Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 6:21:44 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
It's a nice sentiment. Problem is I believe US conservatives are
habitual manipulators and pathological liars, who will say anything to
get the kind of government they like best, which is one where the
government exterminates their enemies for them.
Just because you believe it does not make it true. I happen to believe that US conservatives think any thing the government does is done poorly and at higher cost than what it should cost.
Dan
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 3:48:45 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 2/20/20 2:41 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 11:27:01 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 2/19/20 8:33 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
The logic of relying on someone who claims to have lived at minimum-wage
level income most of their life, for wealth-management advice, eludes me.
The logic of listening to someone who easily, comfortably, and
successfully saves and invests most of their income over decades,
for investing advice, eludes you?
It's easy to find senior-citizen winners who construct post hoc analysis
of unverifiable accuracy of how they "won." You can always hit the
target and paint the bulls-eye afterwards.
Much harder to find someone who was living on minimum wage at 20, who
constructed a financial plan of the type suggested and followed it to
the letter, and kept accurate records and documentation of how it played
out over time.
Why spin something so simple into impossibility?
All you have to do is a) earn money, b) don't spend it, c) put it
some place it'll grow.
It's a lot better than spending all your money then hoping the
federal government will confiscate enough of some young kid's
earnings to support you, when you're retired and poor.
Rather like the claim that CO2 injected into the atmosphere causes
average planetary temperatures to increase to dangerous levels,
statements of this type are clearly unverifiable. I'm something of a
skeptic, myself.
As a matter of fact I could very likely prove every bit of it, since
I still have nearly all my records.
But it's not about me. Whether or not it befuddles you doesn't matter
to your more basic error: if a person in society isn't able to produce
and save enough for himself, government taking his labor from him in
his youth can't fix that. Government forcing him to support retired
people while he himself is young, doesn't fix that. Government taking
from one man who earned it and giving it to another man who didn't,
can't fix that either. The math doesn't work.
Government taking from some and handing out to others doesn't create
prosperity, more production for everyone to share. It creates less,
which means less for everyone.
It creates poverty.
On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 6:21:44 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
It's a nice sentiment. Problem is I believe US conservatives are
habitual manipulators and pathological liars, who will say anything to
get the kind of government they like best, which is one where the
government exterminates their enemies for them.
I have read this 5 times trying to understand it. I will now down a couple of shots of whiskey and try again. (trying to get into the same mindset as the writer)
It's a nice sentiment. Problem is I believe US conservatives are
habitual manipulators and pathological liars, who will say anything to
get the kind of government they like best, which is one where the
government exterminates their enemies for them.
On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 11:26:13 AM UTC+11, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 6:21:44 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
It's a nice sentiment. Problem is I believe US conservatives are
habitual manipulators and pathological liars, who will say anything to
get the kind of government they like best, which is one where the
government exterminates their enemies for them.
I have read this 5 times trying to understand it. I will now down a couple of shots of whiskey and try again. (trying to get into the same mindset as the writer)
Conservatives don't understand much, and are rather prone to ignoring ideas that are too complicated (or too distasteful) for them to follow as irrational and incomprehensible.
Bitrex wants to see condemning the poor to inadequate education, poor housing, and dubious (and expensive) health care as a device for exterminating them.
This is unrealistic. US conservatives want to have enough of the poor around to work in their factories - though poor people overseas are cheaper - clean their houses and weed their gardens. They don't need all that many of them at the moment, and while some them have noticed that some of the children of the poor can be clever enough to outperform their kids in demanding a and well-paid jobs. they see them more as competitors than as useful employees.
Extermination is too strong a word. Decimation is closer to the mark.
On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 6:21:44 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
It's a nice sentiment. Problem is I believe US conservatives are
habitual manipulators and pathological liars, who will say anything to
get the kind of government they like best, which is one where the
government exterminates their enemies for them.
I have read this 5 times trying to understand it. I will now down a couple of shots of whiskey and try again. (trying to get into the same mindset as the writer)
On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 7:26:13 PM UTC-5,
blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 6:21:44 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
It's a nice sentiment. Problem is I believe US conservatives
are habitual manipulators and pathological liars, who will say
anything to get the kind of government they like best, which is
one where the government exterminates their enemies for them.
I have read this 5 times trying to understand it. I will now
down a couple of shots of whiskey and try again. (trying to get
into the same mindset as the writer)
That requires beating your head against a concrete block wall
for at least 12 hours a day. He is projecting on others what he
would like to do.
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 11:27:01 PM UTC-5, bitrex
wrote:
But even assuming someone making minimum wage with a much better
position than most, like say inherited a modest one bedroom home
from a dear deceased aunt, there's a further wrinkle which is
that at no time during the past 100 years over any particular 45
year period you select has any index fund provided an average ROI
better than 3.5 to 3.8%.
Can you post a cite for the above? The ROI seems awful low.
Dan
But even assuming someone making minimum wage with a much better
position than most, like say inherited a modest one bedroom home from a
dear deceased aunt, there's a further wrinkle which is that at no time
during the past 100 years over any particular 45 year period you select
has any index fund provided an average ROI better than 3.5 to 3.8%.
"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in
news:f3df80c7-f650-48c2-8e80-4db3f857989a@googlegroups.com:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 11:27:01 PM UTC-5, bitrex
wrote:
But even assuming someone making minimum wage with a much better
position than most, like say inherited a modest one bedroom home
from a dear deceased aunt, there's a further wrinkle which is
that at no time during the past 100 years over any particular 45
year period you select has any index fund provided an average ROI
better than 3.5 to 3.8%.
Can you post a cite for the above? The ROI seems awful low.
Dan
I was watching YT videos of '70s commercials, and there was a bank
advertizing that you could double your money in nine years.
I wondered what the interst rate was on those accounts.
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 11:27:01 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
But even assuming someone making minimum wage with a much better
position than most, like say inherited a modest one bedroom home from a
dear deceased aunt, there's a further wrinkle which is that at no time
during the past 100 years over any particular 45 year period you select
has any index fund provided an average ROI better than 3.5 to 3.8%.
Can you post a cite for the above? The ROI seems awful low.
Dan
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 11:27:01 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
But even assuming someone making minimum wage with a much better
position than most, like say inherited a modest one bedroom home from a
dear deceased aunt, there's a further wrinkle which is that at no time
during the past 100 years over any particular 45 year period you select
has any index fund provided an average ROI better than 3.5 to 3.8%.
Can you post a cite for the above? The ROI seems awful low.
Dan
On 2/21/20 5:17 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
The personally-charitable but socially-uncaring conservative is an odd
duck. Performing these acts of generosity like driving errands for ill
neighbors I assume at no cost to them, while one must surely be
conscious that there are thousands of other people in a similar position
who have nobody to help them. Nobody to help with their own as-difficult
situation or "help them help themselves" as the saying goes.
Again, you're rationalizing and over-complicating the situation.
Someone needed help, so I helped them. If we all pitch in, we can
help everyone.
Will James Arthur do all the work for them himself, too? If he won't
take on the responsibility for all of them then who; all the generally
deeply-caring Americans out there? Or do his daily good works, kick back
and vote Republican, and tell himself everything would fix itself if
only liberalism didn't exist, "I've done my part." But
they're not suffering 40 years from now it's happening right this minute.
I'm OK with the government handling the difficult cases and providing
for them. I don't have a martyr complex.
But doesn't that boil down to you wanting other people to do it, and
pay for it too?
If you want to help someone, don't consign them to some bureaucrat,
just help them. If you see some trash, pick it up. If the storm
drain's clogged, unclog it.
That's common in my neighborhood, and I dearly love it.
Cheers,
James Arthur
It's a nice sentiment. Problem is I believe US conservatives are
habitual manipulators and pathological liars, who will say anything to
get the kind of government they like best, which is one where the
government exterminates their enemies for them.
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
The personally-charitable but socially-uncaring conservative is an odd
duck. Performing these acts of generosity like driving errands for ill
neighbors I assume at no cost to them, while one must surely be
conscious that there are thousands of other people in a similar position
who have nobody to help them. Nobody to help with their own as-difficult
situation or "help them help themselves" as the saying goes.
Again, you're rationalizing and over-complicating the situation.
Someone needed help, so I helped them. If we all pitch in, we can
help everyone.
Will James Arthur do all the work for them himself, too? If he won't
take on the responsibility for all of them then who; all the generally
deeply-caring Americans out there? Or do his daily good works, kick back
and vote Republican, and tell himself everything would fix itself if
only liberalism didn't exist, "I've done my part." But
they're not suffering 40 years from now it's happening right this minute.
I'm OK with the government handling the difficult cases and providing
for them. I don't have a martyr complex.
But doesn't that boil down to you wanting other people to do it, and
pay for it too?
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:17:07 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
I'm OK with the government handling the difficult cases and providing
for them. I don't have a martyr complex.
But doesn't that boil down to you wanting other people to do it, and
pay for it too?
Wanting to do things yourself is basically the definition of
"conservative."
Wanting to tax someone else, and force yet someone else do what you
want done, is basically the definition of "progressive."
On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 3:07:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:17:07 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
The personally-charitable but socially-uncaring conservative is an odd
duck. Performing these acts of generosity like driving errands for ill
neighbors I assume at no cost to them, while one must surely be
conscious that there are thousands of other people in a similar position
who have nobody to help them. Nobody to help with their own as-difficult
situation or "help them help themselves" as the saying goes.
Again, you're rationalizing and over-complicating the situation.
Someone needed help, so I helped them. If we all pitch in, we can
help everyone.
Will James Arthur do all the work for them himself, too? If he won't
take on the responsibility for all of them then who; all the generally
deeply-caring Americans out there? Or do his daily good works, kick back
and vote Republican, and tell himself everything would fix itself if
only liberalism didn't exist, "I've done my part." But
they're not suffering 40 years from now it's happening right this minute.
I'm OK with the government handling the difficult cases and providing
for them. I don't have a martyr complex.
But doesn't that boil down to you wanting other people to do it, and
pay for it too?
Wanting to do things yourself is basically the definition of
"conservative."
Wanting to tax someone else, and force yet someone else do what you
want done, is basically the definition of "progressive."
A 'progressive' is someone so generous, they'll give you the shirt
off everyone else's back.
Cheers,
James Arthur
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:17:07 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
The personally-charitable but socially-uncaring conservative is an odd
duck. Performing these acts of generosity like driving errands for ill
neighbors I assume at no cost to them, while one must surely be
conscious that there are thousands of other people in a similar position
who have nobody to help them. Nobody to help with their own as-difficult
situation or "help them help themselves" as the saying goes.
Again, you're rationalizing and over-complicating the situation.
Someone needed help, so I helped them. If we all pitch in, we can
help everyone.
Will James Arthur do all the work for them himself, too? If he won't
take on the responsibility for all of them then who; all the generally
deeply-caring Americans out there? Or do his daily good works, kick back
and vote Republican, and tell himself everything would fix itself if
only liberalism didn't exist, "I've done my part." But
they're not suffering 40 years from now it's happening right this minute.
I'm OK with the government handling the difficult cases and providing
for them. I don't have a martyr complex.
But doesn't that boil down to you wanting other people to do it, and
pay for it too?
Wanting to do things yourself is basically the definition of
"conservative."
Wanting to tax someone else, and force yet someone else do what you
want done, is basically the definition of "progressive."
On 2/21/20 5:17 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
The personally-charitable but socially-uncaring conservative is an odd
duck. Performing these acts of generosity like driving errands for ill
neighbors I assume at no cost to them, while one must surely be
conscious that there are thousands of other people in a similar position
who have nobody to help them. Nobody to help with their own as-difficult
situation or "help them help themselves" as the saying goes.
Again, you're rationalizing and over-complicating the situation.
Someone needed help, so I helped them. If we all pitch in, we can
help everyone.
Will James Arthur do all the work for them himself, too? If he won't
take on the responsibility for all of them then who; all the generally
deeply-caring Americans out there? Or do his daily good works, kick back
and vote Republican, and tell himself everything would fix itself if
only liberalism didn't exist, "I've done my part." But
they're not suffering 40 years from now it's happening right this minute.
I'm OK with the government handling the difficult cases and providing
for them. I don't have a martyr complex.
But doesn't that boil down to you wanting other people to do it, and
pay for it too?
If you want to help someone, don't consign them to some bureaucrat,
just help them. If you see some trash, pick it up. If the storm
drain's clogged, unclog it.
That's common in my neighborhood, and I dearly love it.
It's a nice sentiment. Problem is I believe US conservatives are
habitual manipulators and pathological liars, who will say anything to
get the kind of government they like best, which is one where the
government exterminates their enemies for them.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:07:39 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 3:07:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:17:07 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
The personally-charitable but socially-uncaring conservative is an odd
duck. Performing these acts of generosity like driving errands for ill
neighbors I assume at no cost to them, while one must surely be
conscious that there are thousands of other people in a similar position
who have nobody to help them. Nobody to help with their own as-difficult
situation or "help them help themselves" as the saying goes.
Again, you're rationalizing and over-complicating the situation.
Someone needed help, so I helped them. If we all pitch in, we can
help everyone.
Will James Arthur do all the work for them himself, too? If he won't
take on the responsibility for all of them then who; all the generally
deeply-caring Americans out there? Or do his daily good works, kick back
and vote Republican, and tell himself everything would fix itself if
only liberalism didn't exist, "I've done my part." But
they're not suffering 40 years from now it's happening right this minute.
I'm OK with the government handling the difficult cases and providing
for them. I don't have a martyr complex.
But doesn't that boil down to you wanting other people to do it, and
pay for it too?
Wanting to do things yourself is basically the definition of
"conservative."
Wanting to tax someone else, and force yet someone else do what you
want done, is basically the definition of "progressive."
A 'progressive' is someone so generous, they'll give you the shirt
off everyone else's back.
One problem is that some people think they can understand chaotic
social systems, can predict the future, and can predict the
consequences of their policies.
So they want control that they can
never have. Their real appetite isn't for progress, it's for power.
Marx defined capitalism as the power of capital, machines and money,
the "means of production." He didn't understand that, even in the
earliest days of industrial society, the means of production is ideas.
The only way to find out what ideas work is to let lots of people try
lots of things and see what happens. Central control crushes new ideas
and amplifies bad ones.
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 11:27:01 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
But even assuming someone making minimum wage with a much better
position than most, like say inherited a modest one bedroom home from a
dear deceased aunt, there's a further wrinkle which is that at no time
during the past 100 years over any particular 45 year period you select
has any index fund provided an average ROI better than 3.5 to 3.8%.
Can you post a cite for the above? The ROI seems awful low.
Dan