Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: 2012 Elections - Page 291







Post#7251 at 02-17-2012 09:56 PM by millennialX [at Gotham City, USA joined Oct 2010 #posts 6,597]
---
02-17-2012, 09:56 PM #7251
Join Date
Oct 2010
Location
Gotham City, USA
Posts
6,597

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
I think you're speaking for yourself. Not Millenials, many of whom really believed he would bring everybody together, create world peace and calm the seas. They also didn't realize he'd be terrible when it came to the economy.
I was a mix of optimistic hope that maybe he would bring people together and realistic belief that no one can come in and fix this economy. Bad time to be a President.
Born in 1981 and INFJ Gen Yer







Post#7252 at 02-17-2012 10:18 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
02-17-2012, 10:18 PM #7252
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by millennialX View Post
I was a mix of optimistic hope that maybe he would bring people together and realistic belief that no one can come in and fix this economy. Bad time to be a President.
The thing I find really interesting is the difference between early and late members of a generation, based on who their parents are. I think the way each child generation is split between two parent generations is a big part of what makes them unique. The Millenials with Boomer parents are already through the pipeline and into young adulthood. The Millenials with Xer parents are just graduating from high school. I don't have a huge amount of contact with teenagers, but I sense a very different vibe from the later Millenials.

I apologize in advance for making this characterization again, but the Y cusp/early Millenials (present company excluded) really are the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton cohort, with the well-publicized massive egos and expectations, and very weak grounding in reality. The younger Millenials who don't have much memory of the 1990s seem much more humble and down to earth, and remind me of their Jones/early X parents. Obama was a candidate tailor made for the early Millenial group, a superficial triumph of style over substance. But the thing that group hates most is looking foolish, and Obama has made them look really foolish. I think it's highly unlikely they're going to turn out again the way they did.

I know some comparisons have been made here with the early and late GIs, but I haven't really looked into it. The gist of it seems to be that the "Greatest Generation" tag was really meant for the late GIs.







Post#7253 at 02-17-2012 10:37 PM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
02-17-2012, 10:37 PM #7253
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
I think you're speaking for yourself. Not Millenials, many of whom really believed he would bring everybody together, create world peace and calm the seas. They also didn't realize he'd be terrible when it came to the economy.
Huh? On one hand you talk as if what I say isn't shared by a lot of other folks, then you add remarks that imply a lot of others thought he'd change things in a new vision?

Color me confused. My point was that Millies who were excited by his candidacy thought he'd be something other than the status quo, but in the end, he's mostly just been another politician. Why you're trying to find disagreement with that (and almost everything here) is beyond me.







Post#7254 at 02-17-2012 11:16 PM by millennialX [at Gotham City, USA joined Oct 2010 #posts 6,597]
---
02-17-2012, 11:16 PM #7254
Join Date
Oct 2010
Location
Gotham City, USA
Posts
6,597

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
Huh? On one hand you talk as if what I say isn't shared by a lot of other folks, then you add remarks that imply a lot of others thought he'd change things in a new vision?

Color me confused. My point was that Millies who were excited by his candidacy thought he'd be something other than the status quo, but in the end, he's mostly just been another politician. Why you're trying to find disagreement with that (and almost everything here) is beyond me.
Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
The thing I find really interesting is the difference between early and late members of a generation, based on who their parents are. I think the way each child generation is split between two parent generations is a big part of what makes them unique. The Millenials with Boomer parents are already through the pipeline and into young adulthood. The Millenials with Xer parents are just graduating from high school. I don't have a huge amount of contact with teenagers, but I sense a very different vibe from the later Millenials.

I apologize in advance for making this characterization again, but the Y cusp/early Millenials (present company excluded) really are the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton cohort, with the well-publicized massive egos and expectations, and very weak grounding in reality. The younger Millenials who don't have much memory of the 1990s seem much more humble and down to earth, and remind me of their Jones/early X parents. Obama was a candidate tailor made for the early Millenial group, a superficial triumph of style over substance. But the thing that group hates most is looking foolish, and Obama has made them look really foolish. I think it's highly unlikely they're going to turn out again the way they did.

I know some comparisons have been made here with the early and late GIs, but I haven't really looked into it. The gist of it seems to be that the "Greatest Generation" tag was really meant for the late GIs.
I have to agree with Ziggy on this. I don't think you can't pin point the Obama fever all on Millennials. The feelings for and against Obama were shared among many generations. The only reason why the 2008 election seems like a Millie issue is because there were enough Millies in general and of the age to vote. For the first time in many years we actually had enough young people who didnt need MTV to encourage them to "rock the vote."

No matter who was running for office, I think we would have seen a big interest with Millennials, because Millennials are interested in voting period and the more Millies who get of voting age...the stronger the Millie vote will be.

I also wonder if what looks like apathy among Millies will even make then vote more. My theory is that it's not an issue of them being a no show at the voting booth, but the current political crap has made them realize that they need to go to the booth more, during mid term elections, too.
Last edited by millennialX; 02-17-2012 at 11:37 PM.
Born in 1981 and INFJ Gen Yer







Post#7255 at 02-17-2012 11:17 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
02-17-2012, 11:17 PM #7255
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
Huh? On one hand you talk as if what I say isn't shared by a lot of other folks, then you add remarks that imply a lot of others thought he'd change things in a new vision?

Color me confused. My point was that Millies who were excited by his candidacy thought he'd be something other than the status quo, but in the end, he's mostly just been another politician. Why you're trying to find disagreement with that (and almost everything here) is beyond me.
You said you think Millenials wish he was more partisan, not less. I think you're wrong.







Post#7256 at 02-18-2012 12:58 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-18-2012, 12:58 AM #7256
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
You said you think Millenials wish he was more partisan, not less. I think you're wrong.
Obama stood for change you can believe in, but he has accomodated himself to the status quo a lot of the time; on the health care bill, on Afghanistan and terrorism/human rights, on helping the bank bailout, etc. The implication is that Millennials are more progressive, at least for now, than other generations. Even you agree that younger generations tend to be more liberal; older ones more conservative.

There are some, including Millennials, who voted for Obama because he promised to make Washington work again and end the partisan bickering. But he hasn't been able to do that. Is that because "he turned out to be just another politician?" Or because he discovered that the president can't transform Republicans into folks you can make Washington work with? You know what I think.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 02-18-2012 at 01:03 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#7257 at 02-18-2012 01:06 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-18-2012, 01:06 AM #7257
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
Xers (especially the Atari Wavers and Jones cuspers) are pretty much resigned to the idea that the planets are aligned to screw them more than anyone that comes before or after them (rightly or wrongly).
Well, the way the planets aligned in the 1960s when they were born was indeed pretty screwy!

(thanks for the softball ziggy)
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#7258 at 02-18-2012 01:08 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-18-2012, 01:08 AM #7258
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
I think you're speaking for yourself. Not Millenials, many of whom really believed he would bring everybody together, create world peace and calm the seas. They also didn't realize he'd be terrible when it came to the economy.
IN other words, JPT, you give them no credit for any patience to clean up Bush's mess, which was so deep and messy that of course it would take a while to recover from.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#7259 at 02-18-2012 01:11 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-18-2012, 01:11 AM #7259
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by millennialX View Post
I have to agree with Ziggy on this. I don't think you can't pin point the Obama fever all on Millennials. The feelings for and against Obama were shared among many generations. The only reason why the 2008 election seems like a Millie issue is because there were enough Millies in general and of the age to vote. For the first time in many years we actually had enough young people who didnt need MTV to encourage them to "rock the vote."
Actually it was certainly the Millennials that made Obama president. They voted for him in much greater percentages than other generations. Without their increased numbers and participation in 2008, the election would have been a repeat of 2004. Obama might have squeaked in, but maybe not.

Not to mention that without their enthusiastic participation in the primaries and caucuses, he would not even have been nominated.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 02-18-2012 at 01:15 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#7260 at 02-18-2012 01:36 AM by pizal81 [at China joined May 2010 #posts 2,392]
---
02-18-2012, 01:36 AM #7260
Join Date
May 2010
Location
China
Posts
2,392

Quote Originally Posted by millennialX View Post
I have to agree with Ziggy on this. I don't think you can't pin point the Obama fever all on Millennials. The feelings for and against Obama were shared among many generations. The only reason why the 2008 election seems like a Millie issue is because there were enough Millies in general and of the age to vote. For the first time in many years we actually had enough young people who didnt need MTV to encourage them to "rock the vote."

No matter who was running for office, I think we would have seen a big interest with Millennials, because Millennials are interested in voting period and the more Millies who get of voting age...the stronger the Millie vote will be.

I also wonder if what looks like apathy among Millies will even make then vote more. My theory is that it's not an issue of them being a no show at the voting booth, but the current political crap has made them realize that they need to go to the booth more, during mid term elections, too.
At least, in the international news Obama was portrayed almost messianic. I remember thinking "A lot of people are gunna be disappoint" Not because I didn't believe in Obama, but because the expectations for him were ridiculously high. It's like a captain gets his ship all shot up and then thinking changing captains will fix everything. The change he was talking about was not what lot of people thought, but for some reason I always saw it in that context. That he was trying usher in an era that politics wasn't just about making the other guy look bad. He could succeed if people realize that is what's being done to him.
he's failed in a lot of ways. Spending is too high, wars he promised to stop are going, and he's on the same path as far as national security as Bush was. Bush may have been better on that last one.
“A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God.”

-Stephen Hawking







Post#7261 at 02-18-2012 02:07 AM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
02-18-2012, 02:07 AM #7261
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
You said you think Millenials wish he was more partisan, not less. I think you're wrong.
That's not what I said. I said they wished he played less like a politician looking for re-election. I think he thought triangulating (like Clinton after the 1994 midterm drubbing) was the best way to do that, but I don't think that was the "politics as usual" the hopeful wanted to see.







Post#7262 at 02-18-2012 06:25 AM by summer in the fall [at joined Jul 2011 #posts 1,540]
---
02-18-2012, 06:25 AM #7262
Join Date
Jul 2011
Posts
1,540

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Every year starting with the first taxation in the US, Quakers and other pacifists have been expected to pay their taxes, even though a large part of the take goes to financially support a military they don't support by religous bent. In many of those years, the ir money funded wars. Should they be allowed to forego paying that share of their taxes that fund the military?
I asked a similar question back in the thread and never got an answer.
Bill Maher shares your sentiment:



Best...

ETA: Note "bubble" irony.







Post#7263 at 02-18-2012 11:17 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
02-18-2012, 11:17 AM #7263
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
You said you think Millenials wish he was more partisan, not less. I think you're wrong.
Not partisan. Ideological. More liberal. More progressive. More of a champion of change -- as he promised to be. That's where the disappointment has come in. It really has nothing to do with partisanship.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#7264 at 02-18-2012 12:38 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
02-18-2012, 12:38 PM #7264
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
The thing I find really interesting is the difference between early and late members of a generation, based on who their parents are. I think the way each child generation is split between two parent generations is a big part of what makes them unique. The Millenials with Boomer parents are already through the pipeline and into young adulthood. The Millenials with Xer parents are just graduating from high school. I don't have a huge amount of contact with teenagers, but I sense a very different vibe from the later Millenials.
A "vibe" isn't enough.

I apologize in advance for making this characterization again, but the Y cusp/early Millenials (present company excluded) really are the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton cohort, with the well-publicized massive egos and expectations, and very weak grounding in reality. The younger Millenials who don't have much memory of the 1990s seem much more humble and down to earth, and remind me of their Jones/early X parents. Obama was a candidate tailor made for the early Millenial group, a superficial triumph of style over substance. But the thing that group hates most is looking foolish, and Obama has made them look really foolish. I think it's highly unlikely they're going to turn out again the way they did.
Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton are out of touch with their generation; having "easy money" is a rarity among Millennial adults who have usually earned everything that they have and gotten a raw deal. In view of the economic inequality of our time they are generally working five hours for raw survival and three for the indulgence and pampering of elites if they are in the for-profit private sector. They compare themselves to Boomer and X parents and know that they aren't doing so well, and such is not due to being less educated or working not so hard. They are getting the shaft and they know it.

They can make sacrifices, much like the GI Generation, but they expect all to pull their weight if they have the ability. That applies as much to elites as to themselves. They might be conservatives if conservative ideology did them some good -- but contemporary conservatism aligns itself with the denial of science, extreme disparities of income and wealth, and a self-serving elite running most of what matters. Like GIs they like things rational and equitable -- which looks like an antithesis of the political Right. Severe sacrifices of their own living standards and the prospects of their children on behalf of distant elites who promise economic growth yet say not for whom will offend their egalitarian sensibilities. Remember: the Boomer Left still has time in which to show credibility that the Boomer Right has largely lost.

I know some comparisons have been made here with the early and late GIs, but I haven't really looked into it. The gist of it seems to be that the "Greatest Generation" tag was really meant for the late GIs.
No two Crises are alike, and no two Civic generations can be quite the same. Peak danger for a generation and the potential for definition of the cohort then in its 20s for a reputation for teamwork and heroism went to late-wave Republicans and GIs in Crises that lasted over ten years. (Crisis eras tend to be shorter than other Eras -- the most blatant exception being perhaps Russia between 1917 and 1945) In the Civil War the Crisis struck early and hard and was over quickly -- early enough that the Reactive Generation (the Gilded) absorbed much of the character of a Civic generation. We have no idea when this Crisis era will peak. It may be that the Obama Presidency is the necessary calming and partial recovery necessary for meeting the real storm of the Crisis of 2020.

I have no cause to believe that the Millennial Generation will acquiesce in winner-take-all economics that eventually hurt the people that they most care for -- their children or that they will give in to the anti-rational claptrap of the Culture Wars that so far seem more effective in regulating people than achieving any material good.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 02-18-2012 at 03:24 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#7265 at 02-18-2012 12:57 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
02-18-2012, 12:57 PM #7265
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ion-mark-steyn

...it may seem odd to find the political class embroiled in a bitter argument about the Obama administration’s determination to force Catholic institutions (and, indeed, my company and your company, if you’re foolish enough still to be in business in the United States) to provide free prophylactics to their employees...

...This is a very curious priority for a dying republic. “Birth control” is accessible, indeed ubiquitous, and, by comparison with anything from a gallon of gas to basic cable, one of the cheapest expenses in the average budget. Not even Rick Santorum, that notorious scourge of the sexually liberated, wishes to restrain the individual right to contraception.
But where is the compelling societal interest in the state prioritizing and subsidizing it?

...“It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying ‘What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!’”

...People are free to buy bacon, and free to buy condoms. But the state has no compelling interest to force either down your throat.







Post#7266 at 02-18-2012 02:24 PM by JohnMc82 [at Back in Jax joined Jan 2011 #posts 1,962]
---
02-18-2012, 02:24 PM #7266
Join Date
Jan 2011
Location
Back in Jax
Posts
1,962

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
...This is a very curious priority for a dying republic. “Birth control” is accessible, indeed ubiquitous, and, by comparison with anything from a gallon of gas to basic cable, one of the cheapest expenses in the average budget. Not even Rick Santorum, that notorious scourge of the sexually liberated, wishes to restrain the individual right to contraception.


Why yes, this is a very curious controversy for a dying republic. So why exactly does the loud minority keep trying to make such a big deal about it?

But where is the compelling societal interest in the state prioritizing and subsidizing it?


Umm, unplanned pregnancies cost a LOT more than birth control pills, perpetuates the cycle of poverty, etc... Why do the Catholics want your health insurance premiums and taxes to go up to cover unplanned pregnancies?
Last edited by JohnMc82; 02-18-2012 at 02:40 PM.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.

'82 - Once & always independent







Post#7267 at 02-18-2012 03:19 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
02-18-2012, 03:19 PM #7267
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMc82 View Post
Why yes, this is a very curious controversy (contraception) for a dying republic. So why exactly does the loud minority keep trying to make such a big deal about it?
Maybe because they want a copious supply of cheap labor for the farms, mines, and mills -- and of course, plenty of cannon fodder for waging war. Cheap labor is a bane for civilization -- not a blessing.

Umm, unplanned pregnancies cost a LOT more than birth control pills, perpetuates the cycle of poverty, etc... Why do the Catholics want your health insurance premiums and taxes to go up to cover unplanned pregnancies?
JDG still believes that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and that economic growth through population growth is a sustainable way in which to solve all problems of sagging income. He remains a standing joke.

In any event, if I were promoting the supremacy of Roman Catholicism I would be promoting birth control for non-Catholics and busy maternity wards for Catholic women. Some people seem to love the sermon yet find it impossible to obey:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdhY0s3GOtw
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#7268 at 02-18-2012 03:42 PM by Kurt Horner [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 1,656]
---
02-18-2012, 03:42 PM #7268
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
1,656

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
{Quoting Steyn}...“It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying ‘What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!’”
This would be a closer analogy if the cost of getting bacon at a place of worship was included in your membership (and subsidized by the tax code), and the cost of getting bacon at restaurants was $10 a slice, and only available at a half dozen restaurants per state. If that were the environment, then yes, mandatory bacon coverage would be one way of offsetting the outrageous injustice of a highly restricted bacon market.

A better analogy is this:
Religious employers complaining about this mandate is like feudal lords complaining about the king putting an upper limit on land rents.







Post#7269 at 02-18-2012 04:18 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
02-18-2012, 04:18 PM #7269
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMc82 View Post
...Why yes, this is a very curious controversy for a dying republic. So why exactly does the loud minority keep trying to make such a big deal about it?
-Because they're being force to pay for it.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMc82 View Post
...Umm, unplanned pregnancies cost a LOT more than birth control pills, perpetuates the cycle of poverty, etc... Why do the Catholics want your health insurance premiums and taxes to go up to cover unplanned pregnancies?
-You really should read entire articles before commenting on them:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ark-steyn?pg=2

This is a very curious priority for a dying republic. “Birth control” is accessible, indeed ubiquitous, and, by comparison with anything from a gallon of gas to basic cable, one of the cheapest expenses in the average budget...

...Not everyone wants it in their health coverage; they'd rather have something else. If an employer is forced to pay for this, it means something else isn't getting covered. So, if its such a great investment, then you should be happy to let the individuals who want it pay for it on their own.

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
This would be a closer analogy if the cost of getting bacon at a place of worship was included in your membership (and subsidized by the tax code), and the cost of getting bacon at restaurants was $10 a slice, and only available at a half dozen restaurants per state. If that were the environment, then yes, mandatory bacon coverage would be one way of offsetting the outrageous injustice of a highly restricted bacon market...
-No. As I pointed out above, just as not everyone wants bacon (they'd rather have baklava), not everyone wants birth control in their health plan. If it's forced in, then that means something else is given up.

Your analogy stinks.


Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
...A better analogy is this:
Religious employers complaining about this mandate is like feudal lords complaining about the king putting an upper limit on land rents.
-If you can't tell the difference between a feudal lord, who you are bound to by law, and an employer, whom you can quit if you don't like what he has to offer (including his health plan), then you are both the world's crappiest historian AND the world's worst economist.

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
...JDG still believes that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and that economic growth through population growth is a sustainable way in which to solve all problems of sagging income...
-Because it is:

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

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulentinvestment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.

...its only difference from a conventional ponzi scheme is this:

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

...The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. Perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep the scheme going.

...in the government version, the sucker doesn't have a choice.

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
...He remains a standing joke.
-No, that would be a 50-something year-old man who has to be supported by his parents, and then bad mouths them behind their backs on an international forum.







Post#7270 at 02-18-2012 04:25 PM by Wallace 88 [at joined Dec 2010 #posts 1,232]
---
02-18-2012, 04:25 PM #7270
Join Date
Dec 2010
Posts
1,232

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
-Because they're being force to pay for it.



-You really should read entire articles before commenting on them:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ark-steyn?pg=2

This is a very curious priority for a dying republic. “Birth control” is accessible, indeed ubiquitous, and, by comparison with anything from a gallon of gas to basic cable, one of the cheapest expenses in the average budget...

...Not everyone wants it in their health coverage; they'd rather have something else. If an employer is forced to pay for this, it means something else isn't getting covered. So, if its such a great investment, then you should be happy to let the individuals who want it pay for it on their own.



-No. As I pointed out above, just as not everyone wants bacon (they'd rather have baklava), not everyone wants birth control in their health plan. If it's forced in, then that means something else is given up.

Your analogy stinks.




-If you can't tell the difference between a feudal lord, who you are bound to by law, and an employer, whom you can quit if you don't like what he has to offer (including his health plan), then you are both the world's crappiest historian AND the world's worst economist.



-Because it is:

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

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulentinvestment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.

...its only difference from a conventional ponzi scheme is this:

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

...The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. Perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep the scheme going.

...in the government version, the sucker doesn't have a choice.



-No, that would be a 50-something year-old man who has to be supported by his parents, and then bad mouths them behind their backs on an international forum.
I think its funny that the bishops pushed obama care, and now are fining out what putting the governemnt in charge means to them.

LMFAO!







Post#7271 at 02-18-2012 06:17 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
02-18-2012, 06:17 PM #7271
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

I think that Rick Santorum has a genuinlely self-destructive side. I think he would rather see himself as the last righteous man on earth than win an election. He's also a sanctimonious hypocrite, especially on economic issues. Yet Romney is so weak that he is now ahead. Amazing. The only worse career today than Democratic elected official is Republican elected official. .. .
Last edited by KaiserD2; 02-19-2012 at 10:19 AM.







Post#7272 at 02-18-2012 06:28 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-18-2012, 06:28 PM #7272
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
I think that Rick Santorum has a genuinlely self-destructive side. I think he would rather see himself as the last righteous man on earth than lose an election. He's also a sanctimonious hypocrite, especially on economic issues. Yet Romney is so weak that he is now ahead. Amazing. The only worse career today than Democratic elected official is Republican elected official. .. .
Grover Norquist may win yet. If no one is acceptable, who runs the government?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#7273 at 02-18-2012 06:46 PM by Kurt Horner [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 1,656]
---
02-18-2012, 06:46 PM #7273
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
1,656

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
-No. As I pointed out above, just as not everyone wants bacon (they'd rather have baklava), not everyone wants birth control in their health plan. If it's forced in, then that means something else is given up.
No, because the present standard is to include birth control. Premiums are actually likely to be higher without birth control coverage (since pregnancies are more expensive than the pill). An employer that doesn't want to pay for birth control is actually imposing a cost on themselves.

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
-If you can't tell the difference between a feudal lord, who you are bound to by law, and an employer, whom you can quit if you don't like what he has to offer (including his health plan), then you are both the world's crappiest historian AND the world's worst economist.
The distinction is one of degree, not kind. You act as if quitting a job and finding another is the easiest, cost-free thing in the world. It is far more inconvenient to switch jobs just to get birth control coverage than it is for a religious employer to just pay for the coverage. Especially since, per above, they actually lose money by not covering birth control. The only cost to religious employers is the psychic cost of having to potentially pay, ever-so-indirectly, for a birth control pill. I see a huge problem with that view. Consider:

Let's say we had a hypothetical world where employers didn't provide health care coverage, and worker's just bought coverage out of their wages. A religious employer would still be "forced to pay" for birth control unless they could make abstention from birth control a condition of employment. Frankly, anytime an employer gives wages to their employees instead of direct benefits there is a danger that the employee will spend some of that money on things the employer disapproves of. Do you think it's reasonable for an employer to dictate what you can spend your wages on? I imagine you would think that was outrageous. Yet, when the market has been constrained such that health care is a side benefit added to your wages, now suddenly it's reasonable for your employer to tell you what you can and cannot spend your money on? Is that really the position you want to take?

Health care coverage isn't the employer's money. It is the employees money, that they earned by providing labor to the employer. Taking away types of coverage is just as awful as raiding a pension fund, or cutting corners on safety measures, or having a paycheck bounce.







Post#7274 at 02-18-2012 07:03 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-18-2012, 07:03 PM #7274
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
No, because the present standard is to include birth control. Premiums are actually likely to be higher without birth control coverage (since pregnancies are more expensive than the pill). An employer that doesn't want to pay for birth control is actually imposing a cost on themselves.

The distinction is one of degree, not kind. You act as if quitting a job and finding another is the easiest, cost-free thing in the world. It is far more inconvenient to switch jobs just to get birth control coverage than it is for a religious employer to just pay for the coverage. Especially since, per above, they actually lose money by not covering birth control. The only cost to religious employers is the psychic cost of having to potentially pay, ever-so-indirectly, for a birth control pill. I see a huge problem with that view. Consider:

Let's say we had a hypothetical world where employers didn't provide health care coverage, and worker's just bought coverage out of their wages. A religious employer would still be "forced to pay" for birth control unless they could make abstention from birth control a condition of employment. Frankly, anytime an employer gives wages to their employees instead of direct benefits there is a danger that the employee will spend some of that money on things the employer disapproves of. Do you think it's reasonable for an employer to dictate what you can spend your wages on? I imagine you would think that was outrageous. Yet, when the market has been constrained such that health care is a side benefit added to your wages, now suddenly it's reasonable for your employer to tell you what you can and cannot spend your money on? Is that really the position you want to take?

Health care coverage isn't the employer's money. It is the employees money, that they earned by providing labor to the employer. Taking away types of coverage is just as awful as raiding a pension fund, or cutting corners on safety measures, or having a paycheck bounce.
Very well argued. I tend to cringe at the thought that religous orders can own businesses, and use them to indirectly impose their views on others. I haven't change my views, but your argument for why it's wrong is stronger.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#7275 at 02-18-2012 07:13 PM by wtrg8 [at NoVA joined Dec 2008 #posts 1,262]
---
02-18-2012, 07:13 PM #7275
Join Date
Dec 2008
Location
NoVA
Posts
1,262

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMc82 View Post


Why yes, this is a very curious controversy for a dying republic. So why exactly does the loud minority keep trying to make such a big deal about it?



Umm, unplanned pregnancies cost a LOT more than birth control pills, perpetuates the cycle of poverty, etc... Why do the Catholics want your health insurance premiums and taxes to go up to cover unplanned pregnancies?
Don't worry all Health premiums are going up; with or without contraceptives. But then again, we have a President that wants to model our country like the European Union experience. How is that working out?
-----------------------------------------