Fix-US

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.28.2019 04:43PM

3

4

9

08.28.2019 04:43PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Of course, I agree, 70% of kids growing up without a father is a huge factor of the break down of the core family unit which has been shown to increase the chances of those kids dropping out of school and growing up to become criminals.

Let's unpack this for a moment.

You say 70% (minority) kids grow up without a father.

Poor families? Financial stress contributes to divorce. Fix-US would keep more families together.

Poor families? Fathers who are poor and less educated are more likely to turn to crime (to pay bills) and minority fathers are more likely to be convicted (unable to hire rock-star lawyers) and are more likely to be handed harsher sentences - effectively forcing them to leave their family fatherless. And even if they are released before the children are grown, it is nearly impossible for them to get a job with a criminal conviction on their record, further perpetuating criminal behavior. Fix-US would keep more families together.

Also, note that throwing people in prison costs you $31,000 per year per-inmate. Fix-US would keep more families together.

Then you posited:

The question is, will the children themselves, the parents, and society as a whole be BETTER SERVED, if the parents had the option to get that same money directly? ($20,000 per child)
This is almost the same conversation I had with Imabench in another thread before he dropped the discussion. People have impulses and vices, there's no getting around it.

Risk factors for impulsivity and vices include broken homes and childhood abuse/neglect. Fix-US would keep more families together.

If a person knows they can get 20,000 per child per year from the government to do as they will,

Provided their children pass their quarterly exams.

...it will increase the number of broken homes, not decrease them as parents will have a financial incentive to have kids, but no incentive to actually take care of them beyond the bare minimum CPS standards.

If the parents divorce, then only the parent with custody will get the financial incentive. This is an incentive to keep families TOGETHER.

Financial stress is a primary risk factor for divorce. Fix-US would keep more families together.

It's the same deal with the broken Flores law at the border. If an illegal immigrant knows he can be released into the country after 20 days by bringing a child with him/her...it will increase the number of kids coming illegally, not decrease the number of kids, many of them who end up raped or dead. Our broken laws give illegals incentives to illegally bring kids to the border to cash in on free access to the USA.

I'm glad to hear you're in favor of incarcerating innocent children indefinitely, but that seems like a topic for another discussion.

By the way, you're paying $200 per day per immigrant detainee. That's about $73,000.00 per year to punish the poor.

The dissolution of the core family unit and the associated break-down of social trust is a fundamental contributor to crime.
...so if this is an issue you want to see addressed, keeping the family together should be your number one goal and all incentives should be toward that goal for the welfare of the child and the welfare of society on the whole.

That sounds like a fair assessment.

Perhaps if you put in a requirement that this money can only be given to 2 parent families (doesn't have to be heterosexual families), then MAYBE I can get on board.

That's an intriguing proposition. Can you please explain to me why single parents should be excluded?

#92

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,143

3

4

10

08.28.2019 05:17PM

3

4

10

08.28.2019 05:17PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Can you please explain to me why single parents should be excluded?

70% of kids growing up without a father IN THE HOME is a huge factor of the break down of the core family unit which has been shown to increase the chances of those kids dropping out of school and growing up to become criminals.

Topic's author

#93

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.28.2019 05:24PM

3

4

9

08.28.2019 05:24PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Can you please explain to me why single parents should be excluded?
70% of kids growing up without a father IN THE HOME is a huge factor of the break down of the core family unit which has been shown to increase the chances of those kids dropping out of school and growing up to become criminals.

Ok, I got that part.

So are you thinking that doing nothing to help them (and paying $31,000.00 per year per inmate) will somehow "fix" the problem better than giving them the option to home school their children with the $20,000.00 per year per-child that IS ALREADY BEING SPENT ON THEM TODAY?

Please explain your hypothesis.

#94

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,143

3

4

10

08.28.2019 05:32PM

3

4

10

08.28.2019 05:32PM

-->

@3RU7AL

I'm asking you to fix that by rewarding parents for staying together instead of rewarding parents for simply having kids.

Topic's author

#95

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.28.2019 05:55PM

3

4

9

08.28.2019 05:55PM

-->

@Athias

Please speak up if you disagree.
I disagree. Break down of social trust and the dissolution of the family unit is not a fundamental contributor to crime. You must be aware of that for which can control; hence, these factors are often cited as factors which correlate to criminal activity, not cause it.

Please explain your personal hypothesis on the causes and possible solutions for criminal behavior.

The average American school gets about $20,000.00 per year per-child.

If everyone had the option to get a supplemental income of $60,000.00 per year to home-school their 3 children, don't you think they'd jump at the chance?
You're ignoring one fact: this voucher of which you speak will not act as an inter-temporal grant for future investment and production; it's just another subsidy for the poor.

PUBLIC SCHOOL IS ALREADY A SUBSIDY FOR THE POOR. Fix-US merely cuts out the pointless bureaucracy. It basically hires the parents to teach their own children. KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER.

And the poor have low marketable skills and little capital. (There are reasons, for example, most lottery winners burn right through their cash winnings quickly if you're interested in the read.)

All parents can teach kindergarten. All parents can teach first grade. All parents can teach second grade. The parents will learn what they need while teaching the kids.

You speak of the lack of oversight for private charter schools yet how do you intend to oversee the use of these vouchers and how they're spent if they are to act as a direct cash transfer?

The children are independently tested for aptitude quarterly at testing centers. If the child scores low, their weekly education payment is cut by 5% per week until the child reaches their benchmark.

How do you plan to instruct the recipients on spending the money wisely? Wouldn't that cost more money? And if you set a performance standard for those who decide to homeschool their children, don't you risk marginalizing those whom these vouchers intend to help?

Even current home schoolers have to pass state tests. I'm not sure how this "marginalizes" anyone.

Your "solution" is essentially to throw many at it under the presumption that these recipients are "victims of their circumstances" rather than subjects of their choices.

If your father is killed and your mother has to work two jobs, how is this situation your choice? [LINK]

It wouldn't affect inflation because it's not NEW money, it's just the same money that's already being spent, it would just be going to different people (trickle-up economics).
The only money which has been spent is money that has been spent. You're speaking of money the government intends to spend. And since the government doesn't have this money, it has to print fiat (i.o.u.'s.) And printing money with no (precious metal/resource standard) creates inflation.

Don't get me started on fiat. [LINK]

Fix-US will not affect inflation COMPARED TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM. It's just the same money that's already GOING to be spent.

(1) Do you think this proposal (Fix-US) would generate more or fewer criminals?
It's hard to tell. The recipients can use their vouchers to invest or save, or spend on their vices. You've haven't really present any schema that oversees their spending activities.

The children are independently tested for aptitude quarterly at testing centers. If the child scores low, their weekly education payment is cut by 5% per week until the child reaches their benchmark.

I appreciate your critique. [LINK]

Topic's author

#96

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.28.2019 06:05PM

3

4

9

08.28.2019 06:05PM

-->

@Greyparrot

I'm asking you to fix that by rewarding parents for staying together instead of rewarding parents for simply having kids.

Why would you want to punish someone who's husband was shot?

Why would you want to punish someone who's husband was thrown in prison?

Why would you want to punish someone who's husband abandoned them?

Why is someone "less deserving" of an opportunity to stay home and teach their own children, and build a healthy lifelong relationship with them simply because their spouse may have made some bad choices or simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I agree with you that (under ideal circumstances) families should have two parents, but if you simply abandon single parents, that DOES NOTHING to mitigate risk factors for divorce.

AND IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO HAVE KIDS. WHY DO YOU WANT TO STOP PEOPLE FROM HAVING KIDS?

#97

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,143

3

4

10

08.28.2019 07:11PM

3

4

10

08.28.2019 07:11PM

-->

@3RU7AL

It's the kids who are actually being punished for not having a father in the home. Then they take it out on society for not doing anything about it.

Topic's author

#98

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.28.2019 08:13PM

3

4

9

08.28.2019 08:13PM

-->

@Greyparrot

It's the kids who are actually being punished for not having a father in the home. Then they take it out on society for not doing anything about it.

And you can't imagine that having their mother teach them and spend time with them full time (instead of working long hours or two jobs) would help mitigate that damage?

#99

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

08.28.2019 08:16PM

3

9

08.28.2019 08:16PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Please explain your hypothesis on the causes and possible solutions for criminal behavior.

What is the cause of criminal behavior? Agency. What is the solution? There is none. As long as an individual has the discretion to act, you cannot "solve" criminal behavior. You can address the matter by creating incentives and disincentives, but those are merely stalls, not solutions.

PUBLIC SCHOOL IS ALREADY A SUBSIDY FOR THE POOR.

I already know. And like public school, you're merely reallocating funds from one welfare initiative to another, presuming nothing will spillover from absence of that which you name "bureaucracy." You have yet to provide a schema informing how you intend to monitor the expenditures as they are intended to be spent.

All parents can teach kindergarten. All parents can teach first grade. All parents can teach second grade. The parents will learn what they need while teaching the kids.

What about third grade? Tenth grade? University level? Post-graduate level? How do you address the costs of cultivating the necessarily skills to instruct at these levels? Throw them another bag of money assuming "they'll learn as they teach?"

The children are independently tested for aptitude quarterly at testing centers. If the child scores low, their weekly education payment is cut by 5% per week until the child reaches their benchmark.

Even current home schoolers have to pass state tests. I'm not sure how this "marginalizes" anyone.

How do you intend to pay for these accommodations for testing aptitude? What if the child never reaches his or her benchmark? Do you fire the parents and put an end to their subsidy? You're assuming a lot.

The difference between Home schoolers and that which you propose is that home schoolers primarily risk their own funds. That's much of an incentive to manage their spending better. The fact that they decided to go the homeschool route also demonstrates their intentions with said route because they are once again risking their own money. And if they fail, they assume responsibility.

If your father is killed and your mother has to work two jobs, how is this situation your choice?

What situation is that? How does a mother's working two jobs, and a deceased father, prevent one from making a choice in service to one's own good? What about personal responsibility?

Don't get me started on fiat. [LINK]

I know how fiat works.

Fix-US will not affect inflation COMPARED TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM.

You're presuming. Runaway inflation (hyperinflation) is always possible with any measure which creates inflation. Just because the government has a target inflation rate (usually using the CPI) doesn't mean that there'd be no effect on inflation--affecting real purchasing power. And given that the U.S. dollar has been on a steady decline for decades, while the inflation rate doesn't "worsen," your mention of comparisons is of no consequence. The U.S. will likely be forced to adopt a "global currency"--most likely something similar to bitcoin--eliminating the need for paper. If one already thinks of the effects printing paper has on inflation, one would be able to imagine the effect of the bit. But I digress.

It's just the same money that's already GOING to be spent.

Which requires money it doesn't have to be printed.

You're presenting "Fix-US" as a zero-sum game, yet you haven't provided any information, much less a schema, as to how that is. Your proposal while noble lacks grit. Why not take it to its extreme: eliminate taxation, and allow all laborers to keep 100% of their income? And if there's to be a public option, it can be financed by volunteers. Does this not suffice?

#100

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,143

3

4

10

08.28.2019 08:18PM

3

4

10

08.28.2019 08:18PM

-->

@3RU7AL

It's not an ideal situation for the kids. Period. It doesn't matter how much you want to make a single parent into a superparent. It's NOT an ideal environment for the kids.

Fix the environment.

Topic's author

#101

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.28.2019 08:47PM

3

4

9

08.28.2019 08:47PM

-->

@Athias

You're presenting "Fix-US" as a zero-sum game, yet you haven't provided any information, much less a schema, as to how that is. Your proposal while noble lacks grit. Why not take it to its extreme: eliminate taxation, and allow all laborers to keep 100% of their income? And if there's to be a public option, it can be financed by volunteers. Does this not suffice?

Try this, [LINK]

Topic's author

#102

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.28.2019 09:08PM

3

4

9

08.28.2019 09:08PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Fix the environment.

What's your proposal?

#103

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

08.28.2019 09:15PM

3

9

08.28.2019 09:15PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Try this, [LINK]

I'm not talking about reducing/cutting taxes; I stating to eliminate it all together. The government can service its current debt with its gold stock, spr's, and land; it can default on its future obligations (i.e. social security, government pensions, welfare programs, etc.) And the bank sponsored politicians (which is likely all of them) can service the rest of the debt by selling their own assets. Does this not suffice?

#104

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,143

3

4

10

08.28.2019 09:51PM

3

4

10

08.28.2019 09:51PM

-->

@3RU7AL

I already told you. Start rewarding parents for residing together and stop rewarding the ones who reside alone. If you don't want to do the best thing for your child and raise him in a 2 parent environment, then put the kid(s) up for adoption.

Stop glorifying and supporting single-parent households, it's not helping the kids at all. The data is very clear on this.

Topic's author

#105

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.29.2019 12:17PM

3

4

9

08.29.2019 12:17PM

-->

@Athias

I'm not talking about reducing/cutting taxes; I stating to eliminate it all together. The government can service its current debt with its gold stock, spr's, and land; it can default on its future obligations (i.e. social security, government pensions, welfare programs, etc.) And the bank sponsored politician (which is likely all of them) can service the rest of the debt by selling their own assets. Does this not suffice?

#1 the EFFECTIVE tax rate for people who make $31,300.00-$52,999.99 is -39% that is A SUBSIDY (BONUS, FREE MONEY) EQUAL TO 39% of their earned income. PAYING TAXES MAKES YOU RICHER THAN NOT PAYING TAXES.

If you make less than $88,700.00 a year, you not only pay NO TAXES, but you GET MORE BACK (federal transfers) THAN YOU PUT IN.

Effective Tax Rates,

Poorest 20% -- gets 56% back

Next 20% -- gets 39% back

Middle 20% -- gets 15% back

Next richest 20% -- pays 3%

Top 1% -- pays 34%

RIGHT NOW. IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM. [LINK]

#2 as an individual, debt = bad. I get it. However, if you run a business, especially real-estate, debt = good.

But what you seem to be forgetting is that all of the rules for individuals and for individual businesses DO NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENT DEBT.

We live in an incoherent system where basic principles that are true on one scale are absolutely NOT true on other scales. [LINK]

Topic's author

#106

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.29.2019 12:31PM

3

4

9

08.29.2019 12:31PM

-->

@Greyparrot

I already told you. Start rewarding parents for residing together and stop rewarding the ones who reside alone. If you don't want to do the best thing for your child and raise him in a 2 parent environment, then put the kid(s) up for adoption.

Stop glorifying and supporting single-parent households, it's not helping the kids at all. The data is very clear on this.

Adopted children have far worse outcomes than single parent (biological parent) homes. [LINK]

WE AGREE that two biological parents is better than one. But tearing a child, even an infant, away from its biological parent is a human atrocity. [LINK]

HERE'S ANOTHER BONUS. $20,000.00 per year per-child would END ABORTION.

#107

ebuc

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,309

3

2

4

ebuc

08.29.2019 05:20PM

3

2

4

08.29.2019 05:20PM

-->

@Greyparrot

...If you don't want to do the best thing for your child and raise him in a 2 parent environment, then put the kid(s) up for adoption.....

Two adults is next best thing so rewarding cohousing familiy units is next best thing These trump cult followers need to broaden their mind-set by about 357 degrees.

O = full circle set of 360 degrees

#108

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,143

3

4

10

08.29.2019 07:20PM

3

4

10

08.29.2019 07:20PM

-->

@3RU7AL

That study is focused on kindergarten math, which is full of an insane amount of mitigating factors. Nothing in that study says anything about adopted kids being more likely to drop out of school and commit crimes, unlike the thousands of studies that clearly show that children without a father in the home are by far and away more likely to drop out of school and commit crimes.

You are stretching to cherry-pick data and studies to fit your narrative that it's just fine for society to replace a father or father figure with something else.

Topic's author

#109

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.29.2019 07:45PM

3

4

9

08.29.2019 07:45PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Problem Behavior in Kindergarten and First Grade

Where's your study that suggests adopted parents provide better outcomes than a single birth parent?

Early anti-social behavior is a key risk factor, [LINK]

Topic's author

#110

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.29.2019 08:49PM

3

4

9

08.29.2019 08:49PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Here's another data point for you, http://crimemagazine.com/adoption-forensics-connection-between-adoption-and-murder

I also overheard a conversation recently where a woman was explaining that her husband was the victim of a crime in a parking lot, and CPS took her child away because the kid had witnessed the crime. It seems we are a little too quick to demonize parents because we imagine the children will automatically be better off with someone else, even though there doesn't appear to be any hard evidence to support this hypothesis.

#111

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,143

3

4

10

https://billmuehlenberg.com/2010/02/16/the-dangers-of-fatherlessness/

08.30.2019 12:25AM

3

4

10

08.30.2019 12:25AM

-->

@3RU7AL

Of the 500 estimated serial killers in U.S. history, 16 percent were adopted as children, while adoptees represent only 2 or 3 percent of the general population.

Okay....and out of those 500 how many had no father in the home???

#112

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,143

3

4

10

https://www.bbcearth.com/blog/?article=teenage-elephants-need-a-father-figure

08.30.2019 12:34AM

3

4

10

08.30.2019 12:34AM

-->

@3RU7AL

Just in case you hate people.

#113

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

08.30.2019 01:57AM

3

9

08.30.2019 01:57AM

-->

@3RU7AL

#1 the EFFECTIVE tax rate for people who make $31,300.00-$52,999.99 is -39% that is A SUBSIDY (BONUS, FREE MONEY) EQUAL TO 39% of their earned income. PAYING TAXES MAKES YOU RICHER THAN NOT PAYING TAXES.

If you make less than $88,700.00 a year, you not only pay NO TAXES, but you GET MORE BACK (federal transfers) THAN YOU PUT IN.

Effective Tax Rates,

Poorest 20% -- gets 56% back

Next 20% -- gets 39% back

Middle 20% -- gets 15% back

Next richest 20% -- pays 3%

Top 1% -- pays 34%

RIGHT NOW. IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM. [LINK]

The professor from your video not only focuses entirely on just federal taxes (state, local, and perhaps fica taxes notwithstanding,) but also neglects to mention that federal transfers are subject to taxation as they are a part of personal income--and that assumes that the entirety of those specific taxed demographics collect on the entirety of the federal transfers available. You may want to redo those numbers or cite a more detailed analysis of taxation. What would be the issue with eliminating taxation?

#2 as an individual, debt = bad. I get it. However, if you run a business, especially real-estate, debt = good.

Debt is always bad. One is borrowing against one's future (definite) when one incurs debt; so it's incumbent upon on one to redeem this loss and turn a profit through investment (indefinite.)

But what you seem to be forgetting is that all of the rules for individuals and for individual businesses DO NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENT DEBT.

We live in an incoherent system where basic principles that are true on one scale are absolutely NOT true on other scales.

So do away with the incoherent system. Does that not suffice?

Topic's author

#114

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.30.2019 12:30PM

3

4

9

08.30.2019 12:30PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Of the 500 estimated serial killers in U.S. history, 16 percent were adopted as children, while adoptees represent only 2 or 3 percent of the general population.

Okay....and out of those 500 how many had no father in the home???

Adopted children are OVER-REPRESENTED in serial killer demographics.

We don't actually disagree.

HOW DO YOU PROPOSE WE FIX THE MISSING FATHER PROBLEM??????????????????????????????????///

Topic's author

#115

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.30.2019 12:38PM

3

4

9

08.30.2019 12:38PM

-->

@Athias

The professor from your video not only focuses entirely on just federal taxes (state, local, and perhaps fica taxes notwithstanding,) but also neglects to mention that federal transfers are subject to taxation as they are a part of personal income--and that assumes that the entirety of those specific taxed demographics collect on the entirety of the federal transfers available. You may want to redo those numbers or cite a more detailed analysis of taxation. What would be the issue with eliminating taxation?

The lower levels still get back more in benefits than they pay in. Public schools cost $20,000.00 per year per-child. Most families with 3 kids don't make $60,000.00 per year.

#2 as an individual, debt = bad. I get it. However, if you run a business, especially real-estate, debt = good.
Debt is always bad. One is borrowing against one's future (definite) when one incurs debt; so it's incumbent upon on one to redeem this loss and turn a profit through investment (indefinite.)

This is demonstrably false. Debt-free corporations have no chance of competing with Debt-full corporations.

But what you seem to be forgetting is that all of the rules for individuals and for individual businesses DO NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENT DEBT.

We live in an incoherent system where basic principles that are true on one scale are absolutely NOT true on other scales.
So do away with the incoherent system. Does that not suffice?

Please explain your road-map to utopia. I'm all ears.

#116

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

08.30.2019 04:15PM

3

9

08.30.2019 04:15PM

-->

@3RU7AL

The lower levels still get back more in benefits than they pay in.

I don't doubt that at all.

Public schools cost $20,000.00 per year per-child. Most families with 3 kids don't make $60,000.00 per year.

Then perhaps it would behoove us all to not subsidize the behavior of those who don't plan for their families.

This is demonstrably false. Debt-free corporations have no chance of competing with Debt-full corporations.

Please demonstrate this falsehood.

Please explain your road-map to utopia. I'm all ears.

Did I mention "utopia"? Is getting rid of taxation utopian? Or the government itself? How?

I speak not of "utopia" but of "approach." And that approach is autarchy (not to be confused with autocracy.) Does that not suffice?

Topic's author

#117

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.30.2019 05:54PM

3

4

9

08.30.2019 05:54PM

-->

@Athias

Public schools cost $20,000.00 per year per-child. Most families with 3 kids don't make $60,000.00 per year.
Then perhaps it would behoove us all to not subsidize the behavior of those who don't plan for their families.

Don't help them, just wait until they commit criminal acts and then pay $31,000.00 per prisoner per year. Sounds great.

This is demonstrably false. Debt-free corporations have no chance of competing with Debt-full corporations.
Please demonstrate this falsehood.

Try this, [LINK]

Please explain your road-map to utopia. I'm all ears.
Did I mention "utopia"? Is getting rid of taxation utopian? Or the government itself? How?

I speak not of "utopia" but of "approach." And that approach is autarchy (not to be confused with autocracy.) Does that not suffice?

Oh, sure, ok, please explain your road-map to a better system. I'm all ears.

#118

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

08.30.2019 07:48PM

3

9

08.30.2019 07:48PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Don't help them, just wait until they commit criminal acts and then pay $31,000.00 per prisoner per year. Sounds great.

First, not subsidizing them is not the same as not helping them; second, are you under the impression that because there's a correlation between poverty and crime that your cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument is valid--i.e. criminality is inevitable among the poor? Weren't you the one that created the thread, "Poor = Bad," where you contradicted that notion?

Try this, [LINK]

Where did he state that debt wasn't bad? He said that using debt as money isn't taught in schools (as in the real estate industry.) Though that is patently false--it depends on which school. (I certainly learned that when studying Economics and Accounting.) He doesn't qualify it at all. In fact, he mentions that the people were being screwed over with debt. And he made two gaffes: the gold standard was removed in 1933, not 1971. In 1971, Richard Nixon disallowed the conversion of U.S. currency to gold. Gerald Ford would somewhat reverse this by allowing the conversion from gold bullion to U.S. currency in 1974. What is meant by the gold standard is that each certificate or fiat can be redeemed by U.S. banks at a fixed amount of gold. And that hasn't been the case since 1933. His second gaffe is that derivatives went from 700 hundred trillion to 1.2 trillion. That's false. He probably meant, 700 hundred billion.

I do agree with him that the baby boomers who are now retiring are going to be a huge problem.

Oh, sure, ok, please explain your road-map to a better system. I'm all ears.

Get rid of taxation; get of rid of centralized governments; privatize everything. Let policy be subject to the free-market. Does this not suffice?

Topic's author

#119

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

3

4

9

08.30.2019 08:13PM

3

4

9

08.30.2019 08:13PM

-->

@Athias

Don't help them, just wait until they commit criminal acts and then pay $31,000.00 per prisoner per year. Sounds great.
First, not subsidizing them is not the same as not helping them; second, are you under the impression that because there's a correlation between poverty and crime that your cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument is valid--i.e. criminality is inevitable among the poor? Weren't you the one that created the thread, "Poor = Bad," where you contradicted that notion?

People who have basic food, clothing and shelter are less desperate and less likely to become criminals.

Are you suggesting that criminal behavior is an inscrutable mystery that can never be mitigated or resolved?

#120

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9