Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 22, 2013 16:33:41 GMT -5
If you ever move to a northern state, try putting out a bird feeder through five winters and then taking it down during winter 6. It'll give you a crash course in dependence, provided you don't mind killing a few dozen birds. And so we shall. Vigorously. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/cool.png)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2013 17:44:13 GMT -5
If you ever move to a northern state, try putting out a bird feeder through five winters and then taking it down during winter 6. It'll give you a crash course in dependence, provided you don't mind killing a few dozen birds. you didn't say "dependence". you said "engineered dependence".
do you always move the goalposts, or just with me?
And so we shall. Vigorously. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/cool.png) disagreeing with what? you can't even make your mind up what you are talking about. maybe you should get vigorous with that.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 22, 2013 17:52:31 GMT -5
If you ever move to a northern state, try putting out a bird feeder through five winters and then taking it down during winter 6. It'll give you a crash course in dependence, provided you don't mind killing a few dozen birds. And so we shall. Vigorously. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/cool.png) Umm, I really hate to drop a bomb but ... people aren't birds.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 22, 2013 18:05:41 GMT -5
If you ever move to a northern state, try putting out a bird feeder through five winters and then taking it down during winter 6. It'll give you a crash course in dependence, provided you don't mind killing a few dozen birds. And so we shall. Vigorously. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/cool.png) Umm, I really hate to drop a bomb but ... people aren't birds. Same principle. Fewer feathers. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png)
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 22, 2013 18:08:46 GMT -5
LOL! Oh, good grief, Virgil! People are nothing like birds, feathers or otherwise. I'm amazed, at times, at the attitudes people seem to entertain concerning their fellow humans. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/rolleyes.gif)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 22, 2013 20:53:08 GMT -5
LOL! Oh, good grief, Virgil! People are nothing like birds, feathers or otherwise. I'm amazed, at times, at the attitudes people seem to entertain concerning their fellow humans. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/rolleyes.gif) "Good grief" back at'cha. Many of the greatest thinkers and philosophers this world has ever known have looked to animals for insights into the human condition. That in no way requires humans be similar to animals in every respect. If you want a contemporary example of learned dependence in humans, look no further than coal subsidies in the US, or the expiry of rent subsidies in Detroit.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 22, 2013 21:29:11 GMT -5
*sigh* I suppose, Virgil, you are one of the greatest thinkers and philosophers this world has ever known. I, on the other hand, am just an ol' woman who is very familiar with the term "bird brain" and what it implies. I'll not argue the existence of learned dependence. I will, however, continue to argue against the insistence that the majority of those on welfare are there due to that concept. It just isn't so in my experience.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2013 23:58:09 GMT -5
LOL! Oh, good grief, Virgil! People are nothing like birds, feathers or otherwise. I'm amazed, at times, at the attitudes people seem to entertain concerning their fellow humans. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/rolleyes.gif) that's true. birds don't torture each other. birds don't take more than they need. birds don't covet the goods of other birds. we should devolve a bit.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 23, 2013 0:00:26 GMT -5
LOL! Oh, good grief, Virgil! People are nothing like birds, feathers or otherwise. I'm amazed, at times, at the attitudes people seem to entertain concerning their fellow humans. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/rolleyes.gif) "Good grief" back at'cha. Many of the greatest thinkers and philosophers this world has ever known have looked to animals for insights into the human condition. That in no way requires humans be similar to animals in every respect. If you want a contemporary example of learned dependence in humans, look no further than coal subsidies in the US, or the expiry of rent subsidies in Detroit. now it is learned dependence...... tell you what, Virgil. when you make up your mind which adjective you are going to apply to dependence to describe it, i will address your point, but not before then. until then, have fun with your thesaurus.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 23, 2013 8:24:57 GMT -5
The 'rich people' see it (of course, we're not talking about really 'rich' people, but 'high income earners') because it's theirs. The 'poor' (who are not poor at all, but just dependent) see it because it was taken from those to whom it belongs and given to them.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it" - Frederic Bastiat
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 23, 2013 8:26:03 GMT -5
this is actually pretty on target with the study. even though food stamp recipients are poor, they still give what little they have to their families. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png) This is a for-profit food exportation business with the inventory purchased by the taxpayers. You think they're 'giving' this food away to their 'families"? You're a laugh riot.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 23, 2013 9:59:06 GMT -5
"Good grief" back at'cha. Many of the greatest thinkers and philosophers this world has ever known have looked to animals for insights into the human condition. That in no way requires humans be similar to animals in every respect. If you want a contemporary example of learned dependence in humans, look no further than coal subsidies in the US, or the expiry of rent subsidies in Detroit. now it is learned dependence...... tell you what, Virgil. when you make up your mind which adjective you are going to apply to dependence to describe it, i will address your point, but not before then. until then, have fun with your thesaurus. For sake of this discussion, let 'dependence' refer to both 'engineered dependence' and 'learned dependence'. 'Engineered dependence' from the perspective of social engineers implementing the policies that create the dependence (although 'engineered' admittedly implies the dependence is somehow intended, which I am not positing to be the case); 'learned dependence' from the perspective of the dependents, who learn to be dependent on the policies.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jul 23, 2013 10:07:11 GMT -5
Perhaps so in most cases. However "Water and Waste removal for Rural Communities" and "Public Works" help everyone, not just the poor. I see your point though. I also see that this blows the $61,000.00/ poor person angle right out of the water. Actually not exactly in a sense that poor people will 'see' it. Funds are extended to provide Community Development Block Grants, for example, but these are not funds paid directly to poor people, so it isn't money they ever 'see.' Some agency gets the funds. Same thing with Head Start, food programs for the elderly and water and waste removal for Rural Communities - no one gets a check in the mail for that. However if you're making the point that there seems to be a lot of money that the federal government is forking over for all kinds of programs - I agree, and I think we need to start cutting back the pork across the board. Paying sky high prices for basic military equipment purchased through government contracts would be a great place to start trimming - so would the premium healthcare programs all the senators and representatives get on the taxpayer dime. Let's start cutting there. I agree. But at some point, we're also going to have to start making cuts in the poverty industry. Like any government program, the vast majority of spending on poverty goes to overhead--social workers, administrators, etc. There aren't that many people out there that think a significant portion of poor people are collecting $60k, $50k or even $30k from the government. Most of it is going to middle class people working in 'the system', and they have every reason in the world to do everything in their power to keep the status quo, including those cliffs, where earning more money lowers the poor person's standard of living.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 23, 2013 14:09:15 GMT -5
The 'rich people' see it (of course, we're not talking about really 'rich' people, but 'high income earners') because it's theirs. The 'poor' (who are not poor at all, but just dependent) see it because it was taken from those to whom it belongs and given to them. see what?"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it" - Frederic Bastiat everyone plunders, bro. wake up. trading money for time is the devil's bargain.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 23, 2013 14:11:31 GMT -5
now it is learned dependence...... tell you what, Virgil. when you make up your mind which adjective you are going to apply to dependence to describe it, i will address your point, but not before then. until then, have fun with your thesaurus. For sake of this discussion, let 'dependence' refer to both 'engineered dependence' and 'learned dependence'. let's not. a child has innate dependence. nothing wrong with that. learned dependence is a problem, no question. engineered dependence is totally different. master/slave relationships are engineered dependence: they are DESIGNED to keep people dependent. are you saying that social welfare is DESIGNED to create dependence? if so, i could not more fervently disagree.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 23, 2013 14:14:51 GMT -5
Actually not exactly in a sense that poor people will 'see' it. Funds are extended to provide Community Development Block Grants, for example, but these are not funds paid directly to poor people, so it isn't money they ever 'see.' Some agency gets the funds. Same thing with Head Start, food programs for the elderly and water and waste removal for Rural Communities - no one gets a check in the mail for that. However if you're making the point that there seems to be a lot of money that the federal government is forking over for all kinds of programs - I agree, and I think we need to start cutting back the pork across the board. Paying sky high prices for basic military equipment purchased through government contracts would be a great place to start trimming - so would the premium healthcare programs all the senators and representatives get on the taxpayer dime. Let's start cutting there. I agree. But at some point, we're also going to have to start making cuts in the poverty industry. i would posit that there is a poverty industry, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with government**. because of that, it really bothers me when people infer or directly state that it is. **project censored covered this story in 1996. the Houston Chronicle (a very good paper for investigative reporting) reported on it. it was picked up by precisely ZERO papers and TV stations in the "liberal" media at the time, and died a quiet death. all of this is nicely archived HERE: www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/7-cashing-in-on-poverty/
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 23, 2013 15:42:17 GMT -5
For sake of this discussion, let 'dependence' refer to both 'engineered dependence' and 'learned dependence'. let's not. a child has innate dependence. nothing wrong with that. learned dependence is a problem, no question. engineered dependence is totally different. master/slave relationships are engineered dependence: they are DESIGNED to keep people dependent. are you saying that social welfare is DESIGNED to create dependence? if so, i could not more fervently disagree. Drop the "engineered". I meant it in the sense of social engineering, and I admitted it implies the wrong things.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 23, 2013 17:40:37 GMT -5
I agree. But at some point, we're also going to have to start making cuts in the poverty industry. i would posit that there is a poverty industry, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with government**. because of that, it really bothers me when people infer or directly state that it is. **project censored covered this story in 1996. the Houston Chronicle (a very good paper for investigative reporting) reported on it. it was picked up by precisely ZERO papers and TV stations in the "liberal" media at the time, and died a quiet death. all of this is nicely archived HERE: www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/7-cashing-in-on-poverty/Yeah- that was really revealing. Before I read that I had no idea that bad credit risks paid more in interest than good credit risks. Of course, there is a solution- no credit for bad credit risks at all. That's the right answer, but our entitlement society isn't ready to hear that just yet.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 23, 2013 17:47:18 GMT -5
this is actually pretty on target with the study. even though food stamp recipients are poor, they still give what little they have to their families. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png) This is a for-profit food exportation business with the inventory purchased by the taxpayers. You think they're 'giving' this food away to their 'families"? You're a laugh riot. You have actual proof of your assertion or are you just bloviating once again? ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png)
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 23, 2013 17:52:43 GMT -5
This is a for-profit food exportation business with the inventory purchased by the taxpayers. You think they're 'giving' this food away to their 'families"? You're a laugh riot. You have actual proof of your assertion or are you just bloviating once again? ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png) I have a brain. Let's just think about this for, I dunno- a nanosecond or so: The recipients of the food subsidies ostensibly cannot afford food, is that about right? So, they buy enough food with subsidies to load up a 55 gallon drum, and ship it to the Caribbean- absorbing the cost of shipping and the drum- to say nothing of a huge supply of food when they can't afford it which is why they're on assistance, and they have money left over to pay the shipping costs? Sorry, but there's money in it- or it wouldn't be happening.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 23, 2013 18:06:26 GMT -5
You have actual proof of your assertion or are you just bloviating once again? ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png) I have a brain. Let's just think about this for, I dunno- a nanosecond or so: The recipients of the food subsidies ostensibly cannot afford food, is that about right? So, they buy enough food with subsidies to load up a 55 gallon drum, and ship it to the Caribbean- absorbing the cost of shipping and the drum- to say nothing of a huge supply of food when they can't afford it which is why they're on assistance, and they have money left over to pay the shipping costs? Sorry, but there's money in it- or it wouldn't be happening. Of course not Paul, people never ever think of how their families are doing after they get here. They don't give two shits about their kids, their parents or brothers and sisters that they have had to leave behind in extremely impoverished places like Haiti or parts of Africa. (sarcasm)
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 23, 2013 18:07:45 GMT -5
i would posit that there is a poverty industry, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with government**. because of that, it really bothers me when people infer or directly state that it is. **project censored covered this story in 1996. the Houston Chronicle (a very good paper for investigative reporting) reported on it. it was picked up by precisely ZERO papers and TV stations in the "liberal" media at the time, and died a quiet death. all of this is nicely archived HERE: www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/7-cashing-in-on-poverty/Yeah- that was really revealing. Before I read that I had no idea that bad credit risks paid more in interest than good credit risks. Of course, there is a solution- no credit for bad credit risks at all. That's the right answer, but our entitlement society isn't ready to hear that just yet. Explain please. It sounds like you think govt should step in and control the free market, which doesn't sound much like you. It also sounds like you are calling people who pay really high interest rates entitled, which frankly makes no sense.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 23, 2013 18:15:23 GMT -5
I have a brain. Let's just think about this for, I dunno- a nanosecond or so: The recipients of the food subsidies ostensibly cannot afford food, is that about right? So, they buy enough food with subsidies to load up a 55 gallon drum, and ship it to the Caribbean- absorbing the cost of shipping and the drum- to say nothing of a huge supply of food when they can't afford it which is why they're on assistance, and they have money left over to pay the shipping costs? Sorry, but there's money in it- or it wouldn't be happening. Of course not Paul, people never ever think of how their families are doing after they get here. They don't give two shits about their kids, their parents or brothers and sisters that they have had to leave behind in extremely impoverished places like Haiti or parts of Africa. (sarcasm) It is extremely common for immigrants to send food or money back to relatives. I'm surprised PBP isn't aware of this given a fairly common complaint about immigrants is they are sending money they are earning out of the country. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271455/Revealed-How-immigrants-America-sending-120-BILLION-struggling-families-home.htmlI really don't think people are sending $120 billion dollars to relatives in foreign countries, but then charging them to send some food their way. ETA - I do think PBP's comment speaks towards the topic of this thread though. People in poverty and extremely low income are sending what little they have back home to take care of relatives. PBP, with his high income, can't imagine someone would do something so generous without a profit involved.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 23, 2013 18:18:08 GMT -5
Yeah- that was really revealing. Before I read that I had no idea that bad credit risks paid more in interest than good credit risks. Of course, there is a solution- no credit for bad credit risks at all. That's the right answer, but our entitlement society isn't ready to hear that just yet. Explain please. It sounds like you think govt should step in and control the free market, which doesn't sound much like you. It also sounds like you are calling people who pay really high interest rates entitled, which frankly makes no sense. No, I think the government should GET OUT of the free market, while that does mean letting banks sink or swim, it also means backing off the bullshit about "discrimination" when a lender says, "No".
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 23, 2013 18:26:05 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to correct you. They aren't sending what they have. They're sending taxpayer dollars that they qualified for ostensibly because they don't have enough to eat- or at least that is the spirit of the program. If they don't need the food, we should cut them off. It's not really that complicated- if they're getting a 55 gallon drum worth of surplus food they don't need- buh bye. They're done. No more aid for them. This isn't generosity, it's a rip off- profit, or no.
And again, there's profit. When you have stores that sell food in Caribbean neighborhoods also selling the barrels that is by definition, an 'industry'. There's money in this, or it would not be happening.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 23, 2013 18:28:20 GMT -5
I have a brain. Let's just think about this for, I dunno- a nanosecond or so: The recipients of the food subsidies ostensibly cannot afford food, is that about right? So, they buy enough food with subsidies to load up a 55 gallon drum, and ship it to the Caribbean- absorbing the cost of shipping and the drum- to say nothing of a huge supply of food when they can't afford it which is why they're on assistance, and they have money left over to pay the shipping costs? Sorry, but there's money in it- or it wouldn't be happening. Of course not Paul, people never ever think of how their families are doing after they get here. They don't give two shits about their kids, their parents or brothers and sisters that they have had to leave behind in extremely impoverished places like Haiti or parts of Africa. (sarcasm) Ah, so now we're not just going to rationalize "redistribution" in the United States, but US taxpayers are supposed to worry about every bad off family in every dark corner of the world? Sorry, but that's for private charity. The United States taxpayer should cut this off immediately.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 23, 2013 18:30:18 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to correct you. They aren't sending what they have. They're sending taxpayer dollars that they qualified for ostensibly because they don't have enough to eat- or at least that is the spirit of the program. If they don't need the food, we should cut them off. It's not really that complicated- if they're getting a 55 gallon drum worth of surplus food they don't need- buh bye. They're done. No more aid for them. This isn't generosity, it's a rip off- profit, or no. And again, there's profit. When you have stores that sell food in Caribbean neighborhoods also selling the barrels that is by definition, an 'industry'. There's money in this, or it would not be happening. I am not arguing about whether it is an ok use of the food stamp money. I am just arguing that the senders are not making a profit, which is what you clearly were implying when you said: and They are giving this food away to their families and not to make a profit off of it. Sure there is a surrounding industry making a profit, but that isn't what you were referring to in your statements.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 23, 2013 18:32:36 GMT -5
Of course not Paul, people never ever think of how their families are doing after they get here. They don't give two shits about their kids, their parents or brothers and sisters that they have had to leave behind in extremely impoverished places like Haiti or parts of Africa. (sarcasm) Ah, so now we're not just going to rationalize "redistribution" in the United States, but US taxpayers are supposed to worry about every bad off family in every dark corner of the world? Sorry, but that's for private charity. The United States taxpayer should cut this off immediately. Did I say any such thing? Of course I didn't. But don't let that stop you from making shit up.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 23, 2013 18:32:47 GMT -5
Explain please. It sounds like you think govt should step in and control the free market, which doesn't sound much like you. It also sounds like you are calling people who pay really high interest rates entitled, which frankly makes no sense. No, I think the government should GET OUT of the free market, while that does mean letting banks sink or swim, it also means backing off the bullshit about "discrimination" when a lender says, "No". Why would a lender say "no", they are making bank by saying "yes"? Which is why your solution to have "no credit for bad credit risks at all" makes no sense. Free market dictates there is enormous profit in giving credit to bad credit risk, so there is no reason to limit that.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 23, 2013 18:34:59 GMT -5
Ah, so now we're not just going to rationalize "redistribution" in the United States, but US taxpayers are supposed to worry about every bad off family in every dark corner of the world? Sorry, but that's for private charity. The United States taxpayer should cut this off immediately. Did I say any such thing? Of course I didn't. But don't let that stop you from making shit up. He really is going all twisty with words today. I think he is doing this to avoid admitting that he was clearly wrong that the families are sending the food home because they are simply generous and taking care of each other. It is easier to shift the subject and try to accuse you of saying something you clearly did not.
|
|