The point is that take from the system without even trying to give back. While some of us are ambitious, others are layabouts. We force the ambitions to pay the layabouts to layabout, yet we go to very expensive ends to offer equality of services. Some skip school and rob houses, while other study hard and have great ambitious have to pay for that.
We can't force people to do something with their lives, but why should we have to suffer because of their choices?
I didn't mind that others cheated on tests and wasted their lives, I do mind that their right to do so is costing others that want to do great things with their lives. They choose to become layabouts because they don't want to work.
These are the same people that use shame to make people feel bad about having worked hard.
The key word is "some".
The reason she had 15 kids is exactly the issue. She is using the kids to get money. How is that different from me becoming a pimp? She's a pimp, the kids are being used to game the system.
No it isn't. If we had a machine to reverse those births then perhaps the reason why she had children would be relevant. But the fact of the matter is that 15 children now exist, regardless of the reasons for their being. These situations are very rare. The dilemma is that you punish the mother, which will inadvertently punish the children, who have done nothing wrong, or you ensure these children can be supported and raised.
What is your solution? Do you halt all welfare payments and let the children starve? Do you use these very rare situations to halt welfare to everybody else, the vast majority of which depend on it to survive?
It's interesting that some see Apple as gaming the system, yet defend someone with 15 kids as just fine. It was her choice, if she gets away with it, others will do the same thing.
Who is defending the mother? I'm defending the children. Unfortunately you cannot punish the mother for gaming the system without punishing the children. There really is no reason to hinge yourself on these very rare cases and ignore the majority of people who depend on various programmes to survive.
As to debt, you really don't understand economics. You say it would be irresponsible? Really? So it could be done and it would work?
We could print a 100 trillion dollar bill for everyone on earth every day and that would work? Do you know what happened to Zimbabwean dollar is printed with a face value of 100 trillion!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwean_dollar
I don't believe you have read my comment correctly. Irresponsible means not responsible. I said it would not work. But I also said that it is not impossible because the U.S. controls its own currency. I'm merely telling you that the U.S. can not go bankrupt (being unable to pay debt). For instance, the U.S. could survive in perpetuity continuously running low budget deficits (and it has done even running moderate deficits).
Government debt is not the same as individual debt.
Do you even understand what you said? "Full faith and credit" ?? That means it's value is based on the perceived ability to repay or at least service the debt. Greece _CAN_ go back to it's own currency, it was clearly an option that was on the table.
Debt has at least two sides
1. access to credit (someone willing to loan you the money)
2. your ability to service the debt.
Printing your own money only takes care of one of those. Do you really think that China would be willing to buy 100 trillion dollars of US debt? Who's going to purchase these TBills? What would the rate be?
That is an entirely separate issue, and part of the reason why I said quite clearly running very high debts in comparison to your national income would be irresponsible. Printing your own money only ensures that you can pay debt that has already been incurred, meaning it is not possible for you to go bankrupt, which is the whole point of what I said. It really wasn't a big thing to discuss, it's just a technicality in response to people like you who say the U.S. is going bankrupt. It isn't.
It's clear that you have the r selection gene and little or no frontal lobe development.
Not only are you not reading my posts correctly, but you are resorting to childish insults that are against the forum rules.
Did you even bother to read what I said about the "historically average interest rates" ??
This is simple math here. Take out a calculator, push the buttons, get the answer... What is the historic average interest rates?
Which part of my post are you replying to? Interest rates are at historic lows at the moment. What relation to my post is that?
Proper budgets from Washington ??
How much of the budget do you think is discretionary?
I'll repeat what I said earlier. "Mandatory" spending only concerns areas of spending that the Government has been legally obligated to pay as a result of federal law. The Government can change this at
any time. Washington can pass a budget that lowers benefits to major programmes, thus increasing their longevity, or they can increase revenues to pay for existing obligations.
What kind of answer is "I don't know. That's up to Chicago to fix." Did you not read the part about Detroit? ... It's been 50 years... 50 YEARS and Detroit is STILL not fixed .... Clue: It's NOT FIXABLE... They're BROKE and it's getting worse all the time. They have NOTHING to offer the world, it's over for them.
Detroit is a city that has suffered unfortunate and unlucky downturns due to industrial reasons. But it is a city. The U.S. Government represents the entire country. The financial situations of Detroit or Chicago and the Federal Government are not directly comparable.
Your theory is that the US can't go bankrupt because it's "too big to fail" and it currency is too widely used... complete hogwash. Do you not remember the global meltdown of 08?
The US paper dollar has whatever value people give it.
It can't go bankrupt! It's not a theory. Bankrupt means being unable to pay debts. It doesn't mean "unable to issue new debt". The U.S. can pay any debt that it incurs. It cannot go bankrupt unless it willfully chooses not to pay its debt obligations. This will never happen. This is partly the reason why it can, and likely always will, be able to issue new debt (because there is a next to 0% risk that it will not be paid).
Do you not understand what the Fed does? Do you not understand why they don't raise interest rates back to normal? Do you understand hyper inflation?
How much US debt was wiped out in the 1867 reconstruction?
What part of my post are you replying to here? You should use the quote tool. Yes, I understand the role of the Fed.
Fiat currency is just a way for people to store the results of their gains, they can use BitCoin if they wanted to, it's just a storage device. If it fails to hold it's value, people will dump it. This is why Greece didn't go back to their old currency, they didn't have the ability to support it.
Wow, it's hard for me to imagine that you actually think the way you do. Are you kidding or do you actually think that way?
If what you said were true, why wouldn't the government just print enough money to end poverty and give it to the poor people?
You've actually studied economics?
I already said why. Because it would be irresponsible. This means
not responsible. I have never advocated printing more money for the sake of doing so to support normal spending. I am just telling you that the U.S. cannot ever go bankrupt ("unable to pay debts already incurred") because it is the manufacturer of the U.S. Dollar, which its debt is denominated in. This is not my opinion. It is fact. Reality.
Paying taxes at this point really has little point, the ship is sinking, no need to paint a sinking ship. The US is the only nation on earth that double taxes it's people, the businesses see the writing on the wall and are preparing for the fail. That's why we have a global slowdown and it's not going away easy. You have a simplistic view of how things work, if it were so easy, why hasn't it worked. This has been the slowest recovery ever. This recover is worse at the 7 year mark when compared to the great depression and that was a crappy recovery that ended in WWII.
This was also the worst financial crisis since WWII (and that recovery was from a war torn planet).
As far as splitting the nation, you seem to forget they would print their own money. The value of that money would be based on the ability to repay and service it. They would be starting with a functional system, meaning they already have a form of government and can collect their own taxes. It's really an issue of them generating work. States like California and Texas have a larger economy that most nations, they'd no longer pay federal taxes so they can not only print their own money but can tax at whatever rate they want.
They wouldn't do any of that because states deciding to split unilaterally is illegal. It is also illegal for states to coin their own money.
Judges rule based on how they see things. We as a nation have had many discussions about the law and what it means, it's an ongoing process. Judges only give opinions, they've changed over the years. They ruled against same sex marriage, then for it. The changed the constitution over alcohol, then changed it back.
No they didn't. The Supreme Court has never ruled on same-sex marriage before the current case.
They young people have no future here, much like France or Greece. People come here because other nations are doing worse than we are and that's our only strength.
Greece is doing much worse than the U.S. for entirely different reasons. France is doing just fine. Not fantastic, but just fine.
Poverty numbers:
The problem is the shear number of people on these systems. Some 100 million is a sign of a failed system. How can 100 million people not find a way to make things work? It's a failed system.
100 million people comprise the elderly, disabled, students, children, and, yes, the poor. It's not a sign of a failed system. It's a sign of reality. The elderly, disabled, students, and children generally can't "make things work". Poor people cannot simply just get a $100K job. It's not me who is viewing the world too simplistically. It's you, who believes that people who depend on these programmes, mostly the elderly, children, and the very poor, can wave a magic wand and become less dependent on them.
