You sound like a Republican (which is a good thing).
Republicans want to tax churches, allow abortions, stop tapping phones, are pro gay marriage?
Shit, maybe I’ve been Republican all this time.
Where did you get “pro gay marriage” out of the OP?
Now that I look at it, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
You’re going to have a hard time finding Libertarians who’ll support this:
There are plenty of left leaning libertarians who could probably get behind that, the libertarian label is becoming the big tent party with CATO institute sharing room with pot smokers.
Interesting, I’ve never seen this immediate shotgun approach to political critic and personal assessment done on this board before. “I’m new, this is what I believe, have at it.”
SillyBean, you’ll fit in well here.
I think people are too easily putting you in the big-L Libertarian box. The quiz you took was propaganda, so don’t take that too seriously either. As you described yourself, I think you could be D, R, or L; the decisive factor is your priorities, how much do you prioritize each political position you have?
Here are the main options as I see them :
- You don’t fit in with Libertarians – particularly because of your belief that government should regulate corporations – but you find yourself unrepresented by the two major parties, so you generally support a lot of libertarian proposals and candidates, even while rejecting their scheme of unregulated capitalism. Minarchists and anarcho-capitalists appreciate your support, but hope you don’t gain any influence over their completely anti-regulation message.
- You’re a moderate Republican who thinks your party is wrong on civil liberties and probably on regulation…but you keep hoping they’ll go back to those small-government ideals you and so many other Republicans hold dear. Like Clint Eastwood.
- You’re a left-libertarian Democrat who rejects a lot of what the Democratic party is all about, but you see them as the only people safeguarding the country through regulation and promoting the social liberalism you value.
Pick your poison 
Consumer lending is a microcosm of industrial lending. Corporations can accumulate debt year after year while remaining solvent. Without such a principle, growth would be very slow indeed and the recession would be compounded (and probably develop into a depression).
This is inane. Part of the responsibility of living in a democracy is acceding to the democratic wishes of the people, even if they do not represent your wishes. The American people as a whole will have to pay for the Iraq war until 2070 by some calculations, whether or not they supported the invasion. Americans have to pay for research they may never benefit from and roads they may never travel on. As it happens, I believe in greater democratic accountability: direct democracy, so that legislation more accurately reflects the wishes of the people.
This betrays a misreading of history. Public schools had their inception in England in order to differentiate themselves from the ecclesiastic schools. If you want an account of conditions for youth in industrial England prior to mandatory education, Capital provides a good grounding, too.
This is a pretty cool site - it asks you a whole bunch of questions and lets you rate how strongly you feel about them. Then it tells you how you match up to a whole bunch of different metrics, including other people who took the test.
Are you sure you’ve thought this through? This just makes Social Security into the worst savings account ever. You have to pay into it. You can’t withdraw unless you get old or disabled. And when you do finally get to withdraw money, you made a negative real return due to inflation.
And what do we do with all the money that piles up as a result of people who paid SS taxes, but died before they were able to withdraw their due? If we just contribute it to the general fund, we’ve turned Social Security into nothing more than a regressive tax combined with a terrible and restrictive savings account.
I don’t wish to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you really just want to abolish Social Security.
Hey, I agree there are things to be ironed out - but aren’t there always? No politician the world over, since the beginning of human history, ever proposed an idea that accounted for every single person’s individual situation, tied up every loose end, and took care of every last person.
I mean, the status quo doesn’t work for “everyone.” With a population of 9B, call me a pessimist (I’m really an optimist), I don’t think there’s any one system or policy that even has the potential to work for all 9B people on Earth, do you? Most policies are a numbers game, our current policies run heavily in the negative leaving many to fend for themselves - the very thing you seem to be accusing me of wanting to do.
By the way, the mere act of even trying to “make” something [a system] that I believe in work for everyone is against my basic principles. I believe in each person taking personal responsibility for their own lives and steering their own ship… The government should exists in a most basic function, being paid by the people to: protect them, protect the borders, and build infrastructure.
I do not believe the gov does a very good job of regulating the minutia of human existence, sorting out personal problems, educating children, or taking care of the less fortunate. I just don’t.
It’s very interesting that you would immediately assume the very basic principles I outlined above would result in prison for uneducated children, when the current system seems to already be doing just that … ? Aren’t nearly 25% of Americans, at any given time, incarcerated and an even higher percent are in some phase of the criminial justice system?
I’m not pretending to know what to do with the current population of children who’s parents cannot afford to educate them. This is a tough-y. I can tell you that the current system treats children like chattle and is more focused on protocol than inspiring truly independent thought and learning. I see public schools fuss more with what the children are wearing rather than whether or not graduating seniors (who are legally old enough to sign contracts) know the principle of daily compounding interest or how to create an amortization schedule.
I would never advocate closing all public schools tomorrow.
I think there is a huge gap that exists between what’s going on today and my personal belief that people who choose to have children should be financially prepared for them. I don’t know how to close that gap and never pretened to. You think my ideals create a problem, I’m saying one already exists and it is getting bigger under the current system.
I believe most of the world’s problems can be attributed to overpopulation. It’s a numbers game. For example, people wonder why we have so many mass shooting incidents… I don’t wonder at all. For every 100 people, just know that (statistically speaking) there will be a few (17% to be exact) born with some form of mental illness that makes them potentially dangerous. There will be x number of really smart people, x number of people with a really low IQ but still functioning, x number of people with intellectual disabilities, so on and so forth. Now you take those numbers and drive them into the billions. Mass shooters and psychos aren’t anomolies, they are statistical certainties. Now take those people who are born predisposed to anti-social behavior and run them through the public school system where they might be bullied, experience peer pressure, are fed a poor diet and put under all kinds of stress.
I do think social security should be abolished, unless it can be fixed.
In my opinion there can never be any “piling up” of money in the social security trust fund as it has been pilfered by one president after another. They take large sums from it and replace the giant hole with “IOUs” … I’ve paid GREATLY into SS. I would consider all those payments a “sunk cost” and would gladly walk away if allowed. I put $500/month into my 401K, have disability and cancer insurance, and am accumulating quite a savings. I don’t believe SS will be there when I retire. It’s insolvent and I would rather not participate.
Merneith, all of your points are valid. You seem to believe that I propose an ideal that leaves all of these “unfortunates” unaccounted for. I say the current system leaves plenty unaccounted for. All the bad things you just laid out already happen and I don’t believe our current system helps the majority of them, do you?
I think one of my beliefs is that, if you allow people to keep the majority of the money they make in an ownership society, when things go wrong they are more prepared. Why do you believe that turning to the state when the s*it hits the fan is the answer?
If people own their homes - truly own them - as in they don’t even have to pay property taxes to keep them … and they do not have revolving debt, and they have kept their reproduction numbers low, and their family and friends have been just as prudent, then when tragedy strikes 1. they won’t lose their home because it’s theirs in every sense of the word, 2. since they aren’t in debt up to their eyebrows, they have more cash on hand to limp along, 3. since their family and friends and neighbors have more cash on hand, they have more ability to help. Furthermore, if they aren’t caught in the cycle of revolving debt and living beyond their means, they have more money to spend on insurance. I, personally, have disability and cancer insurance. Will it “save me” in every circumstance… no. There are no guarantees in life and we can’t keep every single person from falling through the cracks - its just not possible. However, I don’t think the current system does a good job either.
You want a plan, from me, for every contingency above. Well, I don’t have one BUT if you can find the person who does then you have answered the million dollar question. Under the status quo, people can’t find jobs, they lose their homes, they have children they cannot afford. The current system doesn’t save all those people, and I belive it doesn’t even really help any of them.
Also, I’m extremely aware that tragedy could strike me at any time and I do my very best to hedge my odds. I have insurance on everything - renters, cancer, disability, auto, I even bought legal insurance when I obtained my CHL. I’m a “just in case” kind of gal. I save money, and lots of it. I keep my resume up to date and continue to further my education so that I am more marketable. Also, I have re-occuring monthly debits to 2 charitable organizations that help children and animals. However, I’m supposed to involuntarily give up a huge chunk of the money I work so hard for (money I could be using to provide myself additional security) so that the gov can use it to “help” others even though I don’t really believe they are helping anyone? I’m not raging mad about this, I’m pretty use to it by now, but I don’t agree with it. Not one little bit.
[quote=“Merneith, post:19, topic:635315”]
What’s your plan for all the people in the world who don’t have jobs, don’t live below their means, don’t consult their financial planner before having children, and just generally aren’t all around as awesome as you are?
[QUOTE]
Merneith, your sarcasm didn’t go unnoticed by the way. I did get it, you think that I think I’m better, sorry more “awesome” than others. I’m here to tell you. I’m no one special and I know that. I’m the average rank and file American chick … I don’t believe I posess some super IQ, I don’t know any more than you probably. I’m just calling things like I see them and I truly see that the current system doesn’t work.
I’m concerned that you think 1. saving up cash for things and chosing not to participate in consumer lending, 2. living below your means, 3. controling the rate at which you have children are some kind of extraordinary feats. They aren’t. It’s just plain ole common sense and practicality.
You are an independent voter, which means you will probably determine this election, which in turn scares the shit outta me.
Sorry if I missed this,but Silly Bean, where did you go to school? If you went to public school, then why would you not afford this generation’s children the opportunities you were afforded? If you went to private school, how can you expect every parent to have exactly the same resources as your parents had? If these parents are wrong for trying to obtain the best education the are able, then please provide some alternative. This particular argument( I don’t have children, why should I pay for yours?. Can’t feed 'em, don’t breed 'em) really sticks in the proverbial craw. When my children were born, I was making twice what I am now. I am embarrassed that I have to use some forms of public assistance, but I also am extremly thankful that its there.
I went to private school for part of my education.
I don’t deny the next generation anything. If given the opportunity to contribute voluntarily to help my fellow man, I would, and I do.
Why does my not paying to educate other people’s children result in a claim that I am denying them something? What about placing some of that blame on the parents? Why did you not save and prepare financially to provide a $120K education to each child you produced - why would you deny them that forethought and planning? I’m sorry to say it like that, but it’s true.
I simply don’t agree that the benefits outweigh the costs to the “let’s take from this person to give to another” plan that is currently being practiced in America. I’m not saying others shouldn’t contribute to the common good, I’m saying the gov should not be able to get their cut of my hard earned money before I do and spend it in so many ways I disagree with …
Not only is the current system unfair, it’s insolvent. What is the exit strategy to a plan that tells Americans “have as many children as you please, the state will fund each of their educations” and those educations cost $120K each? How can anyone cash flow that? Furthermore, the property taxes that are necessary to attempt to fund this program keep American from becoming an ownership society. No one truly has a steak in the promised land if they must pay property taxes for forever to keep it. You say your income has gone down, what about senior citizens who have paid their life long dues and saved and worked and maybe never even had children but cannot afford to retire because they must keep working to pay property taxes to fund the educational system?
Now, on to your personal situation. I can offer you some advice, but I know most people won’t do what it takes … Cut your expenses to the bone … Decide what you need VS what you want. Move into the smallest/cheapest place you can afford (not the best for your children, but that ship has already sailed). If you are in any kind of revolving debt, get out. Buy a used, cheap car and save the difference. Do you have cable? Get rid of it along with any other entertainment extras that cost $$. Buy used clothes at thrift stores, buy household supplies at the .99 cent store, buy a used bike off of CL ($60) and bike wherever you can. Buy your groceries at Aldi or similar. Don’t buy brand new and shiny stuff, buy used. I have always waited for the new iphone to come out and bought the “old” one, refurb condition from AT&T for $50 instead of paying $400-$800 for the new one. Buy a fan and turn that on at night and the AC off. Buy fruit/vegetables from the Farmer’s Market. Take your lunch to school/work. Have a solid, well planned budget, share it with your kids and stick to it. By the way, I do or have done all of the above, so I wouldn’t recommend any sacrifice I have not already made myself. I haven’t had cable in YEARS. I have one TV in my house and it is rarely on and I feel my life is all the better for it. I bought a bike and bike to work sometimes as well as any other place I need to go. I buy used and cheap and I make deals. I never go shopping without a coupon …
I have to disagree with this (and I’m speaking as a single guy with no children so I get nothing personally out of the public education system). A well educated population is one of the main things that separates a first world country from a third world country. Throwing out our free public education system and hoping that parents will pick up the slack is a bad idea.
Is public education insolvent? Of course it is. Who ever came up with the idiotic claim that schools should make a profit? You don’t propose closing down public services like schools or the police department of the fire department because they’re not making money. They’re not profit makers - they’re public services you pay because they make society a better place to live in.
If you think these services aren’t worth paying for, take a look at the countries that don’t have them. Are they places you want to live in? Are they places you want to turn America into?