Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

But, only if you own an auto.

Absolutely!!!

 

No you're not.

You can go to the DMV and put up a cash collateral, to be paid out in the event that you damage someone's property or health.

It's not right (and it's not unconstitutional to prevent this) to let people do things that could hurt others or the property of others without a guarantee that in the event of such an accident, the other party could be justly compensated.

You don't have to buy insurance against damage to YOUR vehicle or health.....

Furthermore you can drive all you have a mind to on your own private property, where you make the rules, without the tiniest bit of insurance, and it's totally legal.

The possibility of other drivers being uninsured scares the crap out of me.... I'm all for regulations forcing vehicles and their drivers to carry insurance on public roads, so long as there is sufficient regulation to make insurance companies accountable to those that they owe service or money.

 

oh yeah I almost forgot about that, and my state you must hold like a minimum 50,000$ bond.

Hey, driving is dangerous, 'specially with stoned, un-insured drivers like me lol:auto:

Srsly, it's the over-insured drivers that scare me! They drive around like they are fucking invincible, then if they run into me, no big deal for them, but I get a fucking no insurance ticket! Them babies add up ya know... habitual offender, 5 yrs mandatory jail time for 3 offenses in 5 yrs...it's just bullshit.. (no, it didn't happen to me)

 

Yeah, you can KILL people, even people who are not driving and did not consent to any of that shit, that's why there's jail time.

The cash bond is generally going to be somewhat lower than, or the same price as, the sum of your states mandatory insurance against damage to property, and mandatory insurance against loss of life or health.

Driving is very dangerous, and it's not unreasonable to make people who want to drive immensely deadly machines around the general public on public property, carry insurance or sufficient cash to cover injury or damage caused to others while driving.

It's not to protect you from yourself, it's to protect others from you. "trust me, I won't kill too many people" is not adequate insurance.

 

Duh. Not like you would't be held liable anyway, unless you are fucking indigent...It really seems like just an ' inordinate fear of poor people' law.
:smash:

30 fucking accident free yrs doesn't speak for much I guess..they certainly don't offer me better rates because of it. I think at some point a person should be re-embersed some of that money that went to make some pot-bellied insurance CEO and stock-holders rich. :biker:

 

That's still the government applying the force, not insurance companies. Hence the "UNDER PENALTY OF LAW" part... Like I said, companies don't force you to buy their products so there is really nothing to fear about them. Insurance companies by themselves cannot be a "scourge on society", because if they were, they wouldn't exist. The only way for any company that is a "scourge" to subsist, is by being propped up by the government.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, except you should blame our government, not insurance companies.

That was a good fucking observation. This is called "MORAL HAZARD".

 

The self imposed force to sustain ones life began with life itself.

The human created economic system seems to have worked quite well up until the early 20th century. If it's not necessarily the way it should be, just how should it be?

 

The key word being "liability", and can only be applied if you desire to use an automobile. In what way could that be found unconstitutional? It's simply a responsibility being addressed, as car ownership is not being forced.

 

Wrong

Sorry but your reply left me with more questions than answers. You seem more interested in making assertions and accusations that addressing what’s being raised. For example -

How can trying to work out what you mean be straw man arguments – I mean you give what is supposedly one example of it but it doesn’t stand up – I ask ‘are you saying’ I do not claim you are saying, I’m asking for clarification.

What you had said was -

If anything this is closer to a straw argument since you are claiming that I’m saying the tapping of natural resources brings ‘the people’ wealth when I’d thought I’d made it clear that resources can bring wealth. And realising you hadn’t understood I even clarify that by saying - I’m saying resources can help bring a nation prosperity, it doesn’t necessarily mean all benefit from such prosperity The US was able to tap previously untouched resources that contributed to its prosperity.

I mean you have taken two things and rather than ask for clarification as I did you jumped to conclusions

What I’m pointing out was that there were vast untapped resources available in America, in land and materials, which could be tapped to the prosperity of individuals and the state.

As to supplying me with a few sources for your thinking you do no such thing as I’ll show.

 

wrong
Again what are you basing these ideas on? I mean are you saying that nothing changed in European history for ‘thousands of years’?

NO – read your statement - the "old world" had long been harvesting it's resources, why than did the average person still live in complete unchanged poverty for the preceding few thousand years? (If it's simply natural resources that brings the people wealth)

I ask for clarification - I mean are you saying that nothing changed in European history for ‘thousands of years’?

The average person still lived incomplete unchanged poverty – but first of all who was average – and what is poverty? And now we have the problem of your idea of the emergence of capitalism, what do you mean by ‘capitalism’ and when do you think it ‘emerged’?

For example are we talking of the ‘average’ free people or do we include slaves which would bring down the ‘average’ I mean taking your American 19th century theme counting the slaves who gained little from the growing prosperity would bring down the overall average level of prosperity.

And a peasant with a strip of land and a lord with fields could be said to be poor and rich within their context but so could a person on minimum wage and a billionaire today within there context.

As to the emergence of capitalism depending on your definition it could be said to have been going on since the invention of money (allowing wealth accumulation in the form of profit) or never really existed (as I’ve said their never has been a free market).

It seems to me that your viewpoint is way too simplistic. Europe is a big place with many differing histories. Depending on where and when people were born could have a great impact on the advantages and disadvantages open to them (as could to whom). And as I’ve tried to point out to you that had a lot to do with available resources and the distribution of those resources.

Are you basing your view on this on just one quote (I can’t find the quote by the way where is it from and who is it by?) because as a basis for ‘thousands of years’ it doesn’t stand up, for much of European history people grew their own food and made their own cloth rather than having to buy it. As to clothing it often depended where you were in the production areas cloth could be cheap and the servants in richer households often got hand-me-downs, in Venice the low prostitutes had to be refrained from dressing as well as the nobility because noble women would only wear a dress once then pass it on were it eventually came to the prostitutes.

As to the ‘gains of the industrial revolution’ yes there were some I’m not disputing that but there were also drawbacks, for example in rapid urbanisation without provision and things like pollution. In many industrial centres live expectancy fell for example “In 1851, a boy born in inner Liverpool had a life expectancy of only 26 years, compared with a boy born in the small market town of Okehampton, who could expect to live to 57.” BBC History.

And remember a spur to the industrial revolution in England was the Enclosure Acts (between 1750 and 1860) that benefited a few in rural areas to the detriment of the common people who lost their common land. This forced many from the country side to seek work in urban areas where many were exploited. There lives diminished not improved.

 

wrong
Also a lot of the rules and regulations that improved the working conditions and pay of the workers came from the actions of workers such as strikes and campaigns to bring about reform (such as working hours and stopping child labour). Thing was that such improvements were often fought for in opposition to the employers.

Can you please explain your thinking here? What legislation?

But if they campaigned to change or bring in laws that they want?

Again this is incredibly simplistic thinking. The ‘common man’ has been fighting to better his lot for generations (although I’d count women in it as well). There have been numerous ‘peasants revolts’ and political movements (e.g. Chartists etc) trying to bring about change. As I’ve pointed out this is usually a result of uneven power and influence, king against nobles, ruling class against the common people, the interests of the powerful few in opposition to the weaker majority. As I’ve said to me the best thing to go for is a balance, where the interests of all are taken into account.

 

Wrong

One of the main reasons for improvements in people’s lives (and the decrease of death from disease) was water and waste management. In the main driven by legislation (rules and regulation) and publically financed projects (taxes and government).

In what way ‘favourite’ are you saying that water and waste management didn’t greatly improvement people’s lives (and decrease the numbers that dead from disease)?

I mean you reply goes on about the science but I don’t mention that at all I never for one minute claim that such discoveries were brought about by regulation so why are you saying I do? Dr. John Snow was right about how cholera was spread, the theory dominant at the time was that it was spread through the air and because of that theory after the ‘great stink’ the British Parliament acted and the Metropolitan Board of Works built the enclosed sewage system (on the theory of it was closed the airborn diseases would be stopped). So even though they had the wrong idea governance worked to fix the problem.

 

Wrong

And of course invention is good but it often needs the protection of the law (regulations) such as Patent Acts, passed by some form of governance. Also private property rights are protected my laws (regulations) and as for ‘individual freedoms’ a lot of the ‘prosperity’ of the US in the eighteen and nineteenth century was based on slavery and the often ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Indian wars.
But such transactions do not take place in a vacuum, for example the very idea of a ‘free individual’ - there are usually rules and regulations that allow such ‘freedom’ and without such rules people can be and have been enslaved. I mean I could go on and on – the medium of exchange – the rules governing contracts – the regulation of weights and measures – quality assurance etc.

Again why is this meant to be a straw man argument? I’m just pointing out that governance is needed in the light of your statement - it wasn't government that gave us prosperity. It was innovation, entrepreneurship, it was private property rights, and it was a level of freedom given to the individual that had not existed in previous centuries.

I mean the things you mention innovation, entrepreneurship, property rights, and freedom, are assisted by some form of governance.

I nowhere claim you want zero government of any kind

(my bold)

So you do see the need for governance but you want it to only protect people's property rights?

To me it should it have many other roles including protecting people from exploitation for as I pointed out earlier if you get ‘property rights’ over laws protecting against exploitation you can get forms of slavery.

 

wrong

Again I’m sorry to say you seem to see things too simplistically and come to conclusions that are not there. It’s not a matter of regulations or no regulations, taxes or no taxes. It’s a matter of what would be best for everyone in society.

Why this fixation on the 19th century? You asked me - How than would you account for the economic growth of the 19th century

I pointed out that the US had easy access to previously untouched resources. I’m not saying that was the only factor but it was in my opinion the major factor. A lot of the problem in the early period was the lack of infrastructure this was often realised by governance which often used public money or enacted ways of raising money to construct the roads bridges, canals and later railways that were needed to bring prosperity for example the Erie Canal that brought such economic benefits to New York and other cities on the eastern seaboard.

Again this is overly simplistic. For a start it is generally thought to cover a period from around the 1750’s to the 1850’s. A beginning date that comes before the existence of the USA and ends before the US is fully settled (American ‘land rushes’ were still going on in the 1890’s). So the full impact of industrialisation had still not been felt in the US. For example that great indicator of the revolution, urbanisation was not to strong in the US which remained a mainly rural society until the 1920’s.

As to the IR bringing a ‘richer and more prosperous’ life to all well I’d say for some it did for other it didn’t.

As late as the year 1900, the United States had the highest job-related fatality rate of any industrialized nation in the world. Most industrial workers still worked a 10-hour day (12 hours in the steel industry), yet earned from 20 to 40 percent less than the minimum deemed necessary for a decent life. The situation was only worse for children, whose numbers in the work force doubled between 1870 and 1900.
http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-82.htm

 

So you don't think insurance companies lobbied the government to put this in place?

 

When you wish to buy something don't you also go to where it can be bought?

 

If you have the wealth and a system where wealth is dominant and allowed to be dominant.

Indie we’ve been through this at length before and you still haven’t addressed the criticisms of your viewpoint.

As pointed out many times and at length rather than diminish the power and influence of wealth you would seem to want to make it even stronger.

Until you address this criticism your implications that you ideas would somehow ‘curtail’ wealth’s power seem hypocritical at best and outright lying at worst.

 

Bal,

Then you most obviously have understood very little of what I have written previously.

I've always found those with wealth as a source of opportunity for me to create my own wealth, while I've always found the increase of power to a centralized source to produce deterrents for myself and others who work hard to increase our lot in life.

None of the success I've achieved in my life came as a result of federal government actions, but in spite of federal government actions.

 

says the guy who speaks for wealth

 

What is it with the constant fixation on what another or others have? If you can present conclusive evidence that someone is in possession of wealth which was accumulated by some illegal means, then do so and I would fully support the confiscation and return of it to those it rightfully belongs to.