Outrageous quotes of Wall Street bankers struggling to get by on $350,000 a year.

[Clevername]

Really? So you will never take you social security when you retire? Medicare? College student loan for you or your child? Maybe a natural disaster hits your community and you get federal assistance.

Now some I have mentioned you do pay into. Others are there to help such as loans or disaster relief. Now seems as how defiant you seem to be you are saying you can put your kids through college on your own or don't need help if goodness forbid a storm decimates your home and work. Hey if you are one of those "elite" rich people more power to you. Sorry most may someday need it.

Social Security, nope am saving quite an ample amount now.. honestly don't think it will be there when I retire anyway.
Medicare, I have medical care provided by the VA, I'm a disabled veteran.
College Student Loans, already took some and paid them off and kids, have chosen not to have any.
Natural Disaster hits, I live in a coastal area and therefore not only have homeowners insurance but a flood policy as well.

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative I'm just a planner by nature.

I am hardly a rich elite I make better than average money, have 0 dependents and live a pretty simple life, I bought my house as a foreclosure, bought a boat (my only real luxury) and a truck to pull it with. I work overseas 9 months out of the year in a shithole country to afford such luxuries. I am 100 percent aware my job is unstable and will disappear in the coming years but before that happens I will have everything paid off and will only need to make enough money to keep myself fed and the lights on. I am not the rule and very much the exception I realize that.


---------- Post added 2012-03-01 at 11:26 PM ----------

You're coming across as less sympathetic and intelligent than a guy who boasts about a 130k salary and owning a boat on the internet. That's really, REALLY impressive.

the hell, why do I have to be unintelligent just because I make good money and own a boat?

[emulsion]

Well done. You've completely ignored my entire point and decided to go for the easier route of claiming that I am morally inferior based on my non-adherence to societal norms (yet another fallacious appeal to popularity).

Yeah, I'm done here, there's no actual rational debate to be had.

Be more specific and you might get better answers. Your notions of economics seem to be entirely based on your personal concepts of compassion and morality. Those kinds of abstractions rarely translate into meaningful, applicable "improvements." They're just as likely to produce deficiencies.

[emulsion]

Who said that we couldn't work towards moral perfection through an empirical, evidence-based evaluation of different societal structures? I am nothing if not rational, my entire paradigm is informed by scientific skepticism; science itself attempts to reach a point of absolute knowledge - that may be unobtainable, but it's what drives research.[COLOR="red"]

Wrong. Science makes no such attempts. Method drives research. Evidence builds, accumulates, but toward no grand goal beyond the effort to support probabilities. There's another important part of science that this brand of "skeptical" reasoning overlooks: parsimony.

[Clevername]

So you'll build your own roads, your own hospitals, your own schools. You and you alone will fund your expenses after you retire. You'll also never use any government programs ever?

Don't mistake I do understand there has to be some government programs I get that but there has to be limits.

---------- Post added 2012-03-01 at 11:55 PM ----------

Well done. You've completely ignored my entire point and decided to go for the easier route of claiming that I am morally inferior based on my non-adherence to societal norms (yet another fallacious appeal to popularity).

Yeah, I'm done here, there's no actual rational debate to be had.

Well yeah there won't be any rational debate if you insist on calling people names when they don't agree with you and believe that the most effective way to change something is to do nothing.

[emulsion]

The scientific method is the current best method we have for determining what is true. We want to know as much as we can about the universe we live in and, preferably, we would like to leave no stone upturned. Of course science strives for absolute knowledge; it does so by constantly evaluating the evidence we have available in order to build upon current knowledge and correct errors in previous knowledge. I'm not saying that science asserts absolute certainty. As far as morality is concerned, it is entirely possible, if we accept that the brain is responsible for all human thought, that at some point we may be able to determine what is objectively right and wrong and to build a society with that knowledge in mind.

I resent your implication that I am, in some way, asserting absolute knowledge of anything, given that you're essentially saying that I'm incorrect in labelling myself a skeptic.

I'm saying that you don't understand the nature of science. Science has no goals. Science makes no assertions. Science is a method. To claim that the goal of science is absolute knowledge is to imply that through science absolute knowledge can be attained, which is patently false and contrary to its very nature. There are no proofs in science, only accumulations of evidence, only probabilities. In order to know, you must have proof. Take the time to read some Karl Popper. He has a fascinating bit about the paradox of tolerance, which I'm certain you'd enjoy.

Beyond that, to suggest that we could ever tie notions of morality to the physical matter of the brain is absolutely ridiculous. Pass that one by a neurologist if you ever want to evoke a hearty laugh.

[gneugen]

I remember watching Terrel Owens being interviewed once while he was complaining about how much it costs to insure his cars and that its hard to get by when you have to get full coverage on Ferraris. When he was asked about how he feels spending more then the median income for the area just on the bills for one car his look at reaction showed he truely didn't understand probelms that weren't his own and that if this was an issue he created it and could eliminate it. Wealthy ppl often end up with some sort of fog that keeps them from seeing much beyond themselves, this is no different

Just like poor people get clouded vision from their struggle and fail to realize that they too can solve their own problems (and that they create many of their own problems through poor decisions). Asking a poor person why they insist on taking more from the communal tax pot than they contribute should illicit the same response. It never does though. It only serves to illicit some self-entitled response about how life is so hard, and raising their kids on their income is hard. Some people have fancy cars they can't afford, some people have kids. Everyone has their struggle.

[dwarven]

Disgusting.

[Laize]

To assert that the current system is the best one, you have to demonstrate knowledge of every other possible system and demonstrate why each one is inferior. I'm not saying that the current system can definitely be improved upon as to do so would put the burden of proof on me. I am saying, however, that if it is possible that improvements can be made or even an entirely new system adopted (and I do believe that it is possible), we should continually strive towards these goals in an attempt to improve upon current human society.

Many other systems have been tried in the past. In general there are 2 kinds of economic systems. Capitalism and Socialism. The further you lean towards Capitalism, the more likely your economy is to flourish. The further you lean towards Socialism, the more likely the people are to flourish.

If we were in a pure Capitalist society where everyone was wholly responsible for themselves and actually ACTED responsibly, we wouldn't have problems such as people living beyond their means or buying things that weren't essential to their survival.

If we were in a pure Socialist society where everyone was perfectly willing to work for the greater good instead of themselves, we wouldn't have problems such as welfare traps or welfare fraud.

Unfortunately not everyone fits either of these molds. Only Capitalism forces people to sink or swim based on their own merits. If someone slacks in a capitalist society, they are the only ones who fail. If someone slacks in a socialist society, the producers have to pick up for them. I, for one, hate the living shit out of that proposition.

Ultimately, the moment we simply accept something to be the case is the moment where progress stagnates. This effect has been seen in the Church limiting scientific progress throughout history, in people accepting slavery as necessary or even justified now and in the past, you get the point. Attempting to achieve moral perfection in society may be an impossible goal but it is one that forces us to constantly improve upon what we already have.

I ask you this question: What is amoral about wanting to keep that which you have rightfully earned?

[Deleted]

No, <mod snip>, I'm not saying that I don't want to give money for aid but, equally, I don't want to give money if it's going to do fuck nothing. After all these years of NGOs operating small-scale relief efforts, Africa and other countries are still in the exact same situation. It's damage control, not a solution. The only organisations with a resource base large enough to facilitate a relief effort large enough to actually set up infrastructure for an entire country are governments. Fuck, if the US government cut defense spending in half for a year, it would raise $300 billion. How much do you think NGOs raise, put together, in a given year? How much do you think that a concerted effort from a number of world governments could raise?

I want to help and that is exactly why I see charities as standing in the way of progress, albeit unintentionally, as they allow governments to act as if the issue is being addressed. It is up to governments to look out for the interests of everybody in their country and, when a country's actions abroad such as slaving have affected another country i.e. Africa so drastically, it is their responsibility to clean up their own mess. Leaving such a gargantuan task to individual charity is absurd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_aid

About 80-85% of developmental aid comes from government sources as official development assistance (ODA). The remaining 15-20% comes from private organisations such as "Non-governmental organisations" (NGOs), foundations and other development charities (e.g. Oxfam).[3] In addition, remittances received from migrants working or living in diaspora form a significant amount of international transfer.

Why not donate to a charity like Oxfam, that *does* focus on long-term development assistance?
Or join a political campaign to pressure the government to increase funding?
Sure, either way your contribution would be miniscule, but atleast you'd be doing something other than typing about it.

And you just seem a bit naive about what "cutting US defence spending in half for a year" would actually entail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States
Even if you entirely slashed R&D and procurement, that wouldn't come close to 50%. So you're looking at either cutting maintenance, operations, or personnel, and its going to have a bad impact on the US economy, since the savings are going overseas rather then back into the hands of the citizens who paid their taxes to pay for all that stuff in the first place.

[Laize]

No, <mod snip>, I'm not saying that I don't want to give money for aid but, equally, I don't want to give money if it's going to do fuck nothing. After all these years of NGOs operating small-scale relief efforts, Africa and other countries are still in the exact same situation. It's damage control, not a solution. The only organisations with a resource base large enough to facilitate a relief effort large enough to actually set up infrastructure for an entire country are governments. Fuck, if the US government cut defense spending in half for a year, it would raise $300 billion. How much do you think NGOs raise, put together, in a given year? How much do you think that a concerted effort from a number of world governments could raise?

I want to help and that is exactly why I see charities as standing in the way of progress, albeit unintentionally, as they allow governments to act as if the issue is being addressed. It is up to governments to look out for the interests of everybody in their country and, when a country's actions abroad such as slaving have affected another country i.e. Africa so drastically, it is their responsibility to clean up their own mess. Leaving such a gargantuan task to individual charity is absurd.

You can insult my intelligence and capacity for empathy all you like but, ultimately, my intentions are clearly moral and I clearly give a fuck about inequality, both at home and abroad so that fact alone sort of proves that you're just trying to get a dig at me because you disagree, doesn't it?

Avoid insults. Report and move on. - Dacien

You seem to forget that doing business in these countries and increasing employment is by far the best way to help these countries. Instead of gifting them money, you have them earn it and pay them for their work.

[DraconusIX]

The federal government is just a giant insurance, healthcare, and pension fund organization that keeps a standing military. everything else is a tiny percentage of its budget.

Yet which areas cant you touch? Medicare, defense, and social security.

Did these bankers waste money on things most people dont need? yes, just like most of our population does but on a slightly greater scale.