never had a "pure" libertarian form of free market economics so it's all just words and debate without any proof.
Click to expand...

What about the 1890's or the dark age or the stone age?
 
I consider myself very much a Libertarian. This being said, if you're a free market Capitalist and fuck with some things, don't be surprised if you get murdered and probably deserve it, see: fucking with people's access to water by gouging them severely. Here it would be clean water.
Adam Smith didn't understand why you couldn't apply his philosophy to water even. /roll eyes.

As for the Fed I think the idea is absurd. Government is granted the right to print it's own money in our documents so why do we even bother borrowing money from a private corporation? It's absurd and makes it impossible to ever be free of debt since you must always pay interest on that money, the money with which you pay back that interest is the money you borrowed at the beginning. See where I'm going?

Past that even, let us look at our money system. Ugh, I'm not saying backing everything in precious metals is the way to go but the "Full Faith Of the American People"?! Is that a joke?! Maybe it works so well because so many people here have faith, like it's some material value that you can exchange as long as you place it on anything, even something as worthless as paper. "Oh that piece of paper is worth two loaves of bread?! How so, because I believe it is, it's the almighty dollar. Oh I see! fuck you, I'm still going to need something else as your belief won't feed me.".

edit: Just an interesting consideration. When Paul mentions the Federal Reserve being counterfeiter's am I the only one who finds it interesting that the Secret Service investigates counterfeiting as well as defends the life of the President Of the United States? How do we know they won't let him die if he threatens the Fed by his actions. Hint, hint. JFK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I make it a point not to "debate" the merits of the gold standard, but are you really telling us trading bread for shiny rocks makes that much more sense?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yes and no. Good if you're the government that needs to fund social and infrastructure projects;[/quote]

Disagree - I mean, I suppose it's "good" for the government - but as the government is the only entity that can legally threaten individuals with the removal of their liberty in exchange for money, the government *should* automatically have a very high credit rating and thus access to low interest loans. Additionally, except in cases of emergency, the government shouldn't need to be taking loans out in the first place.

Lending money is still very profitable because banks are receiving heavy subsidation.
Click to expand...
And who is that subsidization coming from?

One of the biggest issues right now is that no one is lending money. Why do you suppose those with money aren't lending it out (if it's such a money maker) and how do you propose to fix it in such a way that doesn't require the forceful hand of the government?
 
[quote name='Msut77']I make it a point not to "debate" the merits of the gold standard, but are you really telling us trading bread for shiny rocks makes that much more sense?[/QUOTE]

No I'm not I just think it sounds incredibly stupid if you actually listen to it and then realize what our money is worth by extension.
I think "precious metals" should be PART of the backing of our currency. Some of it could be land(when money is in the really high amounts), other stuff could just be some of our goods, what actually is still made here.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Disagree - I mean, I suppose it's "good" for the government - but as the government is the only entity that can legally threaten individuals with the removal of their liberty in exchange for money, the government *should* automatically have a very high credit rating and thus access to low interest loans. Additionally, except in cases of emergency, the government shouldn't need to be taking loans out in the first place.[/QUOTE]
What da fuck are you talking about? You're not talking about debtors prisons, you're somehow comparing consumer credit to federal bonds, and I KNOW you're not talking about having a more progressive tax code.

And who is that subsidization coming from?

One of the biggest issues right now is that no one is lending money. Why do you suppose those with money aren't lending it out (if it's such a money maker) and how do you propose to fix it in such a way that doesn't require the forceful hand of the government?
Click to expand...
I'm not doing this stupid dance with you again. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and completely ignored all of my points, so why don't you just get to your point and save both of us(actually just me because I post more than twice the content you do) some time and energy.
 
[quote name='camoor']Has anyone read the Bioshock book.

As a huge Bioshock fan I'll probably pick it up - it's getting good reviews...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0765324857/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER[/QUOTE]

I'm reading it verrry slowly, like when I get a chance. Which means, if the power goes out here due to Irene, I'll probably finish it tonight by candlelight.

The closest I've come to reading sci-fi/fantasy is that I really dig Terry Pratchett. But this is (for means of reference) the first book I've purchased that was published by TOR.

I like it so far. The atmosphere of the Bioshock series is one of the finest things about the games, so to see that replicated here in a way that fleshes out the overall concept is nice. I'm not so much of a stickler for details in the game that I've come across anything inconsistent (no moments of outrage, shaking my fist at the page, and saying "Andrew Ryan would never do that!"). Some questions remain, and maybe they'll be answered.

I'd recommend it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm reading it verrry slowly, like when I get a chance. Which means, if the power goes out here due to Irene, I'll probably finish it tonight by candlelight.

The closest I've come to reading sci-fi/fantasy is that I really dig Terry Pratchett. But this is (for means of reference) the first book I've purchased that was published by TOR.

I like it so far. The atmosphere of the Bioshock series is one of the finest things about the games, so to see that replicated here in a way that fleshes out the overall concept is nice. I'm not so much of a stickler for details in the game that I've come across anything inconsistent (no moments of outrage, shaking my fist at the page, and saying "Andrew Ryan would never do that!"). Some questions remain, and maybe they'll be answered.

I'd recommend it.[/QUOTE]

Thanks Myke that means alot coming from you. I just ordered it.

Kind of a shame that the next Bioshock game won't take place in the same universe as Rapture. As excited as I am for that title it would be nice to have some continuity.
 
[quote name='Msut77']http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/26/ron_paul_hurricanes/index.html[/QUOTE]

[quote name='camoor']This should be posted everywhere.

I just thought Ron Paul was a faux libertarian - I didn't realize how much of an idiot he was. fuck we have some moron politicians running for office these days.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='depascal22']He's crazier than I thought.

So what do libertarians want the government to do? Are they anarchists in sheep's clothing?[/QUOTE]
And people wonder I have a problem with this guy? HA!

Paul's rationale is that it it should all be tied into personal responsibility, so that if you live in an area with a lot of national disasters, you should be able to cover it on your own since insurance is socialist.:lol::roll:

By killing FEMA, libertopia would obviously create stronger state programs to combat these issues. And if your state is too poor, then :booty:.

Any LOLbertarians want to do damage control for crazy ole racist uncle Paul?
 
It has nothing to do with insurance being socialist or not (it isn't) it's that the prgram as it is now isn't well suited for its original purpose. FEMA worked under Clinton, not so much shortly after since it was gutted and replaced with "good friends."
I think if you'll use your reading comprehension you'll find that his beef is with mandatory federal insurance due to private insurance not wanting to take the risk. What does that mean? It means that your flood policy (if mandated and not available through State Farm or whatever due to the risk) because you live in a 100 year flood plain on a creek that is 30 yards away and down a hill, also mitigates NC hurricanes and Red River flooding in ND at the same time.
Ocean front real estate ain't cheap, why not soak the rich with huge insurance policies? I'd think you'd be all for that.

But, getting rid of FEMA as an organizational structure that can make the calls to get the right people together is stupid. Funding it as the organization that takes care of everything is also stupid.

Unless you're implying that people of color are irresponsible, can you knock off the "he's racist mommy!" nonsense? It isn't cute and it no longer serves a purpose.
 
[quote name='nasum']It has nothing to do with insurance being socialist or not (it isn't) it's that the prgram as it is now isn't well suited for its original purpose. FEMA worked under Clinton, not so much shortly after since it was gutted and replaced with "good friends."[/QUOTE]
So we should dismantle the agency instead of staffing it with people that will manage emergency response better?

I think if you'll use your reading comprehension you'll find that his beef is with mandatory federal insurance due to private insurance not wanting to take the risk.
Click to expand...
Insurance companies have been trying to wiggle out of paying for things for years unless they were mandated by law/regulations to cover them. If it were up to them, they'd refuse coverage just because your signature didn't match 100% with the one on your id and cancel the policy after you've paid for it.

What does that mean? It means that your flood policy (if mandated and not available through State Farm or whatever due to the risk) because you live in a 100 year flood plain on a creek that is 30 yards away and down a hill, also mitigates NC hurricanes and Red River flooding in ND at the same time.
Click to expand...
You need to clean ths part up. What the hell does having a flood policy have to do with mitigating natural disasters?

Ocean front real estate ain't cheap, why not soak the rich with huge insurance policies? I'd think you'd be all for that.
Click to expand...
And if private insurance isn't mandated to provide it, then the government needs to step in and provide a safety net. Even I'm not that dogmatic as to have people be homeless and rely on the efficiency of an insurance company that happens to also employ people living in disaster areas to help them.

But, getting rid of FEMA as an organizational structure that can make the calls to get the right people together is stupid. Funding it as the organization that takes care of everything is also stupid.
Click to expand...
Why is it stupid? You mean in times when a president like Bush crippled it by appointing an incompetant crony?

Unless you're implying that people of color are irresponsible, can you knock off the "he's racist mommy!" nonsense?
Click to expand...
I don't know what that has anything to do with anything.

It isn't cute and it no longer serves a purpose.
Click to expand...
It might not serve a purpose to you because you support him despite his long-term cozy affiliations with known white supremacists.
 
[quote name='dohdough']So we should dismantle the agency instead of staffing it with people that will manage emergency response better?[/quote]
Dismantle and rebuild in its original design or restaff? Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe


Insurance companies have been trying to wiggle out of paying for things for years unless they were mandated by law/regulations to cover them. If it were up to them, they'd refuse coverage just because your signature didn't match 100% with the one on your id and cancel the policy after you've paid for it.
Click to expand...
Damn the man!


You need to clean ths part up. What the hell does having a flood policy have to do with mitigating natural disasters?
Click to expand...
It's how insurance works. Everyone pays in on a gamble that something will come up and they'll be covered to the tune of 3/5th's of the repair cost (even though a lifetime of paying into the insurance exceeds that cost if nothing ever happens). The insurer then has actuaries assign risk categories and profit categories (death panels). Flood insurance in a relatively safe area is profit. The insured pays in knowing that they'll never need the insirance because replacing carpet costs a couple grand while the insurance costs $300 per year. If you flood less than once every 7 years you're already ahead, not to mention that 3/5ths payout meaning you're actually ahead around 4 years. Flood insurance in a hurricane area on the other hand is a risk category, they charge through the nose figuring that it'll get used once every 5-10 years (which is pretty damn accurate as of the late 80's on the east coast and gulf) but this is catastrophic as opposed to inconvenient. We're talking cities that need to be rebuilt as opposed to three houses that need new carpet in the basement.
I could go on and on but hopefully you see the macro in this example. If you don't, well I'm not going to bother explaining it more because you just want to get your disagreement on.


And if private insurance isn't mandated to provide it, then the government needs to step in and provide a safety net. Even I'm not that dogmatic as to have people be homeless and rely on the efficiency of an insurance company that happens to also employ people living in disaster areas to help them.
Click to expand...
Lord knows we need the governemtn since they're the most effecient insurance company out there!


Why is it stupid? You mean in times when a president like Bush crippled it by appointing an incompetant crony?
Click to expand...
FEMA doesn't need to be THE organization that is feet on the ground doing everything. We have a national guard full of engineering students, we have charitable organizations, we have local unions full of electricians and carpenters and plumbers, etc... FEMA gets them rolling and puts things in motion as an oversight agency, not a "we're here from the govt and we're going to take care of this for you" agency. This also serves the purpose of getting locals involved (afforementioned workers) and keeps the money local. In an ideal version of this, the insurance company takes a hit and the local economy flourishes during the rebuilding phase. God forbid!


I don't know what that has anything to do with anything.

It might not serve a purpose to you because you support him despite his long-term cozy affiliations with known white supremacists.
Click to expand...
Your ongoing assertion that white people are white supremecists unless they choose to be destitute in an effort to help the poor of another race leads to the first comment. Ron Paul doesn't care who you are or where you're from, only what you do.
Hell, based on your guilt by association theory there President Obama is just as racist as Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63SRpGXBHE

I mean really, Batman is totally a criminal because he always hangs out with criminals right?
 
We all know that flood insurance is nationalized because an open-market policy won't work. It has everything to do with the inability of the free market to accommodate the fact that high-risk areas are consolidated. Flood insurance could not be both effective and profitable. State Farm would offer low-cost coverage to low-risk (or no-risk) areas, and decline to offer coverage to high-risk areas. Privatizing flood insurance is a disastrous idea that has failure written all over it, and for Ron Paul to suggest it shows that he's a one dimensional character who has no interest in ideas or debate; he refuses to play games with any set of cards but his own (and he brought an Uno deck to play Gin Rummy).

He also, in the Chris Wallace interview, claims that FEMA is failed and yet FEMA also encourages dependency on citizens. In the wake of Katrina, the gall of him to suggest that citizens view FEMA as effective and encouraging their dependency/unpreparedness is contradictory. He's trying to defeat it both ways - if it is successful or viewed as such, it encourages dependency; if it is a failed policy, then it needs to be done away with. He's trying to have it both ways, and those of you who support him are too romanticized by it to see beyond that.

Paul is, here, just like his blame of the Federal Government for Enron, exposing himself as an ideologue who has no basis in reality, and who can not bring himself to blame corporate interests for corporate criminal activity. He is out of touch.
 
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FEMA-puts-longterm-rebuilding-apf-1314272650.html?x=0

Great Success!
Hey sorry it sucks to be you, but it sucks to be them too so we'll deal with them though we haven't dealt with you.
Is this not case in point that they should be oversight and not feet on the ground? It's the very definition of an organization that needs a complete overhaul.

myke:
While I see your assertion that the cake is being had and eaten regarding FEMA in the interview, it's also pretty well and good true. FEMA is out of money so it has failed in that sense (well, his sense at least) but it has also encouraged the notion of dependence since no matter what we know that FEMA (or whatever agency depending on the issue) will swoop in to fix things when something goes wrong. Where was FEMA in 1900 when Galveston got hit? It wasn't. Where is Galveston today? Still there. We have the technology to warn people to get out, thus loss of life is significantly reduced, now it's more of a property issue which is an insurance issue.
 
[quote name='nasum']Dismantle and rebuild in its original design or restaff? Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe[/QUOTE]
An organization like this can be reshaped without dismantling it. There's a difference.

Damn the man!
Click to expand...
Which is still a problem with how the insurance industry is regulated.

It's how insurance works. Everyone pays in on a gamble that something will come up and they'll be covered to the tune of 3/5th's of the repair cost (even though a lifetime of paying into the insurance exceeds that cost if nothing ever happens). The insurer then has actuaries assign risk categories and profit categories (death panels). Flood insurance in a relatively safe area is profit. The insured pays in knowing that they'll never need the insirance because replacing carpet costs a couple grand while the insurance costs $300 per year. If you flood less than once every 7 years you're already ahead, not to mention that 3/5ths payout meaning you're actually ahead around 4 years. Flood insurance in a hurricane area on the other hand is a risk category, they charge through the nose figuring that it'll get used once every 5-10 years (which is pretty damn accurate as of the late 80's on the east coast and gulf) but this is catastrophic as opposed to inconvenient. We're talking cities that need to be rebuilt as opposed to three houses that need new carpet in the basement.
I could go on and on but hopefully you see the macro in this example. If you don't, well I'm not going to bother explaining it more because you just want to get your disagreement on.
Click to expand...
I know how insurance works.

Maybe you should just word your posts better because you can't mitigate natural disasters; only your liability. Which still doesn't address that there is actually a need for people to be in that area beyond leisure. Utility and waterfront shipping industries need to be there. You might as well argue that oil rigs shouldn't be in the middle of the ocean because there are too many disasters that can happen out there and they're just out there for the fuck of it.

Is being left homeless a better answer than having government step in with a safetynet?

Lord knows we need the governemtn since they're the most effecient insurance company out there!

FEMA doesn't need to be THE organization that is feet on the ground doing everything. We have a national guard full of engineering students, we have charitable organizations, we have local unions full of electricians and carpenters and plumbers, etc... FEMA gets them rolling and puts things in motion as an oversight agency, not a "we're here from the govt and we're going to take care of this for you" agency. This also serves the purpose of getting locals involved (afforementioned workers) and keeps the money local. In an ideal version of this, the insurance company takes a hit and the local economy flourishes during the rebuilding phase. God forbid!
Click to expand...
An insurance company can't mobilize those resources, just like how charities and church groups can't mobilize the the resourses to make any meaningful change. There is simply the lack of sufficient resourses to begin with and lack of authority.

Your ongoing assertion that white people are white supremecists unless they choose to be destitute in an effort to help the poor of another race leads to the first comment.
Click to expand...
Nope...never said that or implied that anyone should be destitute. If anything, I've said that no one should ever be destitute, but feel free to continue to pervert what I say.

Ron Paul doesn't care who you are or where you're from, only what you do.
Click to expand...
Not true. He doesn't care if you discriminate by race because private property and all that bullshit. Which completely divorces how accumulated capital distorts the market.

Hell, based on your guilt by association theory there President Obama is just as racist as Ron Paul.
Click to expand...
:roll:

I mean really, Batman is totally a criminal because he always hangs out with criminals right?
Click to expand...
Way to totally destroy my argument!:roll:

It's one thing to have them show up at a rally and it's another thing to openly court them and promote their views at speaking events and literature. I'm not talking about a goddamn photo op. We're talking about Stormfront and other racist white supremacist groups; not an impotent group like the "New" Black Panthers.
 
[quote name='nasum']http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FEMA-puts-longterm-rebuilding-apf-1314272650.html?x=0

Great Success!
Hey sorry it sucks to be you, but it sucks to be them too so we'll deal with them though we haven't dealt with you.
Is this not case in point that they should be oversight and not feet on the ground? It's the very definition of an organization that needs a complete overhaul.[/quote]
Or maybe this is a reason why all deficits aren't bad and that return to a gold standard is fucked.

myke:
While I see your assertion that the cake is being had and eaten regarding FEMA in the interview, it's also pretty well and good true. FEMA is out of money so it has failed in that sense (well, his sense at least) but it has also encouraged the notion of dependence since no matter what we know that FEMA (or whatever agency depending on the issue) will swoop in to fix things when something goes wrong. Where was FEMA in 1900 when Galveston got hit? It wasn't. Where is Galveston today? Still there. We have the technology to warn people to get out, thus loss of life is significantly reduced, now it's more of a property issue which is an insurance issue.
Click to expand...
Not everyone will be able to get out and the infrastructure just isn't there to get the word out or help those that can't. I have no idea how you can divorce insurance from its purpose unless you view it strictly as a profit mechanism that doesn't need to provide a service aka a scam. Which is still related to the regulation of insurance and the need to provide a safety net.
 
[quote name='nasum']Where was FEMA in 1900 when Galveston got hit? It wasn't. Where is Galveston today? Still there. We have the technology to warn people to get out, thus loss of life is significantly reduced, now it's more of a property issue which is an insurance issue.[/QUOTE]

Aside from the substantial differences in population, density, accrued wealth, etc - this ignores the very basic idea that the free market could not weather flood insurance. They would either (1) choose to not insure high-risk areas (i.e. the entire southeast US, coastal areas and cities near rivers) or (2) go out of business the moment a hurricane hit an area they did insure.

Flood insurance is not privatized because it can not be private and effective. That's antithetical to Ron Paul, which is why I'm pointing him out as being far too rigidly ideological here. He's not thinking through what he says in the interview, he simply starts with the assertion that market = good, gov't = bad, and fills in the blanks there - producing the nonsense idea that flood insurance should not be nationalized.
 
you clearly said that by default as a male you are sexist because you belong to the empowered group. by virtue of that white people are racist because they have a membership in the club. You're jumping between your big and small racisms to suit your needs.
Openly courting Stormfront. Yep. :eyeroll:

Insurance companies don't mobilize those resources, they pay for it through claims. When you get in a car wreck, Geico gives you a check for $500 to get your bumper fixed at the local autobody place. Geico doesn't have someone come out, buy the bumper and then install/paint it. Again, you're not stupid, stop playing like you are.

Mitigate: to lessen the force of, to diminish, to make less severe, etc...
Apply those definitions to out of pocket costs. Obviously insurance isn't going to make a category 4 hurricane a meager tropical storm, did you honestly think that's what I meant?. Must be those context clues in what I posted that fucked you up.

Nobody is advocating that people in the wake of a natural disaster should be homeless. So those FEMA trailers? Why not have them provided locally through inventory that is already there, submit a claim to insurance to have them paid for, FEMA provides oversight and gets things in motion for locals to handle as opposed to handling it all themselves. Again, keeps things local and actually HELPS as opposed to just coming in to do some shit here and there and then bailing when the next big thing happens. Also reduces the need for such a huge FEMA budget, if nothing else just in travel costs...
 
[quote name='nasum']you clearly said that by default as a male you are sexist because you belong to the empowered group. by virtue of that white people are racist because they have a membership in the club.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...what of it? At least I'm cognisant of it and try to mitigate damage(noticed how I was specific about what I meant), but I don't try deny it exists or diminish the implications of it. That's the difference between me and you...one of many.

You're jumping between your big and small racisms to suit your needs.
Click to expand...
Racism is racism. The only difference is how it operates on those levels, not its intent or meaning.

Openly courting Stormfront. Yep. :eyeroll:
Click to expand...
I never implied that Obama was courting the New Black Panthers either, does that mean that he was supported them or courted them? Of course not. But I'll give you partial credit because I was unclear.

When you give talks to the John Birch Society and have prominent members speak at your events, that's a pretty cozy relationship. More cozy than most people should be comfortable with.

Insurance companies don't mobilize those resources, they pay for it through claims. When you get in a car wreck, Geico gives you a check for $500 to get your bumper fixed at the local autobody place. Geico doesn't have someone come out, buy the bumper and then install/paint it. Again, you're not stupid, stop playing like you are.
Click to expand...
Getting a new bumber is different FROM HAVING YOUR fuckING NEIGHBORHOOD AND MODE OF TRANSPORTATION DESTROYED ALONG WITH ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE.

Mitigate: to lessen the force of, to diminish, to make less severe, etc...
Apply those definitions to out of pocket costs. Obviously insurance isn't going to make a category 4 hurricane a meager tropical storm, did you honestly think that's what I meant?. Must be those context clues in what I posted that fucked you up.
Click to expand...
It's not your grammar or context, it's your habit of being purposely obtuse that makes me question what you're saying.

Nobody is advocating that people in the wake of a natural disaster should be homeless. So those FEMA trailers? Why not have them provided locally through inventory that is already there, submit a claim to insurance to have them paid for, FEMA provides oversight and gets things in motion for locals to handle as opposed to handling it all themselves.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...using resources, like campers, that were mostlikely also damaged from said natural disaster that necessitated them in the first place. I can't put my finger on what's wrong with that picture...

Again, keeps things local and actually HELPS as opposed to just coming in to do some shit here and there and then bailing when the next big thing happens. Also reduces the need for such a huge FEMA budget, if nothing else just in travel costs...
Click to expand...
Or we could make sure that there were sufficient social safety nets in place to handle the needs of a community before they ship out.

Here's the thing homie: it's one thing for me and you to argue about whether the National Guard/Army would be better than FEMA if their mission statements and training revolved around disaster relief on a massive scale, but we're not. You're literally arguing that FEMA is bloated and almost redundant because the locals should be able to handle their own problems with what's left after insurance cuts them a check, which is akin to a fender bender. I've explained it to you quite a few times, but I can't understand it for you.
 
My apologies, I didn't realize I needed to spell things out for you in such a simple fashion, but then you go and mock me for suggesting that the destruction of a metrpolitan area is exactly like a $500 bumper when I attempt a simplified analogy. I will make better attempts at letting you have your cake and eat it too in the future oh master of internet posting. Sorry for giving you credit that you can make logical conclusions based on a string of statements. Shall I henceforth speak to you as I would a child? Nah, I may dislike you, but I still respect you and will treat you like an adult.

Here's a specific for you; the "local supply of FEMA trailers" needn't be the next block over, which is also likely damaged as you correctly state. How about the next county over? Probably some fallen branches over there since they got off just fine in the storm. Again, this keeps money local (good) instead of creating a system where campaign donors get a factory direct order (bad) with little to no discount.
Specific #2; local labor organized from afar is bad why? Again, doesn't need to mean Carl who just lost his house, could be Steve who is out of work a few miles away who has the same skills. Carl is currently fucked and without a house, Steve is just playing Nintendo because there are no jobs available and could really use the work. Steve goes and helps in the rebuild project on a contract basis as he would normally be paid. This is a worse option than some group of federally employed carpenters or whatever coming in to do the work and then leave, please explain why. Now Carl has a house built by some dude who isn't down with the coloquialisms, doesn't know anyone in town and doesn't give a shit. Steve on the other hand might make a new pal in Carl and they'll drink beer and watch football and eat nachos together like Homer and Gerald.
How is this horrible? You still get your FEMA, and I get my money staying local. The mechanism to get everything in motion is centralized as opposed to the actual work. Take a few steps back and now instead of FEMA saying that they ran out of money in Missouri because they have to go take care of NC now, FEMA doesn't leave because they never went there in the first place. All the locals doing the work are still there, the insurance side of FEMA is paying them for the work and the organizational portion of FEMA knows that Missouri people have this shit locked down so they can do the work without babysitters and now NC can get some more direct care and their locals organized.

But somehow everything I say is bad. Shit, even Noam Chomsky leaves a bit to the audience to figure out for themselves and that guy is like the shit's tits when it comes to unassailable argument.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Kids, mayhaps it would be nice to start with the original interview itself as a basis for any discussion instead of a left-leaning rag?

Watch that and THEN hate on it, that way you can have some shred of credibility.[/QUOTE]

I still think it's insane.

Noone thinks FEMA does a heck of a job (well maybe one guy does...) but that doesn't mean you dismantle it - no you make it better.

How many times have the CIA or the police boned the American people, but for better or worse we still need those agencies. Same with FEMA
 
[quote name='camoor']Extremely weak response to a critical problem with the way insurance is run today.[/QUOTE]

So to clarify, we need the federal govt which is completely void of any and all corruption and red tape BS to coordinate insurance right? These same people who have let the industry go to hell without regulation right?
Brilliant-02.jpg


Why is it that the good Dr. (and by extension me in this last round of posts) gets called an asshole for saying that FEMA has failed in giving care but succeeded in producing dependence, yet it's just hunky dory to say that a govt that has failed us should be in charge of ______?

So many great ideas for moving sideways!
 
It's just the way they think, don't improve government, just strip it of most of it's power so it can't do any damage. Don't improve the EPA, just destory it. etc.
 
[quote name='nasum']So to clarify, we need the federal govt which is completely void of any and all corruption and red tape BS to coordinate insurance right? These same people who have let the industry go to hell without regulation right?

Why is it that the good Dr. (and by extension me in this last round of posts) gets called an asshole for saying that FEMA has failed in giving care but succeeded in producing dependence, yet it's just hunky dory to say that a govt that has failed us should be in charge of ______?

So many great ideas for moving sideways![/QUOTE]

I guess the fascinating/depressing thing to me is that the people who have colluded with corporations the most, who have contributed the most into weakening regulations and the powers that regulators hold, are often the first ones to point out how ineffective regulatory agencies now are. Well no shit Dick Tracy.

It's like a CEO who cuts all R&D and then complains because his company no longer comes up with any new and fresh ideas.

Duh. It's not rocket science, use your head stupid.
 
Again, I'm not advocating for it being removed (well, being removed from DHS is a good idea), I'm just saying that it needs to be revamped.
fucking A Guys, I'm saying cut out the cancer, not kill the patient.

It's really funny how I'm painted as a righty here and screamed at for being too much of a lefty on another site.
 
[quote name='nasum']My apologies, I didn't realize I needed to spell things out for you in such a simple fashion, but then you go and mock me for suggesting that the destruction of a metrpolitan area is exactly like a $500 bumper when I attempt a simplified analogy. I will make better attempts at letting you have your cake and eat it too in the future oh master of internet posting. Sorry for giving you credit that you can make logical conclusions based on a string of statements. Shall I henceforth speak to you as I would a child? Nah, I may dislike you, but I still respect you and will treat you like an adult.[/QUOTE]
:roll: Fine, I'll stop busting your balls about your horrible writing ability...at least on that particular sentence. Either way, the car analogy is super shitty. When you have natural disasters that affects an area in radii of over 100 miles, you're going to have fucking problems in the next county as well.

But that still doesn't change the fact that the way you described Paul's stance on this particular issue is exactly as I've described it: If you live in an area with regular natrual disasters that can't be predicted in any meaningful way(aka Act of God), then fuck you if you can't get insurance.

Here's a specific for you; the "local supply of FEMA trailers" needn't be the next block over, which is also likely damaged as you correctly state. How about the next county over? Probably some fallen branches over there since they got off just fine in the storm. Again, this keeps money local (good) instead of creating a system where campaign donors get a factory direct order (bad) with little to no discount.
Specific #2; local labor organized from afar is bad why? Again, doesn't need to mean Carl who just lost his house, could be Steve who is out of work a few miles away who has the same skills. Carl is currently fucked and without a house, Steve is just playing Nintendo because there are no jobs available and could really use the work. Steve goes and helps in the rebuild project on a contract basis as he would normally be paid. This is a worse option than some group of federally employed carpenters or whatever coming in to do the work and then leave, please explain why. Now Carl has a house built by some dude who isn't down with the coloquialisms, doesn't know anyone in town and doesn't give a shit. Steve on the other hand might make a new pal in Carl and they'll drink beer and watch football and eat nachos together like Homer and Gerald.
How is this horrible? You still get your FEMA, and I get my money staying local. The mechanism to get everything in motion is centralized as opposed to the actual work. Take a few steps back and now instead of FEMA saying that they ran out of money in Missouri because they have to go take care of NC now, FEMA doesn't leave because they never went there in the first place. All the locals doing the work are still there, the insurance side of FEMA is paying them for the work and the organizational portion of FEMA knows that Missouri people have this shit locked down so they can do the work without babysitters and now NC can get some more direct care and their locals organized.
Click to expand...
Infrastructure and equipment matter, not just people. The ability of a devastated community along with immediate neighbors simply do not have the resources to stockpile of needed supplies for these types of events. You keep saying that the residents will, but even recent history has shown us that they fucking don't. Why is this so controversial for you beyond your ideology of government=bad?

But somehow everything I say is bad. Shit, even Noam Chomsky leaves a bit to the audience to figure out for themselves and that guy is like the shit's tits when it comes to unassailable argument.
Click to expand...
I'm not Noam Chomsky and he'd rip you an even bigger one that I do.

[quote name='nasum']Again, I'm not advocating for it being removed (well, being removed from DHS is a good idea), I'm just saying that it needs to be revamped.
fucking A Guys, I'm saying cut out the cancer, not kill the patient.[/QUOTE]
The ability for oversight AND gather/organize resources are pretty integral to this organization. Taking away either one kneecaps its purpose as to make it useless. Having a federal presence is necessary because you're going to have problems even on a state level.

It's really funny how I'm painted as a righty here and screamed at for being too much of a lefty on another site.
Click to expand...
If those conservatives are calling you leftist, I'm morbidly curious as to what passes for acceptable content there...and maybe it should be a concern for you as well.
 
Mainly because I support taxation for silly things like education and infrastructure as I see how those being improved makes the state sustainable. Not only can most of the neo-cons over there not see past their noses, some fall short of the tip.

I also think we should use govt money to invest in ourselves (improve public buildings, improve renewable energy, etc...) as opposed to letting the Fortune 500 continue to sit on cash and hire overseas call centers while we have 1/10 people on unemployment benefits and a more than likely 1/7 to 1/5 actually unemployed.

You seem to think I'm majorly conservative simply because I don't share the same hardon for the downtrodden that you do. Good for you man, you want to make sure that non-whites do a-ok. I want everyone to do well, because that means we all do well.

Hell, maybe I share all your views and I'm just being contrarian to entertain myself?
 
I still don't see how those of you proposing we privatize flood insurance provisions think it can be done without leaving out the entire high-risk areas from the pool of the insured.

Or, alternately, convince low-to-no-risk persons to sign up for insurance policies they have zero need for. Man-oh-man, if you think the ridiculous right is throwing a shitfit over mandatory health insurance as a violation of the commerce clause, wait until you try to mandate flood insurance to thrustbucket and his dry, deep, dry, dry (did I say dry?) Arizona compadres.

Privatizing flood insurance will (1) omit the high-risk pool that needs it, (2) force the purchase on households that do not need it (indeed violating the commerce clause) in order to spread risk sufficient for companies to remain profitable, or (3) drive the companies who offer flood insurance right the fuck out of business the moment we experience Katrina (or (3a), turn an entire region of citizens into a militia who will rise up against the insurance companies who would deny coverage).

I like ya, nasum, but I don't see how anyone can think that flood insurance can be successfully privatized. There's a reason we have NFIP, and it ain't because us liberals love to fuck the free market in the ass.
 
Hehe, I don't live in Arizona, but that's a cute analogy.

Other than that, I have not much to say. Just marking my territory. I don't really disagree (or feel informed enough to) with myke on this one.
 
[quote name='nasum']Mainly because I support taxation for silly things like education and infrastructure as I see how those being improved makes the state sustainable. Not only can most of the neo-cons over there not see past their noses, some fall short of the tip.

I also think we should use govt money to invest in ourselves (improve public buildings, improve renewable energy, etc...) as opposed to letting the Fortune 500 continue to sit on cash and hire overseas call centers while we have 1/10 people on unemployment benefits and a more than likely 1/7 to 1/5 actually unemployed.[/QUOTE]
Which begs the question: why are you there then?

You seem to think I'm majorly conservative simply because I don't share the same hardon for the downtrodden that you do. Good for you man, you want to make sure that non-whites do a-ok. I want everyone to do well, because that means we all do well.
Click to expand...
We both want the same thing: for everyone to do well. The problem is that your way doesn't help anyone that isn't doing better on racial terms. Colorblindness ignores historical baggage that puts black, Asian, Latino, Native American, etc at a lower place in social/racial heirarchy and only serves to entrench the status quo.

Having the right answer is meaningless with flawed methodology.

Hell, maybe I share all your views and I'm just being contrarian to entertain myself?
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that we share the all the same views because trolling isn't exactly in the job description. Although, I'm sure we provide each other much entertainment as I doubt you are being contrarian just for the sake of it. We overlap on many issues, but we all know where you align yourself on the left/right scale.
 
myke:
please review my mandatory flood insurance that is totally unwarranted.

you're absolutey right that enforcing private flood insurance would do all of that, if not get rid of it all together as it's too much risk in certain areas. Instead, we're federally mandating flood insurance for the super high risk areas of almost obligatory flooding (Red River Valley comes to mind in my neck of the woods) and the typical hurricane path and subsidizing it with specious claims of living near a creek that flooded in 1843 and hasn't since thus requiring flood insurance.
What I'm getting at here, is that this corruption mud that is being slung at corporations can go right to the government too. Yet somehow it's ok because the govt loves us and wants us to be ok at all times. Meanwhile this same govt is the one that setup institutional -ism and inflicts it with malice upon the people.

Which is it? Evil govt or friendly govt? Or maybe there's just so much of both that it gets washed out in the end. No flood pun intended.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the crazy guy that thinks the federal govt should be
 
[quote name='nasum']Again, I'm not advocating for it being removed (well, being removed from DHS is a good idea), I'm just saying that it needs to be revamped.
fucking A Guys, I'm saying cut out the cancer, not kill the patient.

It's really funny how I'm painted as a righty here and screamed at for being too much of a lefty on another site.[/QUOTE]
Well people do tend to act differently when communicatiing with different people.
 
[quote name='nasum']"but we all know where you align yourself on the left/right scale"
right in the god damn middle mon frere. It's probably archived by now but I did a thread long ago where I had 15 or 20 ideas on how to improve things. Interesting that most agreed with me and it wasn't simply echo chamber BS.[/QUOTE]

I know it's a topic of endless fascination to you but personally speaking I couldn't care less about where you lie on the political spectrum.

Face it - moderates just aren't interesting. One of the underlying problems that emerges when news merges with entertainment.
 
[quote name='nasum']myke:
please review my mandatory flood insurance that is totally unwarranted.

you're absolutey right that enforcing private flood insurance would do all of that, if not get rid of it all together as it's too much risk in certain areas. Instead, we're federally mandating flood insurance for the super high risk areas of almost obligatory flooding (Red River Valley comes to mind in my neck of the woods) and the typical hurricane path and subsidizing it with specious claims of living near a creek that flooded in 1843 and hasn't since thus requiring flood insurance.
What I'm getting at here, is that this corruption mud that is being slung at corporations can go right to the government too. Yet somehow it's ok because the govt loves us and wants us to be ok at all times. Meanwhile this same govt is the one that setup institutional -ism and inflicts it with malice upon the people.

Which is it? Evil govt or friendly govt? Or maybe there's just so much of both that it gets washed out in the end. No flood pun intended.[/quote]

I guess my point is that someone has to assume the risk, and I'd prefer it be an entity that won't (1) deny coverage or (2) go out of business on account of providing coverage. Since government is not an entity that requires profitability to exist, it can take on the risk. Such risk is necessary as a first world nation that lives under welfare states philosophy; it is also necessary so long as someone, anyone, lives outside a zero-risk area (which is bloody impossible to accomplish).

Put it this way, Canada is FAR better politically than we are. On the whole of course.
Click to expand...

They have legit liberals there, not apologetic corporatists who bend over backwards for anything but what they purport to believe in. If the US had someone, anyone, with half the guts that Jack Layton showed in his all-too-brief life...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']They have legit liberals there, not apologetic corporatists who bend over backwards for anything but what they purport to believe in. If the US had someone, anyone, with half the guts that Jack Layton showed in his all-too-brief life...[/QUOTE]

Don't you think that America has these people but they can't get elected to save their life? Politicians need to raise campaign money, and the winners are the politicians who sellout to corporations.
 
oh, no doubt. if you haven't read Pierson and Hacker's "Winner Take All Politics," that's they're basic thesis in a nutshell.

And it's a solid book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top