Obama Care Could Be Deadly
- Thread starter gmsisko1
- Start date
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='mykevermin']everything the government does effects markets, yes. War effects markets, laws effect markets, community services effects markets.
What does the government do that has *zero* economic impact?
That's my point - "redistribution of wealth" is a stupid thing to argue. If you don't like the expenditure - how much it is, who it's going to, how long it will last, the deficit impact it's estimated to have - okay, fine. That's tangible.
But to lambast something for being "redistribution of wealth" demonstrates that a person need not be taken seriously because they don't understand what they're saying. If a whole block of people opposed a bill because "Senators are voting on it," you'd be sure to tell those people that *all* bills are voted on by Congress*, therefore it's a foolish thing to critique *some* bills for being voted on by Congress. You would tell those people that, right?
Well, that's what I'm doing here for you. It's my community service.[/QUOTE]
Do you even understand what "redistribution of wealth" is when being used in the context of politics, tax policies, and socialist/capitalistic ideals?
It would help if you could put it in context not a vague "obamacare" reference. "Some" may use it wrong but when it is being used say against a tax the rich to give to the poor tax policy on the hill then it is very appropriate.
Explain to me how a traffic law or murder being against the law is the same thing as "redistribution of wealth".
What does the government do that has *zero* economic impact?
That's my point - "redistribution of wealth" is a stupid thing to argue. If you don't like the expenditure - how much it is, who it's going to, how long it will last, the deficit impact it's estimated to have - okay, fine. That's tangible.
But to lambast something for being "redistribution of wealth" demonstrates that a person need not be taken seriously because they don't understand what they're saying. If a whole block of people opposed a bill because "Senators are voting on it," you'd be sure to tell those people that *all* bills are voted on by Congress*, therefore it's a foolish thing to critique *some* bills for being voted on by Congress. You would tell those people that, right?
Well, that's what I'm doing here for you. It's my community service.[/QUOTE]
Do you even understand what "redistribution of wealth" is when being used in the context of politics, tax policies, and socialist/capitalistic ideals?
It would help if you could put it in context not a vague "obamacare" reference. "Some" may use it wrong but when it is being used say against a tax the rich to give to the poor tax policy on the hill then it is very appropriate.
Explain to me how a traffic law or murder being against the law is the same thing as "redistribution of wealth".
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Pliskin101']Explain to me how a traffic law or murder being against the law is the same thing as "redistribution of wealth".[/QUOTE]
It effects the economy by appropriating resources. I can't make a living as a hitman thanks to murder being against the law. Well, actually, it drove rates through the
ing roof, now I can't afford one.
It effects the economy by appropriating resources. I can't make a living as a hitman thanks to murder being against the law. Well, actually, it drove rates through the
ing roof, now I can't afford one.
[quote name='Pliskin101']I am not confusing anything. mykevermin said EVERYTHING the government does. That is a false statement. Therefore the rest of the post is just as useless.[/QUOTE]
Just because you don't understand the statement doesn't mean that it's false.
Just because you don't understand the statement doesn't mean that it's false.
How did I prevent him from answering? That's also why I didn't go into detail and just pointed out where you're misunderstanding the statement.
Actually, it's a bit of a vs. joke that I'm one of his joke accounts.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']So... we've finally moved on from your inability to see that I never compared the government to a store. Good. We're making progress.
Now if I can get you to see beyond the fact that I didn't compare your individual budget with that of the government, we'll be golden.
Okay, now, the next step. When you go to the store, is your primary objective to give the store your money, or is it to safely, legally, and in the most efficient way possible acquire the goods that you need/want?
If someone says "You know that camoor - he's all about giving his money to the store", would that be an accurate statement?[/QUOTE]
More stupidity.
You're not making progress, you're just proving yourself to be dumber and dumber.
Our government doesn't exclusively buy goods. On behalf of the citizens they buy goods, services, influence, provide aid.
Are you really this monumentally stupid? Have I been arguing with a guy who is this much of aing moron all this time. God damn I gotta find a better way to spend my time. God damn.
Now if I can get you to see beyond the fact that I didn't compare your individual budget with that of the government, we'll be golden.
Okay, now, the next step. When you go to the store, is your primary objective to give the store your money, or is it to safely, legally, and in the most efficient way possible acquire the goods that you need/want?
If someone says "You know that camoor - he's all about giving his money to the store", would that be an accurate statement?[/QUOTE]
More stupidity.
You're not making progress, you're just proving yourself to be dumber and dumber.
Our government doesn't exclusively buy goods. On behalf of the citizens they buy goods, services, influence, provide aid.
Are you really this monumentally stupid? Have I been arguing with a guy who is this much of a
ing moron all this time. God damn I gotta find a better way to spend my time. God damn.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']One step forward, twelve steps back.
I did not say our government exclusively buys goods. Keep trying.[/QUOTE]
Wow you are stupid
I did not say our government exclusively buys goods. Keep trying.[/QUOTE]
Wow you are stupid
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='mykevermin']It effects the economy by appropriating resources. I can't make a living as a hitman thanks to murder being against the law. Well, actually, it drove rates through the ing roof, now I can't afford one.
[/QUOTE]
Alrighty then. This does not answer the question. All of your arguments center around "your" belief which the term encompasses everything or nothing at all. That is a false argument.
This argument that you posted here is false again. I really don't think you understand the common use of the definition and philosophy behind the term.
To simplify it why don't you define wealth and redistribution separately. That would be a good start.
Understanding that murder is not wealth and making it illegal is not redistributing its wealth somewhere else will be a good start as well. The resources put into it also does not fit into the term in its common use. In no way does it fit.
Is it possible that you are confusing with the word distribution with REDISTRIBUTION?
ing roof, now I can't afford one.[/QUOTE]Alrighty then. This does not answer the question. All of your arguments center around "your" belief which the term encompasses everything or nothing at all. That is a false argument.
This argument that you posted here is false again. I really don't think you understand the common use of the definition and philosophy behind the term.
To simplify it why don't you define wealth and redistribution separately. That would be a good start.
Understanding that murder is not wealth and making it illegal is not redistributing its wealth somewhere else will be a good start as well. The resources put into it also does not fit into the term in its common use. In no way does it fit.
Is it possible that you are confusing with the word distribution with REDISTRIBUTION?
Last edited:
[quote name='camoor']Wow you are stupid[/QUOTE]
Yet, you seem to be the one completely confounded between the ideas of "primary goals" and "means used to achieve goals".
If I drive a car to work to get a paycheck to buy video games, then driving, working, and getting paid are all methods I've taken towards achieving my goal of buying video games. If I could work at home, get a paycheck without working or win a lottery that would allow me to purchase video games without the three steps listed above, then my primary goal would be the same, while the means to achieve this goal have changed.
And no, before you ask, the government isn't a video game, nor am I the government, nor does the government buy video games (well, I suppose they probably do).
When you finally understand the difference between a primary goal and means used to achieve a goal, then come back and we can have a grown-up conversation.
Yet, you seem to be the one completely confounded between the ideas of "primary goals" and "means used to achieve goals".
If I drive a car to work to get a paycheck to buy video games, then driving, working, and getting paid are all methods I've taken towards achieving my goal of buying video games. If I could work at home, get a paycheck without working or win a lottery that would allow me to purchase video games without the three steps listed above, then my primary goal would be the same, while the means to achieve this goal have changed.
And no, before you ask, the government isn't a video game, nor am I the government, nor does the government buy video games (well, I suppose they probably do).
When you finally understand the difference between a primary goal and means used to achieve a goal, then come back and we can have a grown-up conversation.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='UncleBob']Yet, you seem to be the one completely confounded between the ideas of "primary goals" and "means used to achieve goals".
If I drive a car to work to get a paycheck to buy video games, then driving, working, and getting paid are all methods I've taken towards achieving my goal of buying video games. If I could work at home, get a paycheck without working or win a lottery that would allow me to purchase video games without the three steps listed above, then my primary goal would be the same, while the means to achieve this goal have changed.
And no, before you ask, the government isn't a video game, nor am I the government, nor does the government buy video games (well, I suppose they probably do).
When you finally understand the difference between a primary goal and means used to achieve a goal, then come back and we can have a grown-up conversation.[/QUOTE]
The military makes video games... What was that one "flash point" or something.
Just trying to add some levity. But I think most can agree this was tax dollars not well spent.
If I drive a car to work to get a paycheck to buy video games, then driving, working, and getting paid are all methods I've taken towards achieving my goal of buying video games. If I could work at home, get a paycheck without working or win a lottery that would allow me to purchase video games without the three steps listed above, then my primary goal would be the same, while the means to achieve this goal have changed.
And no, before you ask, the government isn't a video game, nor am I the government, nor does the government buy video games (well, I suppose they probably do).
When you finally understand the difference between a primary goal and means used to achieve a goal, then come back and we can have a grown-up conversation.[/QUOTE]
The military makes video games...
What was that one "flash point" or something. Just trying to add some levity. But I think most can agree this was tax dollars not well spent.
Last edited:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Pliskin101']Is it possible that you are confusing with the word distribution with REDISTRIBUTION?[/QUOTE]
Nope. People who put full faith in the market commit a prior tautology to the one about redistribution of wealth.
They believe the outcomes of the market are fair because they are the outcomes of the market. Which is logical nonsense.
You've said my claim is false three or four times now. I would be delighted for you to demonstrate how that is so, instead of merely saying it is so.
Nope. People who put full faith in the market commit a prior tautology to the one about redistribution of wealth.
They believe the outcomes of the market are fair because they are the outcomes of the market. Which is logical nonsense.
You've said my claim is false three or four times now. I would be delighted for you to demonstrate how that is so, instead of merely saying it is so.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='mykevermin']
You've said my claim is false three or four times now. I would be delighted for you to demonstrate how that is so, instead of merely saying it is so.[/QUOTE]
Just a quick copy and paste....."Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich,"
As a term this is how it is commonly used today. Therefore you are wrong as your definition does not go with the common use and acceptance of the term and its political philisophy.
I don't want to do the work for you but there are literally hundreds of results backing that up. Try it.
You've said my claim is false three or four times now. I would be delighted for you to demonstrate how that is so, instead of merely saying it is so.[/QUOTE]
Just a quick copy and paste....."Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich,"
As a term this is how it is commonly used today. Therefore you are wrong as your definition does not go with the common use and acceptance of the term and its political philisophy.
I don't want to do the work for you but there are literally hundreds of results backing that up. Try it.
[quote name='Pliskin101']Alrighty then. This does not answer the question. All of your arguments center around "your" belief which the term encompasses everything or nothing at all. That is a false argument.
This argument that you posted here is false again. I really don't think you understand the common use of the definition and philosophy behind the term.
To simplify it why don't you define wealth and redistribution separately. That would be a good start.
Understanding that murder is not wealth and making it illegal is not redistributing its wealth somewhere else will be a good start as well. The resources put into it also does not fit into the term in its common use. In no way does it fit.
Is it possible that you are confusing with the word distribution with REDISTRIBUTION?[/QUOTE]
Holy, this is a mess.
The example highlights how redistributing wealth along with allocating resources has systemic effects and that all functions of the government operate on the act of redistributing that wealth.
Your argument is akin to saying that you don't like certain words in english because they have letters. Since you don't make a distinction between which letters, it doesn't make any sense as to why you hate some words and not others since all words have letters. Your goal in this debate would be to state which words you don't like, what combination of letters alters the degree of hate, and why they're bad. Prettying simple.
[quote name='Pliskin101']The military makes video games... What was that one "flash point" or something.
Just trying to add some levity. But I think most can agree this was tax dollars not well spent.[/QUOTE]
This is actually a naive statement. The videogame is a huge recruiting tool that requires far fewer resources than manning recruitment centers and paying for the property. It's also rich with data collected from the players.
[quote name='Pliskin101']Just a quick copy and paste....."Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich,"
As a term this is how it is commonly used today. Therefore you are wrong as your definition does not go with the common use and acceptance of the term and its political philisophy.
I don't want to do the work for you but there are literally hundreds of results backing that up. Try it.[/QUOTE]
Source.
This argument that you posted here is false again. I really don't think you understand the common use of the definition and philosophy behind the term.
To simplify it why don't you define wealth and redistribution separately. That would be a good start.
Understanding that murder is not wealth and making it illegal is not redistributing its wealth somewhere else will be a good start as well. The resources put into it also does not fit into the term in its common use. In no way does it fit.
Is it possible that you are confusing with the word distribution with REDISTRIBUTION?[/QUOTE]
Holy
, this is a mess.The example highlights how redistributing wealth along with allocating resources has systemic effects and that all functions of the government operate on the act of redistributing that wealth.
Your argument is akin to saying that you don't like certain words in english because they have letters. Since you don't make a distinction between which letters, it doesn't make any sense as to why you hate some words and not others since all words have letters. Your goal in this debate would be to state which words you don't like, what combination of letters alters the degree of hate, and why they're bad. Pretty
ing simple.[quote name='Pliskin101']The military makes video games...
What was that one "flash point" or something. Just trying to add some levity. But I think most can agree this was tax dollars not well spent.
[/QUOTE]This is actually a naive statement. The videogame is a huge recruiting tool that requires far fewer resources than manning recruitment centers and paying for the property. It's also rich with data collected from the players.
[quote name='Pliskin101']Just a quick copy and paste....."Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich,"
As a term this is how it is commonly used today. Therefore you are wrong as your definition does not go with the common use and acceptance of the term and its political philisophy.
I don't want to do the work for you but there are literally hundreds of results backing that up. Try it.[/QUOTE]
Source.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Knoell']Plain and simple, you don't like the word "redistribution of wealth" because it all too accurately describes what the government does. Sad for you guys.[/QUOTE]
nonsense. let's look at what dude quoted.
[quote name='Pliskin101']Just a quick copy and paste....."Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich,"[/QUOTE]
So, in demonstrating that my argument (anything a government does can be classified as 'redistribution of wealth' is false, he points to it being...a concept that (1) can describe virtually anything, and (2) goes in two possible directions, with no attempt at greater specificity.
I appreciate the boost to my argument, even when it is done unintentionally.
Now, in the modern political climate, it is more than likely to imply progressive redistribution, sure. But that doesn't mean that it is accurately, consistently, or sensibly applied. Threaten to end the Bush-era tax cuts for $250K+ earners? You're redistributing wealth. Seek to extend the payroll tax for those who earn less than that? You're wrecklessly meddling with revenues.
"Redistribution of wealth" is a phantom that morphs into what the people who use it desire it to be. Therefore it has no discursive utility - at least among sensible people. This is like Paul Ryan's budget plan (the current one, not his crazy 2011 one) where he cites billions in tax cuts, to be offset by slashing spending - but he never reveals a single thing he wants to slash. Can you see the fraud inherent in such an argument? You can't create precise estimates from amorphous constructs. Redistribution of wealth is indeed built into everything government does, its a natural condition of a government taking action (or taking no action). Sorry that this makes you unhappy, and when the reality of it hits you, leaves you with little faith in the kind of discourse we have in our nation, and how the media and those in power are more than happy to have us chasing after these imaginary important arguments. But that's reality.
If you want to complain about redistribution of wealth, complain about the policy, whom it effects negatively, why it effects them negatively, how much of that negative effect you feel is too much, and what we can do to change that.
Do your own work - I said a page and a half back that the direction and degree are certainly areas worthy of concern. But it is the telltale sign of childlike naivete to argue against something because it is "redistribution of wealth" without providing further substance. To that end, please revisit dohdough's analogy on words and letters. It's appropriate.
nonsense. let's look at what dude quoted.
[quote name='Pliskin101']Just a quick copy and paste....."Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich,"[/QUOTE]
So, in demonstrating that my argument (anything a government does can be classified as 'redistribution of wealth' is false, he points to it being...a concept that (1) can describe virtually anything, and (2) goes in two possible directions, with no attempt at greater specificity.
I appreciate the boost to my argument, even when it is done unintentionally.
Now, in the modern political climate, it is more than likely to imply progressive redistribution, sure. But that doesn't mean that it is accurately, consistently, or sensibly applied. Threaten to end the Bush-era tax cuts for $250K+ earners? You're redistributing wealth. Seek to extend the payroll tax for those who earn less than that? You're wrecklessly meddling with revenues.
"Redistribution of wealth" is a phantom that morphs into what the people who use it desire it to be. Therefore it has no discursive utility - at least among sensible people. This is like Paul Ryan's budget plan (the current one, not his crazy 2011 one) where he cites billions in tax cuts, to be offset by slashing spending - but he never reveals a single thing he wants to slash. Can you see the fraud inherent in such an argument? You can't create precise estimates from amorphous constructs. Redistribution of wealth is indeed built into everything government does, its a natural condition of a government taking action (or taking no action). Sorry that this makes you unhappy, and when the reality of it hits you, leaves you with little faith in the kind of discourse we have in our nation, and how the media and those in power are more than happy to have us chasing after these imaginary important arguments. But that's reality.
If you want to complain about redistribution of wealth, complain about the policy, whom it effects negatively, why it effects them negatively, how much of that negative effect you feel is too much, and what we can do to change that.
Do your own work - I said a page and a half back that the direction and degree are certainly areas worthy of concern. But it is the telltale sign of childlike naivete to argue against something because it is "redistribution of wealth" without providing further substance. To that end, please revisit dohdough's analogy on words and letters. It's appropriate.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
Some context.....
"All men are equal, but some are more equal than others. Orwell's observation of the equality of man is as true today as when he wrote it over half a century ago. All men may be created equal, but they sure don't seem to stay that way for long. Some people meet with success, and are permitted to amass great wealth. Some take comfort in mediocrity, and are permitted to life comfortably. And still others embrace failure, and have a hard time making ends meet. It's a simple fact of life that most people accept - the fact that some people have more stuff than others. But have you ever wondered exactly how much more?
In a capitalistic society, success is largely measured by a person's wealth. The more useful to society you are, the more you are allowed to take from society. If you discover a "need" in society and find a way to fill that need, you can count on being rewarded handsomely. On the other hand, if you can't find a way to contribute to society, society will reward you accordingly. People that don't find a way to be useful to society can expect to receive very little in return for their labors, while those who take on greater responsibilities are allowed to reap greater rewards.
Of course, there are those that view this system as vastly unfair. They believe that no one person can possibly be more important than another, and that every person is an integral part of society. We call these people, liberals. The liberal takes the Thomas Jefferson's basic premise of equality to mean that all men are equal. Equal in every possible way - mentally, physically, and most importantly - economically. And if they discover any inequity - no matter how small - they see it as their job to make them equal.
The primary motivation behind liberal economic theology is the basic premise that the poor are too poor and the rich are too rich. They see a world in which upper class is enriches themselves of the backs of the poor. They see a world in which workingmen are slaves to their capitalistic masters - that is, those lucky enough to have a master. The unfortunate ones are doomed to a life of homelessness, starvation, and criminality. A true free market society is rife with inequity -- Those who can figure out how to get it, get it - and those who don't, don't -- and those who don't get it are mad as hell.
Above all of this chaos they see Government - a knight in shinning armor. They believe that the government - the largest corporation in the country - should step into the capitalistic fray and bring equality to everyone's wealth. In a sense, they work to morph government into a sort of "Robin Hood" - a all-powerful entity that taxes the rich in order to feed the poor. This is what is commonly referred to as "Redistribution of Wealth"."
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-distribution_1.html
Some theory in there based on the common acceptance of the term...
Also there is this...
"Redistribution of wealth. A popular term currently. Republicans think that it is bad. Democrats think that it is good. They are both right. And they are both wrong. Our government has a responsibility. We may have different opinions on what role the government should have. But virtually all Americans agree that government must protect us (military and consumer protection) and to assist those of us who need a little help along the way (social assistance programs). To meet these obligations, the government needs money. They generate money by taxing us.
So what is the redistribution of wealth? It is when the rich pay a higher rate of tax (or pay a higher tax burden) that the middle class or the poor to pay for programs that are intended primarily for the middle class and poor. Or so we think…"
http://www.redistributionofwealth.net/
"All men are equal, but some are more equal than others. Orwell's observation of the equality of man is as true today as when he wrote it over half a century ago. All men may be created equal, but they sure don't seem to stay that way for long. Some people meet with success, and are permitted to amass great wealth. Some take comfort in mediocrity, and are permitted to life comfortably. And still others embrace failure, and have a hard time making ends meet. It's a simple fact of life that most people accept - the fact that some people have more stuff than others. But have you ever wondered exactly how much more?
In a capitalistic society, success is largely measured by a person's wealth. The more useful to society you are, the more you are allowed to take from society. If you discover a "need" in society and find a way to fill that need, you can count on being rewarded handsomely. On the other hand, if you can't find a way to contribute to society, society will reward you accordingly. People that don't find a way to be useful to society can expect to receive very little in return for their labors, while those who take on greater responsibilities are allowed to reap greater rewards.
Of course, there are those that view this system as vastly unfair. They believe that no one person can possibly be more important than another, and that every person is an integral part of society. We call these people, liberals. The liberal takes the Thomas Jefferson's basic premise of equality to mean that all men are equal. Equal in every possible way - mentally, physically, and most importantly - economically. And if they discover any inequity - no matter how small - they see it as their job to make them equal.
The primary motivation behind liberal economic theology is the basic premise that the poor are too poor and the rich are too rich. They see a world in which upper class is enriches themselves of the backs of the poor. They see a world in which workingmen are slaves to their capitalistic masters - that is, those lucky enough to have a master. The unfortunate ones are doomed to a life of homelessness, starvation, and criminality. A true free market society is rife with inequity -- Those who can figure out how to get it, get it - and those who don't, don't -- and those who don't get it are mad as hell.
Above all of this chaos they see Government - a knight in shinning armor. They believe that the government - the largest corporation in the country - should step into the capitalistic fray and bring equality to everyone's wealth. In a sense, they work to morph government into a sort of "Robin Hood" - a all-powerful entity that taxes the rich in order to feed the poor. This is what is commonly referred to as "Redistribution of Wealth"."
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-distribution_1.html
Some theory in there based on the common acceptance of the term...
Also there is this...
"Redistribution of wealth. A popular term currently. Republicans think that it is bad. Democrats think that it is good. They are both right. And they are both wrong. Our government has a responsibility. We may have different opinions on what role the government should have. But virtually all Americans agree that government must protect us (military and consumer protection) and to assist those of us who need a little help along the way (social assistance programs). To meet these obligations, the government needs money. They generate money by taxing us.
So what is the redistribution of wealth? It is when the rich pay a higher rate of tax (or pay a higher tax burden) that the middle class or the poor to pay for programs that are intended primarily for the middle class and poor. Or so we think…"
http://www.redistributionofwealth.net/
Last edited:
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='mykevermin']nonsense. let's look at what dude quoted.
So, in demonstrating that my argument (anything a government does can be classified as 'redistribution of wealth' is false, he points to it being...a concept that (1) can describe virtually anything, and (2) goes in two possible directions, with no attempt at greater specificity.
I appreciate the boost to my argument, even when it is done unintentionally.
Now, in the modern political climate, it is more than likely to imply progressive redistribution, sure. But that doesn't mean that it is accurately, consistently, or sensibly applied. Threaten to end the Bush-era tax cuts for $250K+ earners? You're redistributing wealth. Seek to extend the payroll tax for those who earn less than that? You're wrecklessly meddling with revenues.
"Redistribution of wealth" is a phantom that morphs into what the people who use it desire it to be. Therefore it has no discursive utility - at least among sensible people. This is like Paul Ryan's budget plan (the current one, not his crazy 2011 one) where he cites billions in tax cuts, to be offset by slashing spending - but he never reveals a single thing he wants to slash. Can you see the fraud inherent in such an argument? You can't create precise estimates from amorphous constructs. Redistribution of wealth is indeed built into everything government does, its a natural condition of a government taking action (or taking no action). Sorry that this makes you unhappy, and when the reality of it hits you, leaves you with little faith in the kind of discourse we have in our nation, and how the media and those in power are more than happy to have us chasing after these imaginary important arguments. But that's reality.
If you want to complain about redistribution of wealth, complain about the policy, whom it effects negatively, why it effects them negatively, how much of that negative effect you feel is too much, and what we can do to change that.
Do your own work - I said a page and a half back that the direction and degree are certainly areas worthy of concern. But it is the telltale sign of childlike naivete to argue against something because it is "redistribution of wealth" without providing further substance. To that end, please revisit dohdough's analogy on words and letters. It's appropriate.[/QUOTE]
Again EVERYTHING the government does is NOT redistribution of wealth. You were and are still wrong. You might want to learn about the different functions of government but first you must understand the term and how it is commonly used today in political argument. You have much to learn.
So, in demonstrating that my argument (anything a government does can be classified as 'redistribution of wealth' is false, he points to it being...a concept that (1) can describe virtually anything, and (2) goes in two possible directions, with no attempt at greater specificity.
I appreciate the boost to my argument, even when it is done unintentionally.
Now, in the modern political climate, it is more than likely to imply progressive redistribution, sure. But that doesn't mean that it is accurately, consistently, or sensibly applied. Threaten to end the Bush-era tax cuts for $250K+ earners? You're redistributing wealth. Seek to extend the payroll tax for those who earn less than that? You're wrecklessly meddling with revenues.
"Redistribution of wealth" is a phantom that morphs into what the people who use it desire it to be. Therefore it has no discursive utility - at least among sensible people. This is like Paul Ryan's budget plan (the current one, not his crazy 2011 one) where he cites billions in tax cuts, to be offset by slashing spending - but he never reveals a single thing he wants to slash. Can you see the fraud inherent in such an argument? You can't create precise estimates from amorphous constructs. Redistribution of wealth is indeed built into everything government does, its a natural condition of a government taking action (or taking no action). Sorry that this makes you unhappy, and when the reality of it hits you, leaves you with little faith in the kind of discourse we have in our nation, and how the media and those in power are more than happy to have us chasing after these imaginary important arguments. But that's reality.
If you want to complain about redistribution of wealth, complain about the policy, whom it effects negatively, why it effects them negatively, how much of that negative effect you feel is too much, and what we can do to change that.
Do your own work - I said a page and a half back that the direction and degree are certainly areas worthy of concern. But it is the telltale sign of childlike naivete to argue against something because it is "redistribution of wealth" without providing further substance. To that end, please revisit dohdough's analogy on words and letters. It's appropriate.[/QUOTE]
Again EVERYTHING the government does is NOT redistribution of wealth. You were and are still wrong. You might want to learn about the different functions of government but first you must understand the term and how it is commonly used today in political argument. You have much to learn.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Yet, you seem to be the one completely confounded between the ideas of "primary goals" and "means used to achieve goals".
If I drive a car to work to get a paycheck to buy video games, then driving, working, and getting paid are all methods I've taken towards achieving my goal of buying video games. If I could work at home, get a paycheck without working or win a lottery that would allow me to purchase video games without the three steps listed above, then my primary goal would be the same, while the means to achieve this goal have changed.
And no, before you ask, the government isn't a video game, nor am I the government, nor does the government buy video games (well, I suppose they probably do).
When you finally understand the difference between a primary goal and means used to achieve a goal, then come back and we can have a grown-up conversation.[/QUOTE]
Your goals are simple.
The government's job is complex.
I really can't break it down anymore for you.
If I drive a car to work to get a paycheck to buy video games, then driving, working, and getting paid are all methods I've taken towards achieving my goal of buying video games. If I could work at home, get a paycheck without working or win a lottery that would allow me to purchase video games without the three steps listed above, then my primary goal would be the same, while the means to achieve this goal have changed.
And no, before you ask, the government isn't a video game, nor am I the government, nor does the government buy video games (well, I suppose they probably do).
When you finally understand the difference between a primary goal and means used to achieve a goal, then come back and we can have a grown-up conversation.[/QUOTE]
Your goals are simple.
The government's job is complex.
I really can't break it down anymore for you.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Pliskin101']Again EVERYTHING the government does is NOT redistribution of wealth. You were and are still wrong. You might want to learn about the different functions of government but first you must understand the term and how it is commonly used today in political argument. You have much to learn.[/QUOTE]
That's 5 claims. Still waiting for you to demonstrate or provide an example of this.
Traffic laws harm the economic viability of auto repair shops. They'd have much more business if we eliminated traffic lights.
Those cites of yours are laughably preposterous, by the way. I can google bullshit, too, you know. But I don't post it.
That's 5 claims. Still waiting for you to demonstrate or provide an example of this.
Traffic laws harm the economic viability of auto repair shops. They'd have much more business if we eliminated traffic lights.
Those cites of yours are laughably preposterous, by the way. I can google bullshit, too, you know. But I don't post it.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='mykevermin']That's 5 claims. Still waiting for you to demonstrate or provide an example of this.
Traffic laws harm the economic viability of auto repair shops. They'd have much more business if we eliminated traffic lights.
Those cites of yours are laughably preposterous, by the way. I can google bullshit, too, you know. But I don't post it.[/QUOTE]
You are wrong and I have explained to you why over and over and over again. Just because YOU don't understand what the term is and how it is used does not make you right. Spew all day but you are still wrong. EVERYTHING the government does, at least the government of the U.S.A, is not redistribution of wealth.
Traffic laws harm the economic viability of auto repair shops. They'd have much more business if we eliminated traffic lights.
Those cites of yours are laughably preposterous, by the way. I can google bullshit, too, you know. But I don't post it.[/QUOTE]
You are wrong and I have explained to you why over and over and over again. Just because YOU don't understand what the term is and how it is used does not make you right. Spew all day but you are still wrong. EVERYTHING the government does, at least the government of the U.S.A, is not redistribution of wealth.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Everything the government does has an economic influence. Until you accept that fact, you can not move further.
Until you accept that, you cannot see that you are exalting a phantom term to concrete status.
Until you accept that, you cannot see that you are exalting a phantom term to concrete status.
[quote name='mykevermin']Everything the government does has an economic influence. Until you accept that fact, you can not move further.
Until you accept that, you cannot see that you are exalting a phantom term to concrete status.[/QUOTE]
Economic influence does not equal redistribution of wealth. The result of that conclusion is that everyone is redistributing wealth, which they are. Money is always moving and changing hands, but you know this is not the intended meaning of the term. Stop playing dumb.
Until you accept that, you cannot see that you are exalting a phantom term to concrete status.[/QUOTE]
Economic influence does not equal redistribution of wealth. The result of that conclusion is that everyone is redistributing wealth, which they are. Money is always moving and changing hands, but you know this is not the intended meaning of the term. Stop playing dumb.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
my point is that the intended meaning of the term is so devoid of specificity or utility so as to be useful. That's why I call it a phantom, because it suits the need of the user at the time. It's garbage.
So, in response to "stop playing dumb": no u.
So, in response to "stop playing dumb": no u.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
Alright so all this started because someone hinted that student loans should be paid off by the government in the form of debt relief.
Here is a good but old article on that subject..(I agree with most of it, #3 being the top)
Forgive Student Loans? Worst Idea Ever.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/09/19/forgive-student-loans-worst-idea-ever/
Let’s look at this through five separate lenses:
And I bet that the proponents can’t find a single economist to support this idiotic idea.
Here is a good but old article on that subject..(I agree with most of it, #3 being the top)
Forgive Student Loans? Worst Idea Ever.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/09/19/forgive-student-loans-worst-idea-ever/
Let’s look at this through five separate lenses:
- Distribution: If we are going to give money away, why on earth would we give it to college grads? This is the one group who we know typically have high incomes, and who have enjoyed income growth over the past four decades. The group who has been hurt over the past few decades is high school dropouts.
- Macroeconomics: This is the worst macro policy I’ve ever heard of. If you want stimulus, you get more bang-for-your-buck if you give extra dollars to folks who are most likely to spend each dollar. Imagine what would happen if you forgave $50,000 in debt. How much of that would get spent in the next month or year? Probably just a couple of grand (if that). Much of it would go into the bank. But give $1,000 to each of 50 poor people, and nearly all of it will get spent, yielding a larger stimulus. Moreover, it’s not likely that college grads are the ones who are liquidity-constrained. Most of ‘em could spend more if they wanted to; after all, they are the folks who could get a credit card or a car loan fairly easily. It’s the hand-to-mouth consumers—those who can’t get easy access to credit—who are most likely to raise their spending if they get the extra dollars.
- Education Policy: Perhaps folks think that forgiving educational loans will lead more people to get an education. No, it won’t. This is a proposal to forgive the debt of folks who already have an education. Want to increase access to education? Make loans more widely available, or subsidize those who are yet to choose whether to go to school. But this proposal is just a lump-sum transfer that won’t increase education attainment. So why transfer to these folks?
- Political Economy: This is a bunch of kids who don’t want to pay their loans back. And worse: Do this once, and what will happen in the next recession? More lobbying for free money, rather than doing something socially constructive. Moreover, if these guys succeed, others will try, too. And we’ll just get more spending in the least socially productive part of our economy—the lobbying industry.
- Politics: Notice the political rhetoric? Give free money to us, rather than “corporations, millionaires and billionaires.” Opportunity cost is one of the key principles of economics. And that principle says to compare your choice with the next best alternative. Instead, they’re comparing it with the worst alternative. So my question for the proponents: Why give money to college grads rather than the 15% of the population in poverty?
And I bet that the proponents can’t find a single economist to support this idiotic idea.
[quote name='Pliskin101']Alright so all this started because someone hinted that student loans should be paid off by the government in the form of debt relief.
Here is a good but old article on that subject..(I agree with most of it, #3 being the top)
Forgive Student Loans? Worst Idea Ever.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/09/19/forgive-student-loans-worst-idea-ever/
Let’s look at this through five separate lenses:
And I bet that the proponents can’t find a single economist to support this idiotic idea.[/QUOTE]
I find it farsical that you're quoting Freakanomics. Are you going to quote Marx's Kapital and Communist Manifesto next? LOLZ
How about you break down what you agree with and don't since you said you agree with most, especially #3. I'm especially interested in what you don't agree with considering there are only 5 items here.
And once again, there is absolutely no difference in the effect of forgiving of student loans and more grant funding. The only difference is one is before and one is after. The schools and banks still get paid and the government still foots the bill.
Btw, the field of economics is having it's own foundational problems at the moment in regards to pedagogy.
Here is a good but old article on that subject..(I agree with most of it, #3 being the top)
Forgive Student Loans? Worst Idea Ever.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/09/19/forgive-student-loans-worst-idea-ever/
Let’s look at this through five separate lenses:
- Distribution: If we are going to give money away, why on earth would we give it to college grads? This is the one group who we know typically have high incomes, and who have enjoyed income growth over the past four decades. The group who has been hurt over the past few decades is high school dropouts.
- Macroeconomics: This is the worst macro policy I’ve ever heard of. If you want stimulus, you get more bang-for-your-buck if you give extra dollars to folks who are most likely to spend each dollar. Imagine what would happen if you forgave $50,000 in debt. How much of that would get spent in the next month or year? Probably just a couple of grand (if that). Much of it would go into the bank. But give $1,000 to each of 50 poor people, and nearly all of it will get spent, yielding a larger stimulus. Moreover, it’s not likely that college grads are the ones who are liquidity-constrained. Most of ‘em could spend more if they wanted to; after all, they are the folks who could get a credit card or a car loan fairly easily. It’s the hand-to-mouth consumers—those who can’t get easy access to credit—who are most likely to raise their spending if they get the extra dollars.
- Education Policy: Perhaps folks think that forgiving educational loans will lead more people to get an education. No, it won’t. This is a proposal to forgive the debt of folks who already have an education. Want to increase access to education? Make loans more widely available, or subsidize those who are yet to choose whether to go to school. But this proposal is just a lump-sum transfer that won’t increase education attainment. So why transfer to these folks?
- Political Economy: This is a bunch of kids who don’t want to pay their loans back. And worse: Do this once, and what will happen in the next recession? More lobbying for free money, rather than doing something socially constructive. Moreover, if these guys succeed, others will try, too. And we’ll just get more spending in the least socially productive part of our economy—the lobbying industry.
- Politics: Notice the political rhetoric? Give free money to us, rather than “corporations, millionaires and billionaires.” Opportunity cost is one of the key principles of economics. And that principle says to compare your choice with the next best alternative. Instead, they’re comparing it with the worst alternative. So my question for the proponents: Why give money to college grads rather than the 15% of the population in poverty?
And I bet that the proponents can’t find a single economist to support this idiotic idea.[/QUOTE]
I find it farsical that you're quoting Freakanomics. Are you going to quote Marx's Kapital and Communist Manifesto next? LOLZ
How about you break down what you agree with and don't since you said you agree with most, especially #3. I'm especially interested in what you don't agree with considering there are only 5 items here.
And once again, there is absolutely no difference in the effect of forgiving of student loans and more grant funding. The only difference is one is before and one is after. The schools and banks still get paid and the government still foots the bill.
Btw, the field of economics is having it's own foundational problems at the moment in regards to pedagogy.
[quote name='dohdough']I find it farsical that you're quoting Freakanomics. Are you going to quote Marx's Kapital and Communist Manifesto next? LOLZ
How about you break down what you agree with and don't since you said you agree with most, especially #3. I'm especially interested in what you don't agree with considering there are only 5 items here.
And once again, there is absolutely no difference in the effect of forgiving of student loans and more grant funding. The only difference is one is before and one is after. The schools and banks still get paid and the government still foots the bill.
Btw, the field of economics is having it's own foundational problems at the moment in regards to pedagogy.[/QUOTE]
Really?
No difference huh?
Unless you are saying that grants should pay for full rides, I find it hard to understand how grants are the same as canceling or forgiving your student loan debt.
Not to mention you seem like you want the grants + loan forgiveness......why don't you come right out and say that you want free college?
How about you break down what you agree with and don't since you said you agree with most, especially #3. I'm especially interested in what you don't agree with considering there are only 5 items here.
And once again, there is absolutely no difference in the effect of forgiving of student loans and more grant funding. The only difference is one is before and one is after. The schools and banks still get paid and the government still foots the bill.
Btw, the field of economics is having it's own foundational problems at the moment in regards to pedagogy.[/QUOTE]
Really?
No difference huh?
Unless you are saying that grants should pay for full rides, I find it hard to understand how grants are the same as canceling or forgiving your student loan debt.
Not to mention you seem like you want the grants + loan forgiveness......why don't you come right out and say that you want free college?
[quote name='Msut77']It isn't even then freako-guys.
I stopped reading after the first "point".[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I didn't think it was relevant considering that the outlet is more important than the author because Freakonomics isn't exactly a conservative source. I found the citation cynical.
[quote name='Knoell']Really?
No difference huh?
Unless you are saying that grants should pay for full rides, I find it hard to understand how grants are the same as canceling or forgiving your student loan debt.
Not to mention you seem like you want the grants + loan forgiveness......why don't you come right out and say that you want free college?[/QUOTE]
Like I keep repeating, I'm not that dogmatic. Increasing grants and reducing the amount owed on loans to outright discharge isn't unrealistic when we already have a framework in place with FAFSA. Even beyond discharging debt, there are greater concerns that arise from loans putting people underwater.
Higher education is a business and students have become commodities. It's only a matter of time until the education bubble explodes just like the housing bubble did and I've been saying this for several years. Schools are in the business of teaching, but schools also need funding. Funding comes from private banks and their only interest is in selling as many loans as possible. Cut funding to education while allowing wage stagnation and you're creating a perfect storm for predatory lending. This isn't conjecture; this is what history tells us.
I stopped reading after the first "point".[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I didn't think it was relevant considering that the outlet is more important than the author because Freakonomics isn't exactly a conservative source. I found the citation cynical.
[quote name='Knoell']Really?
No difference huh?
Unless you are saying that grants should pay for full rides, I find it hard to understand how grants are the same as canceling or forgiving your student loan debt.
Not to mention you seem like you want the grants + loan forgiveness......why don't you come right out and say that you want free college?[/QUOTE]
Like I keep repeating, I'm not that dogmatic. Increasing grants and reducing the amount owed on loans to outright discharge isn't unrealistic when we already have a framework in place with FAFSA. Even beyond discharging debt, there are greater concerns that arise from loans putting people underwater.
Higher education is a business and students have become commodities. It's only a matter of time until the education bubble explodes just like the housing bubble did and I've been saying this for several years. Schools are in the business of teaching, but schools also need funding. Funding comes from private banks and their only interest is in selling as many loans as possible. Cut funding to education while allowing wage stagnation and you're creating a perfect storm for predatory lending. This isn't conjecture; this is what history tells us.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='Knoell']Really?
No difference huh?
Unless you are saying that grants should pay for full rides, I find it hard to understand how grants are the same as canceling or forgiving your student loan debt.
Not to mention you seem like you want the grants + loan forgiveness......why don't you come right out and say that you want free college?[/QUOTE]
This ^
No difference huh?
Unless you are saying that grants should pay for full rides, I find it hard to understand how grants are the same as canceling or forgiving your student loan debt.
Not to mention you seem like you want the grants + loan forgiveness......why don't you come right out and say that you want free college?[/QUOTE]
This ^
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='dohdough']
How about you break down what you agree with and don't since you said you agree with most, especially #3. I'm especially interested in what you don't agree with considering there are only 5 items here.
And once again, there is absolutely no difference in the effect of forgiving of student loans and more grant funding. The only difference is one is before and one is after. The schools and banks still get paid and the government still foots the bill.
.[/QUOTE]
Nah....I don't feel like it but feel free to knock yourself out.
For the next part see my last post.
edit: Okay I just can't resist. "there is absolutely no difference" "The only difference is" Which is it? I would be willing to bet even YOU can find a few more differences. No cheating off of Knoell's paper. Yuck-yuck-yuck
How about you break down what you agree with and don't since you said you agree with most, especially #3. I'm especially interested in what you don't agree with considering there are only 5 items here.
And once again, there is absolutely no difference in the effect of forgiving of student loans and more grant funding. The only difference is one is before and one is after. The schools and banks still get paid and the government still foots the bill.
.[/QUOTE]
Nah....I don't feel like it but feel free to knock yourself out.
For the next part see my last post.
edit: Okay I just can't resist. "there is absolutely no difference" "The only difference is" Which is it? I would be willing to bet even YOU can find a few more differences. No cheating off of Knoell's paper. Yuck-yuck-yuck
Last edited:
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='dohdough']Are you going to quote Marx's Kapital and Communist Manifesto next?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry I forgot to address the above gem.
Yuck-yuck-yuck
Does Marx's Kapital and Communist Manifesto SPECIFICALLY say something about the United States Government paying off outstanding student loans?
You seem to think it does so feel free AGAIN to knock yourself out.
Yuck-yuck-yuck
[/QUOTE]
Sorry I forgot to address the above gem.
Yuck-yuck-yuck
Does Marx's Kapital and Communist Manifesto SPECIFICALLY say something about the United States Government paying off outstanding student loans?
You seem to think it does so feel free AGAIN to knock yourself out.
Yuck-yuck-yuck
Last edited:
[quote name='Pliskin101']This ^[/QUOTE]
Yet another detailed nuanced post from our new resident shit poster.
[quote name='Pliskin101']Nah....I don't feel like it but feel free to knock yourself out.
For the next part see my last post.[/QUOTE]
So I take it that there's nothing defensible about your post because you don't have the knowledge to back it up. Typical.
[quote name='Pliskin101']Sorry I forgot to address the above gem.
Yuck-yuck-yuck
Does Marx's Kapital and Communist Manifesto SPECIFICALLY say something about the United States Government paying off outstanding student loans?
You seem to think it does so feel free AGAIN to knock yourself out.
Yuck-yuck-yuck[/QUOTE]
The Constitution doesn't specifically say anything about the internet either, but provides theory and framework for it's regulation...not that you've shown that your intellect is capable of reasoning out their relationships.
Thanks for making this forum your toilet though. I'll make you're treated in kind.
[/QUOTE] Yet another detailed nuanced post from our new resident shit poster.[quote name='Pliskin101']Nah....I don't feel like it but feel free to knock yourself out.
For the next part see my last post.[/QUOTE]
So I take it that there's nothing defensible about your post because you don't have the knowledge to back it up. Typical.
[quote name='Pliskin101']Sorry I forgot to address the above gem.
Yuck-yuck-yuck
Does Marx's Kapital and Communist Manifesto SPECIFICALLY say something about the United States Government paying off outstanding student loans?
You seem to think it does so feel free AGAIN to knock yourself out.
Yuck-yuck-yuck
[/QUOTE]The Constitution doesn't specifically say anything about the internet either, but provides theory and framework for it's regulation...not that you've shown that your intellect is capable of reasoning out their relationships.
Thanks for making this forum your toilet though. I'll make you're treated in kind.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']So when companies were putting poison in baby formula you were blaming the parents for not having labs in their own homes testing everything before they fed it to their infant?[/QUOTE]
No, I do not think that poor financial/investment advice is the same as a lie by the maker of baby formula about if they put poison into the formula. Since you equated the two, do you think they are the same?
Both could be, yes.
If the system is failing it needs to change. I do not believe that the government paying off people's school loans is the change it needs. I honestly don't really understand what you mean by "you are pretending basically everyone just floats in their invisible bubble of self responsibility". I am for personal responsibility yes. I would think that everyone would be. JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." He was a democrat.
People can get deferment or forbearance, they are not screwed. They may not find a job in their chosen field, but they still have their education. Why should the government pay off the loans when someone "doesn't find a spot"? This is the question I asked at the start of this discussion.
Then we disagree and I will respect your opinion.
No, I do not think that poor financial/investment advice is the same as a lie by the maker of baby formula about if they put poison into the formula. Since you equated the two, do you think they are the same?
Both could be, yes.
If the system is failing it needs to change. I do not believe that the government paying off people's school loans is the change it needs. I honestly don't really understand what you mean by "you are pretending basically everyone just floats in their invisible bubble of self responsibility". I am for personal responsibility yes. I would think that everyone would be. JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." He was a democrat.
I feel a lot of things should happen, people can agree that college is overpriced and not worth the "return" but without for example the german vocational training system there is relatively little to do concerning that. It appears it really just going to be more people fighting for less professional positions, but that still doesn't mean "
People can get deferment or forbearance, they are not screwed. They may not find a job in their chosen field, but they still have their education. Why should the government pay off the loans when someone "doesn't find a spot"? This is the question I asked at the start of this discussion.
Then we disagree and I will respect your opinion.
[quote name='mykevermin']It describes *everything* the government does, therefore it describes *nothing* of value because it can not be used selectively without being used inaccurately.[/QUOTE]
Saying that "it describes everything the government does" is not the same thing as saying that "everything the government does has an economic influence".
I don't think this argument on the preceding pages is about the meaning of "redistribution of wealth" so much as it is about the difference in the above 2 quotes.
Saying that "it describes everything the government does" is not the same thing as saying that "everything the government does has an economic influence".
I don't think this argument on the preceding pages is about the meaning of "redistribution of wealth" so much as it is about the difference in the above 2 quotes.
[quote name='dohdough']
Like I keep repeating, I'm not that dogmatic. Increasing grants and reducing the amount owed on loans to outright discharge isn't unrealistic when we already have a framework in place with FAFSA. Even beyond discharging debt, there are greater concerns that arise from loans putting people underwater.
Higher education is a business and students have become commodities. It's only a matter of time until the education bubble explodes just like the housing bubble did and I've been saying this for several years. Schools are in the business of teaching, but schools also need funding. Funding comes from private banks and their only interest is in selling as many loans as possible. Cut funding to education while allowing wage stagnation and you're creating a perfect storm for predatory lending. This isn't conjecture; this is what history tells us.[/QUOTE]
Do you honestly think college budgets are stretched to the limits? That prices aren't inflated at all? How about book prices?
You are right, colleges are treating students like commodities except it isn't the business aspect that is causing it. (I know, I know it sounds backwards but hear me out.) It is all the free money floating around that colleges are taking advantage of.
This is why you are seeing all these private online colleges sprout up with bachelor degree programs that won't be worth much but cost a hell of a lot. People figured out that there is a lot of funding out there for college students, and that these students 1. don't realize what they are getting into when they take out these large amounts of loans, and 2. Think they are getting a career if they only get this damned piece of paper.
It is starting to become a scam, and I do not think the government footing the bill (or the rest of the bill) will fix ANY aspect of it.
Like I keep repeating, I'm not that dogmatic. Increasing grants and reducing the amount owed on loans to outright discharge isn't unrealistic when we already have a framework in place with FAFSA. Even beyond discharging debt, there are greater concerns that arise from loans putting people underwater.
Higher education is a business and students have become commodities. It's only a matter of time until the education bubble explodes just like the housing bubble did and I've been saying this for several years. Schools are in the business of teaching, but schools also need funding. Funding comes from private banks and their only interest is in selling as many loans as possible. Cut funding to education while allowing wage stagnation and you're creating a perfect storm for predatory lending. This isn't conjecture; this is what history tells us.[/QUOTE]
Do you honestly think college budgets are stretched to the limits? That prices aren't inflated at all? How about book prices?
You are right, colleges are treating students like commodities except it isn't the business aspect that is causing it. (I know, I know it sounds backwards but hear me out.) It is all the free money floating around that colleges are taking advantage of.
This is why you are seeing all these private online colleges sprout up with bachelor degree programs that won't be worth much but cost a hell of a lot. People figured out that there is a lot of funding out there for college students, and that these students 1. don't realize what they are getting into when they take out these large amounts of loans, and 2. Think they are getting a career if they only get this damned piece of paper.
It is starting to become a scam, and I do not think the government footing the bill (or the rest of the bill) will fix ANY aspect of it.
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, but I didn't think it was relevant considering that the outlet is more important than the author because Freakonomics isn't exactly a conservative source. I found the citation cynical.[/quote]
The guys from freakonomics crew seem to care more about being contrarian and getting eyeballs then everything else.
The first "point" maddening because this guy probably knew he was bullshitting. First of there is the fallacy of "We shouldn't help x group because y group is worst off. Also, pointing that traditionally people with degrees (which isn't necessarily the same as people with student loans) are better off ignores the fact that isn't the case for many now.
Like I said, I stopped reading after that.
The guys from freakonomics crew seem to care more about being contrarian and getting eyeballs then everything else.
The first "point" maddening because this guy probably knew he was bullshitting. First of there is the fallacy of "We shouldn't help x group because y group is worst off. Also, pointing that traditionally people with degrees (which isn't necessarily the same as people with student loans) are better off ignores the fact that isn't the case for many now.
Like I said, I stopped reading after that.
[quote name='megma42']No, I do not think that poor financial/investment advice is the same as a lie by the maker of baby formula about if they put poison into the formula. Since you equated the two, do you think they are the same?[/quote]
I think using your "logic" a comparison could be made.
You do realize you have just admitted you have no idea what you are arguing correct?
Before I go any further, do you have a college degree/student loan debt; do you work?
I think using your "logic" a comparison could be made.
You do realize you have just admitted you have no idea what you are arguing correct?
Before I go any further, do you have a college degree/student loan debt; do you work?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='megma42']Saying that "it describes everything the government does" is not the same thing as saying that "everything the government does has an economic influence".
I don't think this argument on the preceding pages is about the meaning of "redistribution of wealth" so much as it is about the difference in the above 2 quotes.[/QUOTE]
Don't be silly (or, perhaps, so literal). You've taken a very simple argument and are parsing it out into something easy to refute (e.g., war isn't always done for economic reasons) instead of wrangling with what my actual point is. I had a good 7-10 posts yesterday describing my argument, so it's dishonest to whittle it down to 6 words and say "hey, this point is stupid."
You insult yourself in the process by suggesting you weren't smart enough to understand what I was saying. And you insult me by thinking I'd believe that.
I don't think this argument on the preceding pages is about the meaning of "redistribution of wealth" so much as it is about the difference in the above 2 quotes.[/QUOTE]
Don't be silly (or, perhaps, so literal). You've taken a very simple argument and are parsing it out into something easy to refute (e.g., war isn't always done for economic reasons) instead of wrangling with what my actual point is. I had a good 7-10 posts yesterday describing my argument, so it's dishonest to whittle it down to 6 words and say "hey, this point is stupid."
You insult yourself in the process by suggesting you weren't smart enough to understand what I was saying. And you insult me by thinking I'd believe that.
[quote name='mykevermin']Don't be silly (or, perhaps, so literal). You've taken a very simple argument and are parsing it out into something easy to refute (e.g., war isn't always done for economic reasons) instead of wrangling with what my actual point is. I had a good 7-10 posts yesterday describing my argument, so it's dishonest to whittle it down to 6 words and say "hey, this point is stupid."
You insult yourself in the process by suggesting you weren't smart enough to understand what I was saying. And you insult me by thinking I'd believe that.[/QUOTE]
Kind of how you whittle someones argument down to the term income redistribution and simply put your fingers in your ears and go "im not listening! stupidhead"
You insult yourself in the process by suggesting you weren't smart enough to understand what I was saying. And you insult me by thinking I'd believe that.[/QUOTE]
Kind of how you whittle someones argument down to the term income redistribution and simply put your fingers in your ears and go "im not listening! stupidhead"
[quote name='Msut77']You do realize you have just admitted you have no idea what you are arguing correct?[/QUOTE]
No, know what I am arguing. I believe that you invest time and money when you go to college with the expectation of getting a job that would be better than you could have gotten without a degree. You do not think that college is an investment even though it fits the definition. You neglect to see that the current state of affairs helps to show that it was indeed an investment that was vulnerable to market ups and down and not the "sure thing" that people believed it was.
As to a job or you life being an investment I think that it is a matter of your personal viewpoint. If you put extra time or effort into a job and you are expecting to get promoted or get a raise then you are making an investment since you are expecting a worthwhile result or profit. If you are a member of a religion and you believe in an afterlife that is dependent on the actions you take during this life, then yes your life is an investment.
Explain to me how this is relevant to the discussion at hand other than for personal attack and I will certainly tell you.
No, know what I am arguing. I believe that you invest time and money when you go to college with the expectation of getting a job that would be better than you could have gotten without a degree. You do not think that college is an investment even though it fits the definition. You neglect to see that the current state of affairs helps to show that it was indeed an investment that was vulnerable to market ups and down and not the "sure thing" that people believed it was.
As to a job or you life being an investment I think that it is a matter of your personal viewpoint. If you put extra time or effort into a job and you are expecting to get promoted or get a raise then you are making an investment since you are expecting a worthwhile result or profit. If you are a member of a religion and you believe in an afterlife that is dependent on the actions you take during this life, then yes your life is an investment.
Explain to me how this is relevant to the discussion at hand other than for personal attack and I will certainly tell you.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
Sigh....are you guys even debating anything at this point? Seems like the 2 new guys have spent the last couple pages debating what the actual point to debate is.
Myke is a veteran debater here, you are going to have to pick a topic and be far more direct if you want to debate him on anything, he is not what I call a "gamefaqs" debater in which he will spend pages talking about what things we should be talking about.
Myke is a veteran debater here, you are going to have to pick a topic and be far more direct if you want to debate him on anything, he is not what I call a "gamefaqs" debater in which he will spend pages talking about what things we should be talking about.
[quote name='megma42']No, know what I am arguing. I believe that you invest time and money when you go to college with the expectation of getting a job that would be better than you could have gotten without a degree. You do not think that college is an investment even though it fits the definition. You neglect to see that the current state of affairs helps to show that it was indeed an investment that was vulnerable to market ups and down and not the "sure thing" that people believed it was. As to a job or you life being an investment I think that it is a matter of your personal viewpoint. If you put extra time or effort into a job and you are expecting to get promoted or get a raise then you are making an investment since you are expecting a worthwhile result or profit. If you are a member of a religion and you believe in an afterlife that is dependent on the actions you take during this life, then yes your life is an investment.
[/quote]
Apparently you do not know what you are arguing. You have such a broad definition for the word "investment" you have made it meaningless. I was pointing out that higher education has been viewed as a social good by practically everyone for decades. You are talking about basically locking everyone who wasn't born rich out of higher education.
With the amount of garbage you blithely assert, you seem to have zero experience with some of the topics we have talked about.
[/quote]
Apparently you do not know what you are arguing. You have such a broad definition for the word "investment" you have made it meaningless. I was pointing out that higher education has been viewed as a social good by practically everyone for decades. You are talking about basically locking everyone who wasn't born rich out of higher education.
With the amount of garbage you blithely assert, you seem to have zero experience with some of the topics we have talked about.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
[quote name='megma42']No, know what I am arguing. I believe that you invest time and money when you go to college with the expectation of getting a job that would be better than you could have gotten without a degree. You do not think that college is an investment even though it fits the definition. You neglect to see that the current state of affairs helps to show that it was indeed an investment that was vulnerable to market ups and down and not the "sure thing" that people believed it was.
As to a job or you life being an investment I think that it is a matter of your personal viewpoint. If you put extra time or effort into a job and you are expecting to get promoted or get a raise then you are making an investment since you are expecting a worthwhile result or profit. If you are a member of a religion and you believe in an afterlife that is dependent on the actions you take during this life, then yes your life is an investment.
Explain to me how this is relevant to the discussion at hand other than for personal attack and I will certainly tell you.[/QUOTE]
The problem with this point of view is that it puts all the blame on the "investor" which just so happens to be a fairly vulnerable fresh out of high school 18 year old kids. This is just like predatory credit card companies when it was legal for them to invade high schools and get kids to sign up for 6 or 7 credit cards.
You cant blame one side without recognizing that the other side is doing their best to influence the market in their favor. You tell every single kid from the time they are 5 that they are worthless without a college degree...you then set up a stigma that downgrades any non traditional school such as online or trade schools. Then you have this new fanged slave labor that companies seem to die for in terms of the "moderen internship" which companies are trying to get up to 30% of their workforce to be unpaid interns.
This also doesnt take into account how many schools have been found to lie cheat and steal their way into graduation numbers that are flat out wrong. They will say that they have a 98% placement rate...but then you find that they are counting people not working in the field but at Kmart, counting unpaid interns, counting people who are making vastly under what they promote as the starting wage.
You cant just throw your hands up and say...people (kids remember most of these "people" are 18 right out of high school) should be smarter while not recognizing the many problems that both sides are presenting. Thats a very head in the sand way to go about it.
As to a job or you life being an investment I think that it is a matter of your personal viewpoint. If you put extra time or effort into a job and you are expecting to get promoted or get a raise then you are making an investment since you are expecting a worthwhile result or profit. If you are a member of a religion and you believe in an afterlife that is dependent on the actions you take during this life, then yes your life is an investment.
Explain to me how this is relevant to the discussion at hand other than for personal attack and I will certainly tell you.[/QUOTE]
The problem with this point of view is that it puts all the blame on the "investor" which just so happens to be a fairly vulnerable fresh out of high school 18 year old kids. This is just like predatory credit card companies when it was legal for them to invade high schools and get kids to sign up for 6 or 7 credit cards.
You cant blame one side without recognizing that the other side is doing their best to influence the market in their favor. You tell every single kid from the time they are 5 that they are worthless without a college degree...you then set up a stigma that downgrades any non traditional school such as online or trade schools. Then you have this new fanged slave labor that companies seem to die for in terms of the "moderen internship" which companies are trying to get up to 30% of their workforce to be unpaid interns.
This also doesnt take into account how many schools have been found to lie cheat and steal their way into graduation numbers that are flat out wrong. They will say that they have a 98% placement rate...but then you find that they are counting people not working in the field but at Kmart, counting unpaid interns, counting people who are making vastly under what they promote as the starting wage.
You cant just throw your hands up and say...people (kids remember most of these "people" are 18 right out of high school) should be smarter while not recognizing the many problems that both sides are presenting. Thats a very head in the sand way to go about it.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
Does anyone truly believe that the government paying off all existing student loans is a good idea?
I think everyone agrees the system is broken but a "stimulus" package in the form of paying off student loans only has a temporary benefit and doesn't address or fix what is wrong with the system. Sure in doing so it would admit there is a problem but again does not even attempt to fix the actual problem at hand.
That would be all it is a "stimulus" package with a temporary or a band-aid fix that eventually will bleed through resulting in the next group of student loan people to say "my turn" now bail "me" out.
I think everyone agrees the system is broken but a "stimulus" package in the form of paying off student loans only has a temporary benefit and doesn't address or fix what is wrong with the system. Sure in doing so it would admit there is a problem but again does not even attempt to fix the actual problem at hand.
That would be all it is a "stimulus" package with a temporary or a band-aid fix that eventually will bleed through resulting in the next group of student loan people to say "my turn" now bail "me" out.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='Soodmeg']The problem with this point of view is that it puts all the blame on the "investor" which just so happens to be a fairly vulnerable fresh out of high school 18 year old kids. This is just like predatory credit card companies when it was legal for them to invade high schools and get kids to sign up for 6 or 7 credit cards.
You cant blame one side without recognizing that the other side is doing their best to influence the market in their favor. You tell every single kid from the time they are 5 that they are worthless without a college degree...you then set up a stigma that downgrades any non traditional school such as online or trade schools. Then you have this new fanged slave labor that companies seem to die for in terms of the "moderen internship" which companies are trying to get up to 30% of their workforce to be unpaid interns.
This also doesnt take into account how many schools have been found to lie cheat and steal their way into graduation numbers that are flat out wrong. They will say that they have a 98% placement rate...but then you find that they are counting people not working in the field but at Kmart, counting unpaid interns, counting people who are making vastly under what they promote as the starting wage.
You cant just throw your hands up and say...people (kids remember most of these "people" are 18 right out of high school) should be smarter while not recognizing the many problems that both sides are presenting. Thats a very head in the sand way to go about it.[/QUOTE]
I agree there is blame to go around.
This still doesn't justify an entire bail out of all student loans. Which I know is not what YOU are saying.
The frustration I get is from most of the people I hear or see with their gimme gimme pay off my student loan debt stories that revolve around or resemble "I have to make a choice of making my payment on my five bedroom house and my three cars or make a payment on my student loan." and a thousand other ridiculous stories similar to it. Nobody forced these people to live beyond their means. There are many deserving people who work hard and would love to have a story like that. There are some hardship stories that are not like that and my heart does go out to them.
IMO these stories and the most of the "pay off my student loan" people are not about change because it changes nothing in the "education system". It stems from selfishness. Sure you are mostly right with predatory lending and some of your other points on the broken system but how does a "freebie" with no change help anything at all?
All this amounts to is an argument of well "I" in the guise of "we" deserve a bailout more than someone else does because I/we are more valuable than others that are on hard times. It has no impact or change on a system that is broken or wrong or whatever so it is a selfish standpoint.
You cant blame one side without recognizing that the other side is doing their best to influence the market in their favor. You tell every single kid from the time they are 5 that they are worthless without a college degree...you then set up a stigma that downgrades any non traditional school such as online or trade schools. Then you have this new fanged slave labor that companies seem to die for in terms of the "moderen internship" which companies are trying to get up to 30% of their workforce to be unpaid interns.
This also doesnt take into account how many schools have been found to lie cheat and steal their way into graduation numbers that are flat out wrong. They will say that they have a 98% placement rate...but then you find that they are counting people not working in the field but at Kmart, counting unpaid interns, counting people who are making vastly under what they promote as the starting wage.
You cant just throw your hands up and say...people (kids remember most of these "people" are 18 right out of high school) should be smarter while not recognizing the many problems that both sides are presenting. Thats a very head in the sand way to go about it.[/QUOTE]
I agree there is blame to go around.
This still doesn't justify an entire bail out of all student loans. Which I know is not what YOU are saying.
The frustration I get is from most of the people I hear or see with their gimme gimme pay off my student loan debt stories that revolve around or resemble "I have to make a choice of making my payment on my five bedroom house and my three cars or make a payment on my student loan." and a thousand other ridiculous stories similar to it. Nobody forced these people to live beyond their means. There are many deserving people who work hard and would love to have a story like that. There are some hardship stories that are not like that and my heart does go out to them.
IMO these stories and the most of the "pay off my student loan" people are not about change because it changes nothing in the "education system". It stems from selfishness. Sure you are mostly right with predatory lending and some of your other points on the broken system but how does a "freebie" with no change help anything at all?
All this amounts to is an argument of well "I" in the guise of "we" deserve a bailout more than someone else does because I/we are more valuable than others that are on hard times. It has no impact or change on a system that is broken or wrong or whatever so it is a selfish standpoint.
Last edited:
[quote name='Soodmeg']The problem with this point of view is that it puts all the blame on the "investor" which just so happens to be a fairly vulnerable fresh out of high school 18 year old kids. This is just like predatory credit card companies when it was legal for them to invade high schools and get kids to sign up for 6 or 7 credit cards.
You cant blame one side without recognizing that the other side is doing their best to influence the market in their favor. You tell every single kid from the time they are 5 that they are worthless without a college degree...you then set up a stigma that downgrades any non traditional school such as online or trade schools. Then you have this new fanged slave labor that companies seem to die for in terms of the "moderen internship" which companies are trying to get up to 30% of their workforce to be unpaid interns.
This also doesnt take into account how many schools have been found to lie cheat and steal their way into graduation numbers that are flat out wrong. They will say that they have a 98% placement rate...but then you find that they are counting people not working in the field but at Kmart, counting unpaid interns, counting people who are making vastly under what they promote as the starting wage.
You cant just throw your hands up and say...people (kids remember most of these "people" are 18 right out of high school) should be smarter while not recognizing the many problems that both sides are presenting. Thats a very head in the sand way to go about it.[/QUOTE]
Yes but any amount of funding from the government will not change any of those problems, which is what I am arguing.
Not to mention the gigantic "keeping the people down" argument you get when you attempt to go against the grain and say that college degrees arent necessarily required to make a decent living.
You cant blame one side without recognizing that the other side is doing their best to influence the market in their favor. You tell every single kid from the time they are 5 that they are worthless without a college degree...you then set up a stigma that downgrades any non traditional school such as online or trade schools. Then you have this new fanged slave labor that companies seem to die for in terms of the "moderen internship" which companies are trying to get up to 30% of their workforce to be unpaid interns.
This also doesnt take into account how many schools have been found to lie cheat and steal their way into graduation numbers that are flat out wrong. They will say that they have a 98% placement rate...but then you find that they are counting people not working in the field but at Kmart, counting unpaid interns, counting people who are making vastly under what they promote as the starting wage.
You cant just throw your hands up and say...people (kids remember most of these "people" are 18 right out of high school) should be smarter while not recognizing the many problems that both sides are presenting. Thats a very head in the sand way to go about it.[/QUOTE]
Yes but any amount of funding from the government will not change any of those problems, which is what I am arguing.
Not to mention the gigantic "keeping the people down" argument you get when you attempt to go against the grain and say that college degrees arent necessarily required to make a decent living.
These arguments are always funny. It always boils down to "Sure, the ____system is broken, but this won't change anything". Then we either propose something to actually fix it, or there likely has already been an attempt, but it's derided as socialism or some other thing with a negative connotation.
[quote name='Clak']These arguments are always funny. It always boils down to "Sure, the ____system is broken, but this won't change anything". Then we either propose something to actually fix it, or there likely has already been an attempt, but it's derided as socialism or some other thing with a negative connotation.[/QUOTE]
As dumb as they are this is intentional. Rhen they pretend we are just mean.
As dumb as they are this is intentional. Rhen they pretend we are just mean.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
Firstly sorry lr the typos jn this post posting from my iphone and the auto correct is brutal, take too long to fix stuff
I don't know if I agree with the 5 bedroom house statement. I personally know a bunch of engineers who can barely afford 1 bed room apartments because their studen Loans basically a house payment. I think there are far more people who have the make the chpice between student loan and food, has, water, etc etc. I will personal say that I put off paying mine for about 8 years until I stared earning enough to pay them.
But this also brings up the the old spitting your face by cutting off your nose. Not that I am saying that we should forgive student loans but to reject any idea because it might go to some over privilege dumbass seems crazy. It's te same thig as the Welfare case in which everyone is scared to death of the few people tht take advantage of the system so they will let a million others die.
You cant really pick individual cases when it comes to the government. The best they can do is paint a broad stroke and hope it covers as many people as they can. There is too many people to do it any other way.
The problem with politics is the vast amounts of personal vedettas people have. I don't mind helping people as long as they are not Jews, poor, college educated religious etc etc. like I said in America you have a million different people with a million different backgrounds. You have to understand that it's not just YOUR money it's everyone's collective money. Some o that money was given from the very people you are trying to exclude which makes no sense.
Again I am not saying we should bail them out though.
I don't know if I agree with the 5 bedroom house statement. I personally know a bunch of engineers who can barely afford 1 bed room apartments because their studen Loans basically a house payment. I think there are far more people who have the make the chpice between student loan and food, has, water, etc etc. I will personal say that I put off paying mine for about 8 years until I stared earning enough to pay them.
But this also brings up the the old spitting your face by cutting off your nose. Not that I am saying that we should forgive student loans but to reject any idea because it might go to some over privilege dumbass seems crazy. It's te same thig as the Welfare case in which everyone is scared to death of the few people tht take advantage of the system so they will let a million others die.
You cant really pick individual cases when it comes to the government. The best they can do is paint a broad stroke and hope it covers as many people as they can. There is too many people to do it any other way.
The problem with politics is the vast amounts of personal vedettas people have. I don't mind helping people as long as they are not Jews, poor, college educated religious etc etc. like I said in America you have a million different people with a million different backgrounds. You have to understand that it's not just YOUR money it's everyone's collective money. Some o that money was given from the very people you are trying to exclude which makes no sense.
Again I am not saying we should bail them out though.
bread's done