Someone Please Straighten Me Out

[RyanMoran]

It's easy to fall into liberalism when you see something you wish the government did for you. Two scenarios occurred recently that have caused me to ask questions. Please, in the name of liberty, straighten me out.

1) My aunt is very severely mentally retarded and took a turn for the worst this year, as doctor after doctor gave her drug after drug and really screwed her up. She's been in hospice, psych wards, hospitals, nursing homes, and a nurse has to be with her around clock. Forgive the obvious sob story; the reason I explain all this is because the government has footed the entire bill. Had it not been for Medicare and Medicaid paying these bills, my entire family would be spinning around trying to figure out what to do, because the bills would be in the hundreds of thousands. We would not have survived without the assistance. When I learned this, I had an identity crisis; am I ok with these terrible government systems?

2) My local bank was seized by the feds and forced to merge with a larger bank. In a discussion with a teller, she explained that the takeover fully benefited the larger bank, because the toxic assets were absorbed by TARP, allowing the larger bank to take over the books. I began to wonder, if my bank went under, and there was no TARP, my funds would be gone. If my bank declared bankruptcy, my life savings would be gone in a minute. And if there was no FDIC to insure it, I'd be out of luck...

I know it's a temporary lapse in judgment to think either of these things, but it was a look into the world of liberalism - how quick is the slippery slope when the desire to "get your share" kicks in, eh?

Someone please straighten me out.

[chadhb]

Trivial...

[tremendoustie]

It's easy to fall into liberalism when you see something you wish the government did for you. Two scenarios occurred recently that have caused me to ask questions. Please, in the name of liberty, straighten me out.

1) My aunt is very severely mentally retarded and took a turn for the worst this year, as doctor after doctor gave her drug after drug and really screwed her up. She's been in hospice, psych wards, hospitals, nursing homes, and a nurse has to be with her around clock. Forgive the obvious sob story; the reason I explain all this is because the government has footed the entire bill. Had it not been for Medicare and Medicaid paying these bills, my entire family would be spinning around trying to figure out what to do, because the bills would be in the hundreds of thousands. We would not have survived without the assistance. When I learned this, I had an identity crisis; am I ok with these terrible government systems?


Medicine would be far, far cheaper if it weren't for government intervention, and if there were actual competition -- for example, he's a flyer for natal care at santa monica hospital, from the fifties: http://www.carrotcurries.com/uploaded_images/SantaMonicaHospital-717053.png. There also used to be numerous charities and charitable clinics to help people out, and other alternatives, which have been destroyed by over regulation. What's more, your family would most likely be far more wealthy in a free economy.



2) My local bank was seized by the feds and forced to merge with a larger bank. In a discussion with a teller, she explained that the takeover fully benefited the larger bank, because the toxic assets were absorbed by TARP, allowing the larger bank to take over the books. I began to wonder, if my bank went under, and there was no TARP, my funds would be gone. If my bank declared bankruptcy, my life savings would be gone in a minute. And if there was no FDIC to insure it, I'd be out of luck...


That's why you'd need to choose a bank wisely, who was frequently audited, and did not participate in risky loans or overleveraging. It is precisely this lack of accountability that enabled the banking crisis in the first place.

Here's what Taft had to say about the FDIC. It's pretty prescient stuff: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-audioPlayer_image.html?mp3File=taft1_1011.mp3&h=200&w=200%27,%27imageShell07%27,%27200%27,%27200%27,%2 7off%27,%27true%27,40,10

What's more, if the bank went under, its depositors would own its assets -- including all the loans. You wouldn't get 100 cents back on the dollar, but you wouldn't lose it all either.

The solution, in either case, is not to force other people to accept your liabilities -- as I think you recognize. Even if it did benefit you overall (which I certainly don't think it does), this kind of redistribution is immoral.

[akforme]

Number 1 works now because the system has become dependent on it. Medicare and such was to make hospitals profitable so corporations could profit instead of charity and churches offering a service.

Number 2 if you knew we didn't have an FDIC we would be taught to pay attention to what our bank invest in (which would have stopped all the risky lending) instead of just being dumb and dependent on government to protect us (which they didn't).

[SimpleName]

I'm not going to expand the previous two responses as there is nothing to add. But...

This is exactly the way they want you to feel. They want you to feel as if you can't survive without them. They want you to believe your life would be miserable without their help. That is precisely the way they've grabbed hold of so much power. They single out weak groups who are experiencing pain and offer "assistance." Everytime I express it in words, it sickens me. Dirty, corrupt individuals.

[cheapseats]

Trivial...

This brand of HEARTLESSNESS is part o' yer problem.

[silverhandorder]

This brand of HEARTLESSNESS is part o' yer problem.

I read it differently then you. It seemed like he thought this could easily be answered as was demonstrated with the 3 posts that followed.

[TonySutton]

Moral hazard

[cheapseats]

I read it differently then you. It seemed like he thought this could easily be answered as was demonstrated with the 3 posts that followed.

"Easily answered," as in, CHARITY WILL PICK UP THE SLACK? The top One Percent now controls over SEVENTY PERCENT of the wealth. They are NOTORIOUS cheapskates.

I can't even GUESS how many times I've read an "easy answer" that includes, JUST SUE [whichever offending party]. Yeah, 'cuz we all know that the folks who most often get most screwed over are the most likely to be able to mount a Legal Defense.

I promise you, hardline THEORETICAL arguments against a Basic Safety Net -- particularly in THIS economy -- will cost more in Centrist votes than it will gain in Libertarian votes.

[silverhandorder]

"Easily answered," as in, CHARITY WILL PICK UP THE SLACK? The top One Percent now controls over SEVENTY PERCENT of the wealth. They are NOTORIOUS cheapskates.

I can't even GUESS how many times I've read an "easy answer" that includes, JUST SUE [whichever offending party]. Yeah, 'cuz we all know that the folks who most often get most screwed over are the most likely to be able to mount a Legal Defense.

I promise you, hardline THEORETICAL arguments against a Basic Safety Net -- particularly in THIS economy -- will cost more in Centrist votes than it will gain in Libertarian votes.

None of this was mentioned in those posts. :confused:

[cheapseats]

I promise you, hardline THEORETICAL arguments against a Basic Safety Net -- particularly in THIS economy -- will cost more in Centrist votes than it will gain in Libertarian votes.

Guaran-fucking-tee it.

[silverhandorder]

There is nothing theoretical we are broke and moderates care about not living in a 3rd world shit hole.

[cheapseats]

There is nothing theoretical we are broke and moderates care about not living in a 3rd world shit hole.

I GET IT. I'm stuck in the same shit hole.

STIPULATED, that the Great Giveaway bears NO resemblance to a Basic Safety Net. That said, Hardline THEORETICAL argument against a Basic Safety Net -- particularly in THIS mess -- will scare Moderates back into party folds.

[speciallyblend]

reality government and private insurance is in the business to screw you! we are stuck with 250,000 in medical bills and were bankrupted by our own insurance company! we were insured! bottom line insurance companies are in business to screw its customers!!! yes we will spend yrs fighting them broke and broken!! in the end your dammed if you do or don't!!!

insurance companies are the root of the health care problem! that is the bottom line!!

[silverhandorder]

Didn't Rand already back off and say he would leave the basics for now?

Either way lets see what the campaign decides on they have the polls and the numbers, they know what issues are driving the voters.

[RM918]

It also wouldn't matter anyway, no-one supports immediately getting rid of welfare and would merely start ramping it down by letting people opt out and grandfathering those dependent on it. What does it matter anyway if they're insolvent?

[Icymudpuppy]

Here to be the heartless one.

What exactly does your aunt contribute?

Seems that with a failed brain, she can't contribute any skills or wisdom to her progeny.

With a failed body, she cannot contribute work to the benefit of her family.

With nothing to contribute, it is time to embrace a natural death.

[cheapseats]

Here to be the heartless one.

What exactly does your aunt contribute?

Seems that with a failed brain, she can't contribute any skills or wisdom to her progeny.

With a failed body, she cannot contribute work to the benefit of her family.

With nothing to contribute, it is time to embrace a natural death.


But you don't have to pipe up with every thought that pops into yer noggin, DO ya?

Like I said, this brand of HEARTLESSNESS scares the bejeezus outta Soft Suburbanites. But FUCK 'EM, eh? We don't NEED their stinkin' votes.

EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF will not fly, fer instance, with 53 MILLION SINGLE AMERICAN WOMEN. We don't need THEIR votes, neither.

Out of curiosity, where d'ya fall on the Faux Libertarian CONTROL/FORCE WOMEN VIA GRANTING/RESCINDING REPRODUCTIVE "RIGHTS" scale? Those smears of Potential Life surely can't support themselves and they surely don't contribute diddly squat.

[cheapseats]

With nothing to contribute, it is time to embrace a natural death.

"Natural" is kinda subjective, but I'm WITH you on offing some Deadbeats.

Where's the ECONOMICALLY SOUND clamor for the Death Penalty? Whatsa matter, political Hot Potato? Or is it that Sanctity of Life thing?

[Icymudpuppy]

But you don't have to pipe up with every thought that pops into yer noggin, DO ya?

Like I said, this brand of HEARTLESSNESS scares the bejeezus outta Soft Suburbanites. But FUCK 'EM, eh? We don't NEED their stinkin' votes.

EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF will not fly, fer instance, with 53 MILLION SINGLE AMERICAN WOMEN. We don't need THEIR votes, neither.

Out of curiosity, where d'ya fall on the Faux Libertarian CONTROL/FORCE WOMEN VIA GRANTING/RESCINDING REPRODUCTIVE "RIGHTS" scale? Those smears of Potential Life surely can't support themselves and they surely don't contribute diddly squat.

With the young, we can speculate about a future benefit to society, but with the old and infirm, there is no hope of becoming useful again.

Why are Americans so afraid of death? Despite our religious background and the promise of eternal life through Jesus, why are American christians so afraid to embrace the coming of their lord? Is it because preachers spend too much time on the perils of Hell rather than the promise of heaven?

Maybe our easy living has made most Americans into cowards afraid to lose our possessions.

Death is a natural part of life. When my grandfather became a burden to us, he told my dad to let him go. "Don't let them hook me to a machine, I am ready to die.", he said after coming out of a 3 day coma.

A wise elder knows when they have become a burden, embraces the coming of death as a release from the pain of life, and thanks their children for remembering them for when they were whole after they are gone.

I see people keeping their poor suffering pets alive with surgery and drugs too. I feel so bad for those poor suffering animals that are not being allowed to die.

When life is mostly pain and burden, death should be welcomed by all.

[dean.engelhardt]

It's easy to fall into liberalism when you see something you wish the government did for you. Two scenarios occurred recently that have caused me to ask questions. Please, in the name of liberty, straighten me out.

1) My aunt is very severely mentally retarded and took a turn for the worst this year, as doctor after doctor gave her drug after drug and really screwed her up. She's been in hospice, psych wards, hospitals, nursing homes, and a nurse has to be with her around clock. Forgive the obvious sob story; the reason I explain all this is because the government has footed the entire bill. Had it not been for Medicare and Medicaid paying these bills, my entire family would be spinning around trying to figure out what to do, because the bills would be in the hundreds of thousands. We would not have survived without the assistance. When I learned this, I had an identity crisis; am I ok with these terrible government systems?


I know it's a temporary lapse in judgment to think either of these things, but it was a look into the world of liberalism - how quick is the slippery slope when the desire to "get your share" kicks in, eh?

Someone please straighten me out.

If you are like most middle class, you give up about half of your income in all kinds of taxes, fees and fines involuntarily. So you (we) are paying for these services. Government invertention causes the high prices and forces payment through taxes. Don't feel bad about this, get your aunt the help she needs.

The government is of the people and for the people. Big government types want to tell you that if they don't have power, our disabled will suffer and our kids won't get educated. Problem with this is that government is mismanaged so badly. As individuals we can take care of our disabled and educate our kids better and cheaper than through a government agency. You are forced to use medicare and medicaid because the government took your income you could have used to pay this your self.

You didn't fall into liberalism, your were forced into it under penalty of imprisonment. I hope your aunt is recovering.

[Teaser Rate]

It's easy to fall into liberalism when you see something you wish the government did for you. Two scenarios occurred recently that have caused me to ask questions. Please, in the name of liberty, straighten me out.

1) My aunt is very severely mentally retarded and took a turn for the worst this year, as doctor after doctor gave her drug after drug and really screwed her up. She's been in hospice, psych wards, hospitals, nursing homes, and a nurse has to be with her around clock. Forgive the obvious sob story; the reason I explain all this is because the government has footed the entire bill. Had it not been for Medicare and Medicaid paying these bills, my entire family would be spinning around trying to figure out what to do, because the bills would be in the hundreds of thousands. We would not have survived without the assistance. When I learned this, I had an identity crisis; am I ok with these terrible government systems?

2) My local bank was seized by the feds and forced to merge with a larger bank. In a discussion with a teller, she explained that the takeover fully benefited the larger bank, because the toxic assets were absorbed by TARP, allowing the larger bank to take over the books. I began to wonder, if my bank went under, and there was no TARP, my funds would be gone. If my bank declared bankruptcy, my life savings would be gone in a minute. And if there was no FDIC to insure it, I'd be out of luck...

I know it's a temporary lapse in judgment to think either of these things, but it was a look into the world of liberalism - how quick is the slippery slope when the desire to "get your share" kicks in, eh?

Someone please straighten me out.

The first scenario is a bit difficult to reconcile with a purist libertarian perspective IMO, people are more willing to accept a default position of helping out than they are to initiate one for themselves. This is very well illustrated in the example of organ donations. (http://lyrishq.lyris.com/index.php/Integrated-Marketing/Behavioral-Economics-Opt-out-versus-Opt-in.html)

While it’s certainly true that government involvement in medicine does increase prices, I think it’s a bit naive to assume that private charities would be enough to take care of all the people who rely on government assistance to survive especially given our current demographics.

The second question is an example of society trading in efficiency for convenience. If banks weren’t insured, then we’d all be forced to devote extra time and energy into diversifying our savings and keeping a close eye on our banks’ actions. What bank regulations essentially do is safeguard people who don’t or can’t make safe financial choices at the expense of everyone else.

As previously stated, government guarantees create a moral hazard which almost leads to abuse.

No insurance ---> no industry-wide over-leveraging ----> no collapse ---> no need for TARP




I think in both examples it ultimately comes down the following value judgment:

It is better for a large majority of people to suffer a little because of government action or is it better for a small minority to suffer a lot because life is unfair?

[tremendoustie]

I think the real core of the issue is aggressive violence. Euphamism aside, for government to intervene means they will be extorting money from innocent people, by threat of violence. That's just not moral behavior. I should work to help causes I believe in, and convince others to do so -- not go mug my neighbor to pay for it.

Ultimately, such aggressive force always has unintended consequences. It usually leads to negative results for all involved -- we see these negative results in the sad state of our modern medical and banking industries. The negative results, however, are not the sole or even the primary reason to oppose this kind of violence. Theft is wrong, period, no matter how many people support it or participate in it.

[dean.engelhardt]

The first scenario is a bit difficult to reconcile with a purist libertarian perspective IMO, people are more willing to accept a default position of helping out than they are to initiate one for themselves.

While it’s certainly true that government involvement in medicine does increase prices, I think it’s a bit naive to assume that private charities would be enough to take care of all the people who rely on government assistance to survive especially given our current demographics.



Its difficult to live with a purist libertarian perspective when you live in the USA. Libertarians have a democrat president and GOP or democrat representsation. Unless you have lots of wealth and power, libertarians have to concede to the current political situation. I'd love to own my own island and be my own government.

As far as being naive that charitable contribution would be enough to help people lke his aunt, I disagree. Americans are very charitable. Look at all we volunteer to foreign countries. Given the opportunity to decide how to spend our own income, (instead of by IRS force), we would certainly take care of our elderly, sick and orphans.

[ClayTrainor]

insurance companies are the root of the health care problem! that is the bottom line!!

Actually the state is the root of the health care problem. The way the Insurance companies are behaving is just a symptom of the disease. There's more profit for massive insurance companies to lobby for state regulations that restrict competition, than there is for them to provide you a valuable service that helps you more than it hurts you.

Don't blame the market, it is sick, but it's not the disease in itself. The state is the disease.

[Epic]

We would not have survived without the assistance. When I learned this, I had an identity crisis; am I ok with these terrible government systems?


Without government intervention to such a degree into the economy over the last 100 years, you wouldn't need the government help.

Likewise, when government takes money from other people now to pay for the people who need help now, those other people are now more likely to need help in the future. It's a dependency trap, and the can keeps getting kicked down the road.

As Harry Browne said, Government will break your leg, then hand you a crutch, and tell you "see, you couldn't walk without me".

Just read into the history of the mutual-aid societies and charities in the 1900s and 1910s or so - they provided the same services, but didn't use force on people to get the money.

[RyanMoran]

Well stated from several different perspectives - THANK YOU.

To those that took pot shots and used natural selection as an argument: you will never change someone's mind with that, you will only turn them off to our message.

[cheapseats]

1) My aunt is very severely mentally retarded and took a turn for the worst this year, as doctor after doctor gave her drug after drug and really screwed her up. She's been in hospice, psych wards, hospitals, nursing homes, and a nurse has to be with her around clock. Forgive the obvious sob story; the reason I explain all this is because the government has footed the entire bill. Had it not been for Medicare and Medicaid paying these bills, my entire family would be spinning around trying to figure out what to do, because the bills would be in the hundreds of thousands. We would not have survived without the assistance. When I learned this, I had an identity crisis; am I ok with these terrible government systems?

...Someone please straighten me out.



Trivial...



Here to be the heartless one.

What exactly does your aunt contribute?

Seems that with a failed brain, she can't contribute any skills or wisdom to her progeny.

With a failed body, she cannot contribute work to the benefit of her family.

With nothing to contribute, it is time to embrace a natural death.


Sooo, RyanMoran, are you feelin' straightened out about the hardcore, straight-line, black-and-white THEORY of Libertarianism? Are you overcome by a reassuring THAT'S-who-I-want-in-power feeling?

[cheapseats]

Know THIS, mein Tough Guys. If your "winning" argument is predicated on the non-existence of crap that oughtn't to have occurred but HAS, and/or circumstances that shouldn't exist but DO, you lose the argument.

[ClayTrainor]

Know THIS, mein Tough Guys. If your "winning" argument is predicated on the non-existence of crap that oughtn't to have occurred but HAS, and/or circumstances that shouldn't exist but DO, you lose the argument.

So understanding the cause isn't an important aspect of the argument?

[cheapseats]

So understanding the cause isn't an important aspect of the argument?

Is that how you read what I said?

[ClayTrainor]

Is that how you read what I said?

Obviously, or I would've responded differently. I think pointing out shit that shouldn't exist is quite relevant and not a "losing argument", regardless of its existence.

[Pericles]

The point is that we need to be able to walk the uninformed though the pitfals of spurious arguments to assist them in seeing the benefits of liberty oriented society.

In the first case - the principle is that government intervention removes the incentives for the health care system to prevent and treat disease, because payments accrue for "doing things to a bad situation" - i. e. treatment of any kind, whether or not it is effective. When you have to pay for treatment yourself, you have an interest in obtaining effective treatment for the money you pay.

In the second case, FDIC insurance causes the bank to be more tolerant of risk because they have insulation from the consequences, and the larger bank gets the productive assets of the smaller bank, while forcing the taxpayer to eat the loss. The incentive to be prudent with depositors funds is not there when insulated from the consequence of failure to do so.

In summary, government is not a productive enterprise, the best example being the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a budget of over $60K per person living in poverty, and has not impacted poverty after almost 50 years.

[fisharmor]

Well stated from several different perspectives - THANK YOU.

To those that took pot shots and used natural selection as an argument: you will never change someone's mind with that, you will only turn them off to our message.

Actually, when I read the "pot shot" post, I got something different out of it.
If you're not paying for your aunt's treatment, you are not making decisions about whether she will be treated.
If the state is paying for her treatment, her fate is in the hands of distant bureaucrats whose bottom line is always measured in dollars.

There are never enough dollars in a state program. So whatever undemocratically chosen nitwit making that decision, who is in that position because he couldn't make it in the private sector if he was given a fleet of clue buses, a clue gps, and five native clue tribe guides - that dude is the one deciding whether or not your aunt is of any benefit to society.

That is the essence of the "death panel" argument. It may never have been pushed by democrats, but it is the logical conclusion of government health care systems, based on the economic reality of the scarcity of resources.

It went well for you this time.
This time.

[angelatc]

"Easily answered," as in, CHARITY WILL PICK UP THE SLACK? The top One Percent now controls over SEVENTY PERCENT of the wealth. They are NOTORIOUS cheapskates..

Based on what? Every rich person I've known, except one, has been amazingly generous with their money.

[tremendoustie]

Based on what? Every rich person I've known, except one, has been amazingly generous with their money.

Americans gave 300 billion to charity last year, and that was in an economy crippled by government distortion, as well as moral hazard, and buried under over regulation.

In a free economy, this would grow exponentially.

[RCA]

The money the government gave you was TAKEN BY FORCE from another family who had similar or worse needs than yourself. Imagine you were that other family.

[dean.engelhardt]

Americans gave 300 billion to charity last year, and that was in an economy crippled by government distortion, as well as moral hazard, and buried under over regulation.

In a free economy, this would grow exponentially.

Yes

[damiengwa]

It's easy to fall into liberalism when you see something you wish the government did for you.
2) My local bank was seized by the feds and forced to merge with a larger bank. In a discussion with a teller, she explained that the takeover fully benefited the larger bank, because the toxic assets were absorbed by TARP, allowing the larger bank to take over the books. I began to wonder, if my bank went under, and there was no TARP, my funds would be gone. If my bank declared bankruptcy, my life savings would be gone in a minute. And if there was no FDIC to insure it, I'd be out of luck...


Your teller is feeding you bs. Great name for the position like a 'fortune' teller. Even during the great depression with the absurd bank runs, the average failed bank lost only a few percent of depositors money. The exacerbation of the capital controls, bank holidays, etc made things worse. If your bank had an obligation to pay you your deposit and had no deposit, the responsible parties would be hauled off to jail for fraud. A deposit is a safe keeping contract. Unless that bank was literally robbed they should not have put your money at risk. Notice how there is no choice, every time you hand over a dime to a banker it is at risk. When did you consent to LOAN your money to the bank? Under UCC all loan contracts must be in writing to enforce. What they do bends the very dictionary meaning of the word "deposit."

Banks don't take deposits, they borrow from customers. IF they called the account a loan agreement, or an investment bond it would tip you off to what they did with your money. you might ask questions. YOu might ask if they can just hold the money in the vault and let you access it with your debit card, and pay a small fee like in the old days of check-book money.

[damiengwa]

"Easily answered," as in, CHARITY WILL PICK UP THE SLACK? The top One Percent now controls over SEVENTY PERCENT of the wealth. They are NOTORIOUS cheapskates.

I can't even GUESS how many times I've read an "easy answer" that includes, JUST SUE [whichever offending party]. Yeah, 'cuz we all know that the folks who most often get most screwed over are the most likely to be able to mount a Legal Defense.

I promise you, hardline THEORETICAL arguments against a Basic Safety Net -- particularly in THIS economy -- will cost more in Centrist votes than it will gain in Libertarian votes.

Fuck off cheap seats. you can't be half a libertarian. We are done trying to get people to like us for some one we are not. I bet your relationships are all lies too.

[Southron]

With the young, we can speculate about a future benefit to society, but with the old and infirm, there is no hope of becoming useful again.

Why are Americans so afraid of death? Despite our religious background and the promise of eternal life through Jesus, why are American christians so afraid to embrace the coming of their lord? Is it because preachers spend too much time on the perils of Hell rather than the promise of heaven?

Maybe our easy living has made most Americans into cowards afraid to lose our possessions.

Death is a natural part of life. When my grandfather became a burden to us, he told my dad to let him go. "Don't let them hook me to a machine, I am ready to die.", he said after coming out of a 3 day coma.

A wise elder knows when they have become a burden, embraces the coming of death as a release from the pain of life, and thanks their children for remembering them for when they were whole after they are gone.

I see people keeping their poor suffering pets alive with surgery and drugs too. I feel so bad for those poor suffering animals that are not being allowed to die.

When life is mostly pain and burden, death should be welcomed by all.


This is very interesting. Maybe "American Christians" are afraid of death because they aren't really Christians.

I watched drugs keep someone alive for just a bit longer and came to the conclusion that I want to die when it is my time and not linger on.

But I can understand how it may be difficult to embrace death when all your hope is in this world alone.

[Bossobass]

Whenever you invest you 'life savings' in a depository institution, it's a simple matter to buy a single share of their common stock. That will pay for quarterly reports that require the institution to tell you what the bank is up to.

I'm not alone in mentioning this good advice; don't ever put your life savings with one institution.

Lastly, nothing has ever been nor ever will be foolproof. The price the government extracts from your life to 'afford' their programs is much, much higher than any benefit.

Bosso

[osan]

It's easy to fall into liberalism when you see something you wish the government did for you. Two scenarios occurred recently that have caused me to ask questions. Please, in the name of liberty, straighten me out.

1) My aunt is very severely mentally retarded and took a turn for the worst this year, as doctor after doctor gave her drug after drug and really screwed her up. She's been in hospice, psych wards, hospitals, nursing homes, and a nurse has to be with her around clock. Forgive the obvious sob story; the reason I explain all this is because the government has footed the entire bill. Had it not been for Medicare and Medicaid paying these bills, my entire family would be spinning around trying to figure out what to do, because the bills would be in the hundreds of thousands. We would not have survived without the assistance. When I learned this, I had an identity crisis; am I ok with these terrible government systems?

It's your choice. If you feel OK with it, so be it. I don't agree with such things, but then I'm not in your position. In principle it is crap. People should find their own solutions, but have become dependent on someone else doing it for them.


2) My local bank was seized by the feds and forced to merge with a larger bank. In a discussion with a teller, she explained that the takeover fully benefited the larger bank, because the toxic assets were absorbed by TARP, allowing the larger bank to take over the books. I began to wonder, if my bank went under, and there was no TARP, my funds would be gone. If my bank declared bankruptcy, my life savings would be gone in a minute. And if there was no FDIC to insure it, I'd be out of luck...


Investing of any sort involves risk. Period. Also, FDIC is INSURANCE. Trust me, you pay for it.


I know it's a temporary lapse in judgment to think either of these things, but it was a look into the world of liberalism - how quick is the slippery slope when the desire to "get your share" kicks in, eh?

Someone please straighten me out.

Come to WV and I will straighten you out unequivocally. :)

[Todd]

With the young, we can speculate about a future benefit to society, but with the old and infirm, there is no hope of becoming useful again.

What bullshit.
The Native American's have alot to teach about the value of wisdom and who holds the most importance in society. I'm still young but most of my generation doesn't know jack.

[damiengwa]

Whenever you invest you 'life savings' in a depository institution, it's a simple matter to buy a single share of their common stock. That will pay for quarterly reports that require the institution to tell you what the bank is up to.
Bosso

Financial Dictionary

Deposit definition

1. A transaction involving a transfer of funds to another party for safekeeping.

2. A portion of funds that is used as security or collateral for the delivery of a good.

Again, explain to me WHY, based on the definition of a deposit, you need to be a credit analyst to place money on deposit?

SAFEKEEPING has only one meaning. Taking the cash and lending it out and calling it a deposit is fraud. People need to get this, or else you'll sound like Ben Stein when trying to defend free market principles...

[Carole]

Cheapseats,

I totally understand how compromised and confused this makes you feel.

Now and then, you hear of some local tragedy that overtakes a family. Sometimes local people and groups get involved to try to help by raising funds, etc.

One of the problems with letting the government take care of us is that it tries to push out the local communities that would help with emergencies and such situations. By doing this, it lets the communities and families off the hook since they give so much already to big government and big charities, who promptly waste and pick and choose how to waste the monies.

Churches and local groups used to serve the people in these needs. Now we have Obama trying to take over the churches by uniting them in a devil's pact with the EPA. Can you see what I am saying?

The government has for decades been removing the humanity from communities by saying they will take care of us.

I do not know the answer to your dilemna, but suggest that you would have to have asked for local help maybe, after all else failed. I do know that government is never the right answer even though at times they seem to be the only answer. That is what has changed over the decades and that is why we must return to smaller government so that communities return to the humanity that once was all over America.

[Carole]

Always remember that the government's goal is never to allow you to keep enough of your own money that you can build your own safety net.

[Carole]

Yes, Americans are even now still very generous. However, these big charities and foundations are associated with government and corruption and often are nothing more than laundry machines for political purposes.

I never give to big charities. I believe it is better to give locally to small causes.

[Carole]

Precisely. Well said.

Take a look at any big city or state run by liberals or liberal policies. Detroit, Chicago, California, etc. so many now and more to come. All of them including mine, West Virginia , are in bad shape and the people have more poor and more people taking handouts from government. Keep watching as Obama completely dismantles our country and turns it into Old Russia and New Greece and watch what happens. It will not end well.

Then there will be NO ONE to take care of your aunt as the death or "NICE" panels determine she does not contribute to society and must not be helped.

It is all going to collapse soon.

[cheapseats]

Fuck off cheap seats. you can't be half a libertarian.

I KNOW.

I keep telling that to the FAUX LIBERTARIAN CONTROL FREAKS WHO WOULD GRANT/RESCIND WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE "RIGHTS."





We are done trying to get people to like us for some one we are not.

Really? Didn't I just read about how Rand Paul doesn't yet have the "luxury of candor"?





I bet your relationships are all lies too.

Feel better, Punk?

[cheapseats]

Based on what? Every rich person I've known, except one, has been amazingly generous with their money.

Maybe you know a bumper crop.

I was specifically recollecting a Los Angeles Times article -- circa 2006, if memory serves -- which reported that the top One Percent gave less than one percent in charity, with half their total accounted for by one gift from Warren Buffet.



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009253657_charity23.html



..."The lowest-income fifth [of the population] always give at more than their capacity," said Virginia Hodgkinson, former vice president for research at Independent Sector, a Washington, D.C.-based association of nonprofit agencies. "The next two-fifths give at capacity, and those above that are capable of giving two or three times more than they give."

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' latest survey of consumer expenditure found that the poorest fifth of U.S. households contributed an average of 4.3 percent of their incomes to charitable organizations in 2007. The richest fifth gave at less than half that rate, 2.1 percent.

The figures probably undercount remittances by legal and illegal immigrants to family and friends back home, a multibillion-dollar outlay to which the poor contribute disproportionally.

None of the middle fifths of U.S. households, in contrast, gave away as much as 3 percent of their incomes...




http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/619.htm


..."While headlines focus on 'mega-gifts,' they represented 1.3 percent of the total, "said George C. Ruotolo Jr., CFRE, chair of Giving Institute: Leading Consultants to Non-Profits, parent organization of the Foundation...

[cheapseats]

Americans gave 300 billion to charity last year, and that was in an economy crippled by government distortion, as well as moral hazard, and buried under over regulation.

In a free economy, this would grow exponentially.




Yes


Is this based on scientific study or, a la Michael Chertoff, GUT FEELINGS?

Right function of a Free Market is predicated on an ABSENCE OF PHILANTHROPISTS AND AN ABSENCE OF THIEVES.

Setting aside pesky realities like the prevalence of scam artistry and administrative top-heaviness in non-profits, the inefficiencies inherent in endeavors that use Other People's Money without an eye on profitability, and the inevitable replication of some services and non-provision of others resulting from haphazard as-the-spirit-moves-us Charity, RELYING on Charities to "make society work" is MORE MAGICAL THINKING.

If Charity is inadequate, what, first come first served?

Pretend it's a Potential but Unwanted Life that is forced into fruition but, alas, is born grossly handicapped. What's the plan?

[cheapseats]

I think the real core of the issue is aggressive violence. Euphamism aside, for government to intervene means they will be extorting money from innocent people, by threat of violence. That's just not moral behavior. I should work to help causes I believe in, and convince others to do so -- not go mug my neighbor to pay for it.

But let's pretend it's an off-decade for the economy and available charity doesn't cover what all but Assholes acknowledge are bona fide Mercy Cases.

Will allowing those who CANNOT, like RyanMoran's aunt, fend for themselves perish "naturally" in back rooms or on roadsides constitute MORAL behavior, insofar as we have coerced no taxes?

[cheapseats]

Obviously, or I would've responded differently. I think pointing out shit that shouldn't exist is quite relevant and not a "losing argument", regardless of its existence.



If your "winning" argument is predicated on the non-existence of crap that oughtn't to have occurred but HAS, and/or circumstances that shouldn't exist but DO, you lose the argument.

If your argument/solution/explanation has as its premise pie-in-the-sky circumstances that do not exist are not likely to exist, you may win the argument to YOUR satisfaction, but it has no real-life applicability. BOOK SMART, LIFE STUPID.

Theory ALWAYS works, or it wouldn't be a theory. Who subscribes to a theory that doesn't even work IN THEORY?

If yer theory requires a non-existent set of circumstances in order to work, IT DOESN'T WORK.

[cheapseats]

The point is that we need to be able to walk the uninformed though the pitfals of spurious arguments to assist them in seeing the benefits of liberty oriented society.


Seriously? STILL? Even NOW, you think the point is educating the Uniformed?

Do you envision sufficiently widespread Enlightenment THIS millennium or next?

[damiengwa]

Really? Didn't I just read about how Rand Paul doesn't yet have the "luxury of candor"


Feel better, Punk?

Yeah, he didn't run a full liberty message. He won an election. Every one has to start somewhere, but what YOU are suggesting is that WE aren't going to win arguments with principle, ever. But yet our ranks grow.

Hows about this, let the politicians equivocate like they always do. But as a man on the street trying to preach libertarianism, fire and brimstone only please. That is the way Patrick Henry did it. Then the equivocating politocrats wrote that goddam piece of paper that started us down the road to serfdom.

Yes i feel better. Don't take it personally, i'm just sick of how people drool at the feet of the politicians or think that voting will work or that we can 'take back' the government. The government is evil, and we need to jsut keep exposing it. Some will not listen to me or you, but maybe to an elected official like Rand or Ron they might, and get on down the right path like we all did.

But ultimately, Rand would make a tyrant too....

[Pericles]

Seriously? STILL? Even NOW, you think the point is educating the Uniformed?

Do you envision sufficiently widespread Enlightenment THIS millennium or next?
I considered the OPs query to be sufficiently courteous to merit a thought out reply without rancor or curtness. If somebody want to do a "drive by" post and otherwise be an ass, I'm not so nice or just blow it off as being unworthy of my time.

"With a gentleman I'm a gentleman and a half, with a fraud, I'm a fraud and a half." Francis Bacon

[cheapseats]

Why are Americans so afraid of death?

Exactly so.

MOREOVER, I observe they are not NEARLY so afraid for OTHERS to die. Quick! Anyone know the death toll in Afghanistan last week? An explosion the other day killed 19 but, fear not, only 5 of 'em were American.

[KCIndy]

Back to the banking question for a moment:

I would urge the OP (and everyone else, for that matter) to keep in mind that banks are "for profit" institutions, and often have home offices and headquarters in a different state hundreds of miles away.

I'm personally much more satisfied using Credit Unions. Most Credit Unions are local in nature, and usually nonprofit. They're community driven, and essentially financial co-ops. All this results in a much more personal relation between the financial institution and the local community.

Most of all, though: DO YOUR RESEARCH!! In this internet age, information is incredibly cheap. Ever wonder how financially secure your bank or credit union is?

You should.

Find out here:

http://www.bankrate.com/rates/safe-sound/bank-ratings-search.aspx

Bankrate.com shows the strength of a financial organization based on a one to five star rating. Three stars is average and "acceptable." If your institution is showing only one or two stars, you might start giving serious consideration to moving your assets! :)

[cheapseats]

I considered the OPs query to be sufficiently courteous to merit a thought out reply without rancor or curtness. If somebody want to do a "drive by" post and otherwise be an ass, I'm not so nice or just blow it off as being unworthy of my time.

"With a gentleman I'm a gentleman and a half, with a fraud, I'm a fraud and a half." Francis Bacon


Your sensitivity to the OP is duly noted.

But the question stands. Do you think we're still at the EDUCATE THE VOTERS stage?

[cheapseats]

YDon't take it personally,

FUCK OFF cheapseats IS personal, just so ya know.




i'm just sick of how people drool at the feet of the politicians or think that voting will work or that we can 'take back' the government.

I couldn't agree more.




The government is evil,

Rotten through and through, empirical evidence abounds.




Some will not listen to me or you, but maybe to an elected official like Rand or Ron they might, and get on down the right path like we all did.


I'd remind folks that Ron Paul has been in Congress for the better part of a quarter-century.




But ultimately, Rand would make a tyrant too....

Humans are flawed from the get-go and corruptible, to boot. As well, avoiding the pitfalls of Temptation does NOT automatically translate to effectiveness.

[damiengwa]

FUCK OFF cheapseats IS personal, just so ya know.

I couldn't agree more.

Rotten through and through, empirical evidence abounds.


I'd remind folks that Ron Paul has been in Congress for the better part of a quarter-century

Humans are flawed from the get-go and corruptible, to boot. As well, avoiding the pitfalls of Temptation does NOT automatically translate to effectiveness.

I meant the don't take it personal as more of a retraction... thought you were one of the drones telling us to moderate...

But you seem to contradiction yourself. Government is evil, you agree. Then why pussy-foot with people? Why are you telling folks to not speak out against all forms and manners.

As per congressman paul. he is one man. look at the number of minds he has changed! He spent a quarter century educating people. Now rand has the same chance. If he plays his cards right, in 6 years KY can be just as liberty friendly as Lake Jackson...

I ACCEPT that liberty oriented politicians sell out on core principles. But WE must maintain the torch or no one will....even Dr. Paul equivocates on borders and 'national defense'

[cheapseats]

But you seem to contradiction yourself. Government is evil, you agree. Then why pussy-foot with people?


I can be accused of many things. PUSSY FOOTING isn't one of 'em.



Why are you telling folks to not speak out against all forms and manners.

WHY? More like, WHERE?

BIG fan of liberty, right here. Positively COMMITTED to Freedom of Speech. And rather more libertarian than many self-described Libertarians.

Remarking on what is said, commenting on what I perceive to be the impacts and implications of what is said, is NOT the same thing as telling people what or what not to say.

[Icymudpuppy]

What bullshit.
The Native American's have alot to teach about the value of wisdom and who holds the most importance in society. I'm still young but most of my generation doesn't know jack.

He mentioned that his aunt was mentally retarded, not just physically infirm. I ask again what value there is in keeping such a person alive artificially. It's not like they're fattening her up for meat production.

A free market system would allow the family to really understand that her continued struggle with a death that God has already decreed is better to embrace sooner, than after all their life savings are extracted in keeping her alive.

[sofia]

It's easy to fall into liberalism when you see something you wish the government did for you. Two scenarios occurred recently that have caused me to ask questions. Please, in the name of liberty, straighten me out.

1) My aunt is very severely mentally retarded and took a turn for the worst this year, as doctor after doctor gave her drug after drug and really screwed her up. She's been in hospice, psych wards, hospitals, nursing homes, and a nurse has to be with her around clock. Forgive the obvious sob story; the reason I explain all this is because the government has footed the entire bill. Had it not been for Medicare and Medicaid paying these bills, my entire family would be spinning around trying to figure out what to do, because the bills would be in the hundreds of thousands. We would not have survived without the assistance. When I learned this, I had an identity crisis; am I ok with these terrible government systems?

2) My local bank was seized by the feds and forced to merge with a larger bank. In a discussion with a teller, she explained that the takeover fully benefited the larger bank, because the toxic assets were absorbed by TARP, allowing the larger bank to take over the books. I began to wonder, if my bank went under, and there was no TARP, my funds would be gone. If my bank declared bankruptcy, my life savings would be gone in a minute. And if there was no FDIC to insure it, I'd be out of luck...

I know it's a temporary lapse in judgment to think either of these things, but it was a look into the world of liberalism - how quick is the slippery slope when the desire to "get your share" kicks in, eh?

Someone please straighten me out.

the current predatory system forces many good people and businesses to be dependent upon the state.

No rational conservative advocates an instant end to these programs, but rather a gradual and humane phaseout to a liberty based system...one in which we build and retain enough wealth on our own to live free of government schemes

[Pericles]

Your sensitivity to the OP is duly noted.

But the question stands. Do you think we're still at the EDUCATE THE VOTERS stage?
Some people are uneducated and inquisitive - it is worth engaging them.

The vast majority fit de Tocqueville's description - "In America, a minority undertakes to supply a number of ready made opinions for the use by the majority, who are thus relieved of the necessity of thinking for themselves."

[cheapseats]

Some people are uneducated and inquisitive - it is worth engaging them.

The vast majority fit de Tocqueville's description - "In America, a minority undertakes to supply a number of ready made opinions for the use by the majority, who are thus relieved of the necessity of thinking for themselves."


You'll concede there's a lotta real estate between SHARING INFORMATION WITH THE INQUISITIVE and EDUCATING THE UNIFORMED?

Samuel Johnson:

"What may be done at all times with equal propriety, is deferred from day to day."

"The common neglect of the present hour is more shameful and criminal, as no man is betrayed to it by errour, but admits it by negligence."

"When ... any sharp pain is to be suffered, or any formidable danger to be incurred, we can scarcely exempt ourselves wholly from the seducements of imagination; we readily believe that another day will bring some support or advantage which we now want; and are easily persuaded, that the moment of necessity, which we desire never to arrive, is at a great distance from us."

"The folly of allowing ourselves to delay what we know cannot be finally escaped is one of the general weaknesses which, in spite of the instruction of moralists, and the remonstrances of reason, prevail to a greater or less degree in every mind."

"We every day see the progress of life retarded by the vis inertiae, the mere repugnance to motion, and find multitudes repining at the want of that which nothing but idleness hinders them from enjoying."

"The certainty that life cannot be long, and the probability that it will be much shorter than nature allows, ought to awaken every man to the active prosecution of whatever he is desirous to perform. It is true, that no diligence can ascertain success; death may intercept the swiftest career; but he who is cut off in the execution of an honest undertaking has at least the honour of falling in his rank, and has fought the battle, though he missed the victory."

"We see every day the unexpected death of our friends and our enemies, we see new graves hourly opened for men older and younger than our selves, for the cautious and the careless, the dissolute and the temperate, for men who like us were providing to enjoy or improve hours now irreversibly cut off: we see all this, and yet, instead of living, let year glide after year in preparations to live."

[cheapseats]

The government is evil,




Rotten through and through, empirical evidence abounds.



This exchange has nagged at me across three states.

GOVERNMENT, presuming it derives from a Constitution embraced by the Governed, is NOT inherently evil any more than a CORPORATION is inherently evil.

PEOPLE, as ever, are the wrench in the spokes.

It is why Libertarians, if they would court Popular Opinion, MUST vocally support limited Regulation. THE HONOR SYSTEM IS INADEQUATE SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE DARK SIDE OF HUMAN NATURE. Clearly.