In reply to alfadriver:
What organization?
SVreX wrote: Nobody gave a E36 M3 about Clinton's BJ. He dug his own grave when he got on national television, wagged his finger at the camera (and the American people), and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". How stupid did he think we were? The moment things changed for President Clinton Meanwhile, his security team was somewhere in a back room saying, "What the berkeley do do you mean, she's got his DNA on the dress???" It was a bold-faced lie. He looked the American people in the eye and broke the trust they had put in him. JFK didn't do that. It wasn't that he was a skirt chaser. Everyone knew it, and knew there had been many before him. It was his willingness to lie so directly, and so blatantly. It created (or validated) a distrust of everything he said.
This. It still wasn't an acceptable action, but he could have salvaged some dignity and reputation if he had admitted it as a mistake and moved on.
On the subject of Kennedy: He was killed a little before I was born, but from my knowledge of him, I wouldn't have liked him as a person or as a President.
American politics was put on the current horrible trajectory the moment Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected. It was no Oz before that, and it was not without corruption, certainly... but FDR's presidency was the point where we made the fundamental switch from personal responsibility to "the gummint needs to fix everything". It was also the rise of the mistaken assumption that the government could control everything and thereby make it better. Failure to recognize the fundamental hubris of this assumption is a large part of what has gotten us where we are today, too. Continual, overreaching effort to control everything is what leads to the Law of Unintended Consequences making a mockery of those efforts, and worsening the situation.
And yet the vast majority of people still find it easier to keep taking the red pill or the blue pill, despite the fact that neither one leads to understanding reality.
I actually think it can be bad to be optimistic. Pessimism is being prepared for trouble, optimism is being surprised by it. Optimism could leave you better prepared for opportunity, but I find that trouble is extremely common and opportunity is vanishingly rare.
Furthermore one of the things that pisses me off about people's attitudes these days is the way that while our society is on a clear path to economic and environmental ruin everybody acts like everything's OK unless the problem hits them personally. Too many people are Edward Scissorhands characters living in a Blade Runner world, and won't change until the trouble crosses their little white picket fence.
In reply to alfadriver:
I appreciate the positive efforts.
I do not appreciate the veiled insults and falsehoods.
Your world is not mine. In my world, I am one of the very few people I know who is doing better than I was 5 years ago.
I realize this will sound like an insult to you. It's not, but I don't know any other way to say it honestly. I appreciate your positive approach very much. But it has an edge which is elitist and condescending, which I do not appreciate.
You mentioned vacations, fancy purchases, expensive restaurants, and new cars. Those are really nice things. But the people I know aren't doing those things.
Our worlds are different. I am working hard to understand your world and grow from your inputs and the things I learn from you. I don't think you give a rat's behind about my world.
GameboyRMH wrote: I actually think it can be bad to be optimistic. Pessimism is being prepared for trouble, optimism is being surprised by it.
Hi, I'm an optimist. I believe that I will be in a very good financial state in 5 years, and I believe that the US and global economy will be fine and everything will work itself out, as it always has.
I'm also fully prepared for a HUGE economic downturn. Huh, how about that?
mtn wrote: Hi, I'm an optimist. I believe that I will be in a very good financial state in 5 years, and I believe that the US and global economy will be fine and everything will work itself out, as it always has. I'm also fully prepared for a HUGE economic downturn. Huh, how about that?
Sounds like you're not too confident about that optimism...in fact I might call you a "closeted pessimist." If you're so sure things will be great, why go through all that preparation?
Alternatively maybe you like prepping as a hobby - I could get that - and the reason is an afterthought
The problem with going by the new housing market.. is there are still a -lot- of empty houses out there. The street behind my father's place is practically populated by empty houses that were foreclosed upon.
One of my friends and co-workers lost his job with the Army Corps of Engineers after he needed open heart surgery (they caught it before the widow maker) and wound up losing his house. The bank still owns it.. is still charging him money (not that he can pay) and it was recently almost sold for a cash deal.. until the bank got greedy and came back with a demand for 20k more from the seller, who then walked.
Going back to the original question. You can blame most of the problems in this nation to CNN. They were the first to do the 24/7 news and have needed to fill those airwaves ever since. The companies that followed (MSN and FOX) also need to fill every minute of every day.. so naturally they put shows on the air that pander to their audience, raise their ratings, do little to actually keep us informed, but do a lot to entertain us
GameboyRMH wrote:mtn wrote: Hi, I'm an optimist. I believe that I will be in a very good financial state in 5 years, and I believe that the US and global economy will be fine and everything will work itself out, as it always has. I'm also fully prepared for a HUGE economic downturn. Huh, how about that?Sounds like you're not too confident about that optimism...in fact I might call you a "closeted pessimist." If you're so sure things will be great, why go through all that preparation? Alternatively maybe you like prepping as a hobby - I could get that - and the reason is an afterthought
I go through with the preparation because I'm also a realist. I recognize that I'll see a large economic downturn or three in my life (again, I did live through the last one and started saving during it). In order for my optimism to work--the idea that I can afford a nice life, a nice retirement, luxury items, college for my children--I have to save now. Otherwise I'll be one of those "I'll never retire blahrgh I can't save to my 401k on my measley income berk Obama/Bush/Snoopy" folks. That is a pessimist--the idea that there is no point in preparing since it will all be taken away somehow. The optimist says, well, sure there will be a hit. But it will recover, and be stronger.
I'm pretty optimistic. Overall even though Congress is full of self serving thieves We The Sheeple do a pretty good job of shaking our heads and actually fixing what those idiots just argue about.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: (deep breath) Because we have been cultivated to. It takes a man with nothing to lose to start a rebellion. If you want change outside the confines of legal means then you have to risk something. The people of this country are "First world hungry" and "First world poor" but the number of people who are not really having their needs for survival met are few. A "miffed" body of people are what we really are. The ruling class knows damn well that if you buy off the poor with subsidies and keep the working class in big screen TVs that no large opposition force is going to hold. Sorry... but fat, dumb and happy is how to rule. And we are.
This is essentially "it". A drastic governmental change will require drastic measures. It will require a large portion of the population willing to die to affect that change. And despite whining from the Left and Right, the general population is far too comfortable for that to ever happen.
To get something different, you must do something different.
General question.
What are you prepared to change in your personal behavior?
Ok---- how about solutions? Here's mine:
Willing to "just" live comfortably in exchange for my personal time. Obviously if I had a child, I'd want a slightly larger home and a slightly bigger paycheck, but for the most part I'm comfortable driving a used car, living in a smaller house, having a smaller paycheck, as long as have more time to enjoy life.
Hence we're moving across country, for a raise and income that will only barely cover the additional costs of living. I'll be getting more paid holidays, more vacation, better pay, and so we're trading "moving forward" for being able to enjoy life the way we want.
I feel as though the typical demand for bigger and better and more money grows the system, yes, which is great, but it also does so in an unsustainable manner, always teetering on the edge of collapse.
PHeller wrote: I feel as though the typical demand for bigger and better and more money grows the system, yes, which is great, but it also does so in an unsustainable manner, always teetering on the edge of collapse.
I think that most of today's economic problems are caused by most of the world trying to run the economic engine backwards with supply-side economics. If we could undo this terrible mistake we'd all be a lot better off - at least for a decade or two when other factors will threaten to break the system.
mad_machine wrote: One of my friends and co-workers lost his job with the Army Corps of Engineers after he needed open heart surgery (they caught it before the widow maker) and wound up losing his house. The bank still owns it.. is still charging him money (not that he can pay) and it was recently almost sold for a cash deal.. until the bank got greedy and came back with a demand for 20k more from the seller, who then walked.
This one phrase says so much about the point of view from which it is coming.
It sucks your friend was sick, it sucks he lost his job and house; I agree, that sucks.
BUT: The bank is still charging him money because he still owes them money. I understand he can't pay and I understand that there are valid reasons why... but that doesn't magically make the debt go away. And I seriously doubt that the "greedy" bank was trying to make $20,000 extra profit on this deal. They were probably just trying to reduce the amount of their loss. But of course, it has to be the bank's fault, somehow.
In reply to Duke:
And not to mention his friend could be liable for the difference in what he owed the bank and what they get from the property....in turn, the bank could actually be doing him a favor by trying to limit what he would be liable for.
Granted, I'm pretty sure each state is a little different on all those points.
Duke wrote:mad_machine wrote: One of my friends and co-workers lost his job with the Army Corps of Engineers after he needed open heart surgery (they caught it before the widow maker) and wound up losing his house. The bank still owns it.. is still charging him money (not that he can pay) and it was recently almost sold for a cash deal.. until the bank got greedy and came back with a demand for 20k more from the seller, who then walked.This one phrase says so much about the point of view from which it is coming. It sucks your friend was sick, it sucks he lost his job and house; I agree, that sucks. BUT: The bank is still charging him money because he still *owes* them money. I understand he can't pay and I understand that there are valid reasons why... but that doesn't magically make the debt go away. And I seriously doubt that the "greedy" bank was trying to make $20,000 extra *profit* on this deal. They were probably just trying to reduce the amount of their loss. But of course, it *has* to be the bank's fault, somehow.
Yeah, the Bank isn't being greedy here. Fact is, your friend made a bet that he would be able to continue paying. It sucks that he wasn't, and is an awful reason why, but take the bank out of it. Say it was you, and you didn't know the person personally. You told him you would give him $100,000 if he gave you $105,000 later. Now, he says something happened, and he can't pay. You're out $100,000 because he can't pay. So you go and take the item that he bought with your money, and try to sell it, since it is of no value to you. You find out that you can get $60,000 for it. Do you take that, and then try to get the $40,000 from the guy even though you know he won't be able to pay? Or do you try to get $80,000, and hope that you get it and hope that he can pay you $20,000? And if he can't, I'd much rather write off $20,000 rather than $40,000. Not being greedy, IMHO.
This one is really a rant against the employment laws/insurance/socialized medicine debates rather than the banks. (I worked in a Bank Collection Center in a former life)
EDIT: This is also why disability insurance, workmans-comp, unemployment insurance, unemployment benefits, etc. exist. Not getting them is a gamble--the same as getting them is.
Joe Gearin for President! Form the GRM political party! Does anybody here have any money to run a campaign? No? Me neither...
Too bad, I bet we could whip up a pretty awesome presidential limo at a substantial savings to the taxpayer.
Rufledt wrote: Too bad, I bet we could whip up a pretty awesome presidential limo at a substantial savings to the taxpayer.
Does it have to be a limo?
In reply to GameboyRMH:
Since Idiocracy is the documentary of our future, that would probably be appropriate.
In reply to SVreX:
this points to a larger, and what I think is ultimately the true problem in overwhelming number of instances:
1: the inability of an individual to clearly state or acknowledge whats important to or wanted by them, and 2
2: even if it is being stated, finding someone empathic/sympathetic to learning what that is.
I will commit that many of my economic views skew firmly to the right,so that covers#1. However, in any attempt to have a discourse with someone, you have to have at least either a genuine attempt to understand or faithful attempt to be persuaded. If I have a view that may run contrary to someone, its becoming increasingly less likely that they will expend any effort to understand or care about that, and instead of confronting the issue, itself, they perform a sequence of logical fallacies, the most common of which are strawman and scotsman, not to persuade or understand in their terms but to cast shame.
...hence the absurdity of such platitudes like republicans dont care about women, trees, babies, peace, or brown people.
the original poster, for one example, has asserted a viewpoint that some senators have taken up an action because they don't like the president. Holding up an opinion in this fashion basically is tantamount to not having to defend it on an intellectual level from any further scrutiny. After all, if you can dismiss your opposition as simply not liking you and that all their decision making flows from this, what reason would you (positioning yourself as the mature and correct one of the situation) bother engage in a dialog with them about anything?
and if you get challenged to defend such a thing, then you're no longer talking about the issue. intransigence ensues.
however, people are realising that the power to persuade thru inflammation has its limit of being tolerated. It becomes too easy to dismiss that the opposition might care about the same things you do.
You'll need to log in to post.