So, for all of those who make bad "life choices" should we let them rot on the street? I don't think so.

JTiger Wrote:So, for all of those who make bad "life choices" should we let them rot on the street? I don't think so.

No. It's what we have charities for. Government is not a charity, though sadly it's become one.

JTiger Wrote:So, for all of those who make bad "life choices" should we let them rot on the street? I don't think so.

Should you and I have to pay for someone's bad mistakes? If some moron drop-out with 5 kids can't get anything above a minimum wage job, is it our responsibility? Hell no. SOMEone will help them, but that should be left up to the individual that chooses to help them. It shouldn't be from some politician that takes my money by force and gives it away for a vote.

JTiger Wrote:So, for all of those who make bad "life choices" should we let them rot on the street?  I don't think so.

I know you're using an example based on some of the more conservative and libertarian views that the gov't should play no role whatsoever in handling the money and investments of individuals. However, no idea put forth by the current administration has advocated total elimination of the gov't controlled 'retirement' system. The current ideas are a modification to the system in hopes on doing one thing: making it more efficient.

I know liberals (calm down, I'm not insulting you, just explaining how a side is purporting things) claim that any change to the system other than raising SS taxes are going to put old people in the street, but that's hooey. It's the same scare tactic they've been using for decades and quite frankly, it's insulting. In so many words they are saying that the only way to do things is to let someone do it for you:

"Let us take your money and hang onto it because you're too stupid to handle it yourself. And don't trust those sleazy brokers. Sure, you'll make more money with them, but so will they. We don't want that. If people are making money and doing well for themselves, they won't need the gov't to help them. Then we're out of a job."

RebelKev Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:So, for all of those who make bad "life choices" should we let them rot on the street?  I don't think so.

Should you and I have to pay for someone's bad mistakes? If some moron drop-out with 5 kids can't get anything above a minimum wage job, is it our responsibility? Hell no. SOMEone will help them, but that should be left up to the individual that chooses to help them. It shouldn't be from some politician that takes my money by force and gives it away for a vote.

The problem with that is that you assume that someone WILL take care of all the persons that can't take care of themselves. Call me cynical, but I don't see people knocking each other over to give people money that they can't payback. I think charities have thier plates full with the needy they currently help.

Lethemeul Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:So, for all of those who make bad "life choices" should we let them rot on the street?  I don't think so.

I know you're using an example based on some of the more conservative and libertarian views that the gov't should play no role whatsoever in handling the money and investments of individuals. However, no idea put forth by the current administration has advocated total elimination of the gov't controlled 'retirement' system. The current ideas are a modification to the system in hopes on doing one thing: making it more efficient.

I know liberals (calm down, I'm not insulting you, just explaining how a side is purporting things) claim that any change to the system other than raising SS taxes are going to put old people in the street, but that's hooey. It's the same scare tactic they've been using for decades and quite frankly, it's insulting. In so many words they are saying that the only way to do things is to let someone do it for you:

"Let us take your money and hang onto it because you're too stupid to handle it yourself. And don't trust those sleazy brokers. Sure, you'll make more money with them, but so will they. We don't want that. If people are making money and doing well for themselves, they won't need the gov't to help them. Then we're out of a job."

I see what you are saying. No offense taken by the liberal label. I have alot of questions that this administration or for any administration that intends on completely changing a program that impacts so many of our citizens. I'll be interested to see what Bush had to say in the way of specifics.

That's the problem JT, Bush isn't and has never said he is trying to completely change SS. He wants people to be able to spend 2% of what they usually pay into SS and spend it on a private retirement account. It's a weaning process.

RebelKev Wrote:That's the problem JT, Bush isn't and has never said he is trying to completely change SS. He wants people to be able to spend 2% of what they usually pay into SS and spend it on a private retirement account. It's a weaning process.

Then it might not be a bad idea. I'd just like to hear the projected impact on the markets.

JTiger Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:That's the problem JT, Bush isn't and has never said he is trying to completely change SS. He wants people to be able to spend 2% of what they usually pay into SS and spend it on a private retirement account. It's a weaning process.

Then it might not be a bad idea. I'd just like to hear the projected impact on the markets.

Take a look at the 90's. A ton of money flooded the market.

Dogger Wrote:Speaking of selfishness vs. the common good. In Bowling Green Ohio, (University Town) people voted on whether to increase their electric bill by 2cents a KW/hr. You could choose this option to recieve your electric from a green source. I believe 8% of the population voted for the green energy. They did install two giant wind mills at the expense of the 8%. Now those 8% are ponying up the costs to make this a BETTER world. This is a prime example of the selfishness in our society. If more people or the govt. legislated that everybody pays the costs would have been cheaper and it would make for a better world.

I didn't think the 2 cent / kwh fee was linked to the windmills -- I thought it just gave citizens a choice in terms of buying into a greener energy portfolio -- but I'm not so familiar with the situation.

The windmills have been an enormous success, generating more power than expected. At some point, the city will likely throw up a couple more. At that point, the city will be generating a substantial percentage of its electricity (not sure off hand; maybe 20 percent) from wind.

It's already one of the biggest wind operations in the eastern United States. It makes me even more proud of Bowling Green to see them innovating like this.

Schad,


What makes it so sad is if it wasn't for those forward thinking 8% there wouldn't be windmills in BG.
A gentleman from the environmental studies program at BGSU gave me a tour and told me the history of the project.