liberty41988 wrote:Etudiant... again, I remind you that I am a simple woman and with that a quick reminder that nothing in this world is perfect, ie: our government. Regarding your observations on Wall Street and mortgage brokers, I can only say that once again, our government did not make a move to protect and/or defend its citizens. As Alan Greenspan continued to lower interest rates, thereby making it possible for brokers to offer loans for homes to folks that clearly couldn't afford them... crickets were the only sound. As far as Wall Street goes, I will simply say, minus the multitude of factual data, that our government is neatly in the mix of grubbers that not only make tons of money while we aren't looking, but do it under a severe case of 'conflict of interest'. I guess my simple point is this: we have a government that selectively decides what laws will be enforced and upon whom to enforce them. I don't trust that, and I don't believe in blind trust either. It drives me crazy when I see and hear about the diverse injustices that result from our 'laws'. When a drug user does more time in prison than a drug dealer, we need to rethink some things. When a murderer gets a deal due to his 'plea bargin' I have to question the legal professionals that would rather 'settle' than to litigate. Lady Justice wears a cover over her eyes so that she can't be swayed by a person's gender, race or looks. Our laws should be 'across the board' fair and apply to anyone that violates them. But, alas, we don't live in a perfect world. I see red when I think of the crooks in fine suits that depleated the savings of unsuspecting, trusting, hardworking investors. Is that criminal? Yes! Should they be punished to the fullest? Yes! Should they pay restitution to the injured parties? ABSOLUTLY! I want our government to protect us from criminals... not be a part of that hootenanny! An unregulated government is no different than unregulated laws... who is at the helm? Knowing that, I am not very willing to put more control in their hands, such as deciding issues that affect my free speech and the rights that all of us live in this country to enjoy.

If I hear you correctly, you are lamenting the fact that you have been short changed by those in government. I can't say I disagree here, and in fact we have had some of the same in this country. But you are talking about people and their actions. The human race consists of a broad spectrum of characters, not all of whom one would like as a neighbour- or a leader. But you have also said yourself that you have great admiration for the institutions of government- the constitution, congress, etc. In other words, the current crop of people are failing to measure up to the ideals of those that have gone before. People in government change. Even right-wing Republicans of a few years back would have been horrified at the lax regulations, and surrender to special interests seen today, some of which you list here.

What is unsaid, but implicit in your post, is that others should take up the responsibility of running things. You don't trust government, so some other entity would be better. But what exactly? If you are talking about corporations, then I suggest you will be compounding problems. Being in the private sector is absolutely no guarantee of good management skills, honest character, or principled values. Bureaucratic waste in government pails in comparsion to that of the corporate world. Just look at the 2008 meltdown, or the booms and busts, scams and shell games of the decades before. You would not only have the issue of potentially bad management decisons, but also the injection of the profit motive, skewing the issues even more.

If you are suggesting individual control of the economy and social services, then you are essentially advocating anarchy, in the literal sense of the word. To see the future here, one needs only do a quick look at Somalia or the Congo to get the picture. 310 million people all informing themselves on a professional level on what is needed to administer the economy, supply services, regulate myriod organizations and industries, and doing the administrative and logistical work to enact it, all the while fighting off lobbyists, nay-sayers, criminals, crazies, militias, ...it beggars the mind.

liberty41988 wrote: Regarding bad choices in life... its true that cigarette smoking can potentially cause expensive illnesses, but the same is true when you consider other choices people make in life. Men that frequent prostitutes can potentially get a deadly social disease that can costs hundreds of thousands as well. Lack of prenatal care can cost tons also. The list of bad choices goes on an' on. Personal responsibility must start somewhere. I own guns... do I look down the barrel of it to determine if its loaded? Do I leave them sitting on the couch when small children are in my home? When do we start to take responsibility for our actions?

You are lumping all risk together here, when clearly, all risk is not the same. Sure, just living is a risk. But that says nothing about our day to day life. Smoking vastly increases one's risk of serious illness and early death. The point here is that you are saying no one should tell others what to do. But that simply excludes the rights of the larger community. If you are going to extract resources from the community, then some sort of reasonable rules of the game must be accepted. You are advocating a society in which gun ownership is widespread. But if you are shot for some reason, my guess is that you are going to insist society (the medical system) provides you with all the resources it has (which you haven't paid for completely, and couldn't possibly do for yourself). Taking societies benefits means taking socities rules.

liberty41988 wrote: It use to be that a person who couldn't afford health care because they just didn't make enough money, would still be afforded the privilege of care. What our President just did with Obama care, was to extend this help beyond the means of our citizens. Instead of decreasing those that need the help, in one big swoop, he has added to the list. Folks with working arms, legs and strong backs are willing to let someone else take care of them. No responsibility for themselves... the government will help. This is a bad message which leaves very little motivation. Do I appear heartless? Unwilling to help my fellow man? What do you suggest?

Do you have home insurance? Life insurance? Your car? This is the same principle, but on a grander scale. It's about risk management, but also risk in relation to society at large, including all peripheral costs. It is something all other modern industrial states do, and do more extensively. And successfully. American pay more per capita for health care than all other similar states, some by a very wide margin. Where are the ethics in this? And if you feel this "Obama care" is wrong ethically, are you going to cancel your various insurance policies?

liberty41988 wrote: I greatly enjoy your views, as well as the views of others. I learn much from that.... and I do have much to continue to learn. I hope you understand that I am somewhat passionate about my freedoms and the freedoms of others that deserve to have them to the fullest.

Thank you. Your passion comes through clearly. I don't really buy the "simple woman" thing, though! I live in a state (Virginia) with a very conservative attorney general, Ken Cuchinelli. He'll be a candidate for governor, for certain. He has just written a book (not out yet) in which he says that we've created a culture of dependency that is self-perpetuating. This is of course a common conservative theme. Just to say this causes many liberal people to go ballistic without asking any further. I tend to be on the liberal side, but I'll try to give his views a respectful hearing. I work social services, and certainly I've seen evidence of people taking advantage and gaming the system. The question might be, how much abuse is there in relation to the real need? We always hear about the abusers and so might want to throw the baby out with the bathwater--but what if we're talking about only a tiny percentage of the folks who receive benefits? That wouldn't seem to be nearly a good enough reason to tell everyone to fend for themselves. Is there really enough private charity to go around? I would highly doubt it

DWill... common sense tells me that the percentage of people that take advantage of benefits are not on a small scale, otherwise we would not be running out of money to help those in need. I'm not advocating to terminate our social services, but rather to make them more accountable. Therein, it would seem, lies the rub... when ever it is asked of our society to take account of those that receieve, out comes the outrage! Yet, when some nut uses a weapon (lets say a gun) to harm others, the outcry is for law abiding folks to give account of themselves. Why are demands only pressed upon people that are willing to live within law and decorum? They are not the problem, yet they always pay the price for bad behavior. Why not impose tighter restrictions on applications for welfare benefits, or food stamps or disability benefits? (which, for the record, Mr. Obama made it much easier for folks to apply for such benefits... why?) I work at a substance abuse program. Here we have addiction, which also qualifies for benefits. So many grabs for 'free cheese' I've never seen in my life! I'm sorry if I seem somewhat glib in my attitude, but personal responsibility is an important asset we should all seek to obtain... as opposed to 'free stuff' coz' its there to grab. Is there enough charity to go around? Well, I believe so if others were not so enclined to want what they don't need.

You didn't use the word "welfare," but many do when they refer to any kind of government benefit. It used to be that "welfare" meant aid to families with dependent children (the welfare moms), a program that is now called TANF (forgive me if you know all this). TANF is actually somewhat restrictive and has work requirements. When it comes to programs that could bust the budget, that's not a biggie. I just think it's not good to lump all govt. programs into "welfare" or to generalize that the benefits are handouts. I really don't consider Medicare to be a handout, and it's the most expensive program out there by far. What are people aged 65 and over supposed to do to pay for healthcare? A much smaller number of the disabled also get Medicare, but again, what are they supposed to do to get healthcare? The 20% of costs that they still need to pay isn't small change, either, when our medical costs are sky-high. Some people even include those collecting Social Security retirement as "receiving benefits," and that's really ridiculous. Social Security is of course the other program with budget-busting potential.

There is a serious problem with people receiving SSI and SSDI becoming dependent on those benefits and seeing them as lifetime benefits to be protected at all costs. That's called a perverse incentive. So I would agree with you there.

I'm not advocating to terminate our social services, but rather to make them more accountable.

A woman I work with has an issue with her husband. She has to give him child support money since he technically has no job. Yet, he's been working for a crooked cab company for years, cash under the table. He makes more than she does. He also takes advantage of any government handouts he can get.

Handouts are an incentive to be lazy. Not to say that all people or even most who recieve handouts are lazy. But consider all the people on unemployment who pencil whip their "job search" form without actually looking for a job. That won't turn up in any sort of fraud or efficiency investigation, making programs seem more effective on paper than they truly are.

The moral hazard of handouts is a large problem. What makes the issue sickening is that there are good people who are doing the very best they can and rely on such handouts to get past a bad point in their life.

DWill... I'm copying this message that I left in a forum named "Entitlement Reform". I think it somewhat addresses your concerns:
I think the first success to "entitlement reform" is the definition of the word "entitlement", which therein lies the rub. I'm truly baffled when I hear politicians and regular folks use the term "entitlements" when describing Social Security and Medicare. Social Security and Medicare funds did not form from thin air... these funds came from tax paid labors, therefore, Social Security and Medicare are the product of "investments". The true "entitlements" are welfare and Medicade... which are funded from the "investments" of tax paid labors. If you look at Social Security as a 'pie' and visualize slices being taken from that pie you will, no doubt, see how years of slicing has taken its toll on a once solvent program. I'm only touching on the entitlement issue in simple terms without factoring in government waste, fraud and an income tax system that hardly pays the interest on our enormous debt. In a nut-shell, I don't believe that Social Security has dried up because we are all living longer, but rather because the fingers of our government have been in the cookie jar that once contained our "investments".
Also to Interbane... this woman that you know has a story that is not unlike many others that suffer from folks that abuse our generous system. Our government (the people in it) have a convoluted view of 'offending someone'. I find it offensive that government wants to know what goes on in my home and personal life, yet these same 'policy makers' believe it is offensive to ask recipients of benefits to be accountable and transparent. My late husband was a disabled veteran, yet when the government was forced to 'crack down on fraud' the first line of fire was aimed at legitimate folks that had legitimate disabilities. It made me sick to my stomach to watch his interrogation by desk jockeys that were clueless as to the daily, chronic pain he suffered some 35 years. And yet, the fraud continues to this day because the system gamers are not willing to cooperate like the legitimate folks, and the gamers are the loudest to squawk when asked to prove their plight. 'Offended' is just another skuttle-butt word.
Ahhh, I hope I don't come across as cynical, because I prefer to believe I am only realistic.

Ahhh, I hope I don't come across as cynical, because I prefer to believe I am only realistic.

I'm right there with you. If we were to propose a way to solve this issue, what do you think the solution would look like?

Vigilante justice? Social upheaval/reform?

Are there incentives for ratting out the cheaters? There should be. Give a tip that leads to a fraud conviction and you get $50.

What of a bureau of super-honest super-intelligent fraud detectors, who's sole guiding principle is to minimize the moral hazards that accompany social programs?

Interbane... A solution, hmmmm (tapping my finger on head) I'm thinking the word 'simple' doesn't apply here, but a simple solution is all my thinking can offer. So, here goes;
The word 'vigilante' has a violent connotation attached to it, although in order to remedy fraud and abuse, one must be vigilant. Don't get me wrong here, I believe the entity, government, is a necessity to our society as a whole. The problem is, some of the people that make up that entity are corrupt and prone to croynism. My thought on why that is has to do with the lack of transparency that we the people have allowed, mainly because many Americans are a bit ignorant of the way government should work. Transparency was enacted through Sunshine Laws, but over the years a cloak of darkness has taken the form of refuge for politicians/law makers to manipulate from within. This practice has become so broad that even our elected officials have become aware that 'some of us' are onto them. Hence, the well staged 2008 campaign by Mr. Obama when he promised to be 'transparent' in his governing. People LOVED that! That's what we want!! What we got in actuality, is even more darkness (ei: Obama care, a proposed contract that wasn't even thoroughly read before signing. Ms. Pelosi, "We must pass it in order to find out what's in it".) In all my years, I have never signed a contract before first reading and understanding it (and I'm just a simple woman!).

Now, onto the solution... people need common ground and one thing that all of us have in common is that we are 'our brothers keeper'. I care about people, as I'm sure the majority of us do, but our vigilance must walk a fine line between caring and enabling. We enable our elected officials when we don't call them to task. We enable able-bodied people when we carry their weight. We enable fraud and abuse when we minimize the damage. Activism comes in degrees, from standing on the front line with a megaphone & sign to writing a letter to your representative. Dissent is a 'bloodless revoloution' against tyranny and when aptly applied, can change a misguided mind-set and even deplete a monetarily empowered entity.

It's none of my business if Interbane lives in a big house, drives a nice car, eats steak every night or owns guns. But it IS my right & responsibility to know if Interbane acheieved those things through tax based funds that were put in place to help a 'need' as opposed to enabling a 'want'.
Vigilant? Indeed! Our biggest mistake was taking our eyes off politicians and allowing justification for bad behavior. We write books to touch the minds of others... write a letter to your Congressman, it may simply be the most powerful words put on paper.