Democrats versus Republicans

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

are you suggesting that some gov't body should have a check off sheet that would determine whether I'm smart enough to manage my own money or not? thats scary.

No, but given the fly-by nature of this and other posts I put up when I should wait until I have the time to write better, I can see why you're asking.

What I meant was that on the way to dismantling this beast, those who are well off will have to take a cut in their SS payments. Otherwise, this thing will never go away.

Ragnar: It was constructed in defiance of what was politically possible, by a tyrant who sought alleviate a mess that was created by the principles he enacted to counter it.

CP:

Partially true.
With the US In a deep depression, the industrial revolution gearing up, the dynamics of the country were changing. People that had generational family farms were moving to the cities in droves.
As a rural agricultural based economy and lifestyle, families typically had multiple generations living under the same roof. with the moves to the city, that ended (for the most part)

This is one of the more rational perspective of the Great Depression that floats around. Unfortunately, it's as accurate as the claim that the US was founded by the Pilgrims.

Here's the deal:

Truly free economies don't stall. Specific industries may hit a recession, but barring a massive unforeseen development, truly free economies make no note of the factors offered by CP, or the hundreds of other parallel reasons offered in similar accounts of the GD.

When an open-market stalls, it's always due to Gov interference.

The huge trigger of the GD was the FedReserve.

After WWI, the UK needed huge amounts of cash to rebuild. SO did many other allies and parts of the US. Since we were far more sane in those days, no politician would dare ask the US people to extend foreign aide/credits.

So what did these people, people who thought it would do the US good to get into WWI, as its people had gotten too comfortable with the good life?

They put pressure on the FedRes to keep interests rates low.

Result?

EZ credit, sound familiar?, and endless speculation were not countered by a commensurate increase in interest rates (what a truly free banking system would have done) leading to a total collapse.

(The FedRes has been a disaster since day one. Letting government set interest rates is only matched on the insanity scale by setting aside the gold standard.)

As for the New Deal:

OLD!

This was taken by FDR and friends, almost world for word, from the Weimar Republic. (The WR, remember, had its roots in striking a compromise between semi-free economy advocates, and Communists who were always resorting to violence to get their way. Same mentality, literally the same movements, came to Chicago and unleashed the union movement here.)

Further, repeated attempts at fixing that disaster by both parties have been shown to have made things worse -- much, much worse.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

[/i]
the only issue I have is... There is a VAST number of people, regardless of socio-economic status or background that would NOT save for the future.

Well, how did a nation of fiercely independent people come to this so quickly?

I don't want us to just snap our fingers and make SS and other gov programs go away. I want it announced, the people and the relevant industries prepared, etc.

But again, I ask: In a free nation of what concern is it that hoards of idiots haven't planned their lives well? Why are those who aren't willing to evade the obvious to be stalled by these people?

Plus, there are in between steps hat may betaken: the Swiss model sounds like a good first step if we must slow down the rate of returning to our senses.

Last: I don't accept that if we were to confront reality again, ie, take Gov out, that people wouldn't know what to do, and that a significant % wouldn't do it.

According to some more useless stats, over 20% of the wage earners in the US DO NOT have a bank account, thats right no checking or savings account. They cash their paychecks at wal-mart, the grocery, check cashing establishments. Are you telling me that given that little tidbit, those people would shave off X% and drop it off at charles shwab?

Useless indeed.

THis is another set of incredibly popular and respected objections that I find silly.

First, just by getting a paycheck, they're already contributing 17% of their income to SS -- my example had them contributing far less, earning far higher retirement monthlies, while still having that nest egg.

Second, I truly believe that even the most irresponsible wise up when they're up against reality. What did people do before the Nanny State?

Third, I don't care if they don't wise up. The lives of others aren't here for the less willing to mooch off of. That's the nature of free societies, folks. It's also the only way to assure that people that chose to play games with reality, have a chance at learning and recovering from those mistakes.

[cardiacpaul]

Second, I truly believe that even the most irresponsible wise up when they're up against reality. What did people do before the Nanny State?

do ya, unfortunatly, most of the windfall lottery millions (that go broke within 5 years say differently)

most of the pigs at the trough in the "dot bomb" would say differently too. I'm hear to tell ya, given 10.00 in the pocket today vs. putting it a savings account, I KNOW what the majority would do.

Get off "what did people do before the nanny state." arguement, it don't fly well.
Heres what people did, They lived on farms,milked cows, with gardens, with their parents, and grandparents, think... the waltons. that WAS the reality, that was the majority. "back in the day"... Of course, the life expenctancey was lower, construction materials were hard to come by, farm equipment was measured in real horses...

Third, I don't care if they don't wise up. The lives of others aren't here for the less willing to mooch off of. That's the nature of free societies, folks.

So, mister sink or swim,
lets say mom and or pops comes down with the big "c" word, whacha gunna do when the private pay insurance runs out, hmm? it will run out you know. According to you, screw 'em, not your fault they didn't plan for that. I guess you don't take second out on your home to help out, nosiree, you tell 'em good luck to ya, damn, that chemo's expensive. Must be your kids are never going to get hurt in an accident, or have to have long term care. Thats really going to suck for them, having to pay their own bills while they don't have a job, can't get work after the recovery, but I understand, its cuz they were too stoopid to plan for all that.
God, I want to see your portfolio.

Heres one to consider.
a fella works for a fortune 100 company. Over 10 yrs at that company, 25 years in the field. "Full" bene's, plus a 6 figure deal. Got it?
good, Heart attack number one.
not bad, insurance pays for all but 43,450.00
disability insurance kicks in, theres 1/2 salary for 6 months. good deal, all is good. except, employer tells guy, "you know, you should stay home". Ok, got it.
Ever try to get a job after a heart attack? hmm, thought not.
Oh, just for giggles, now, slap, boom bang, another heart attack, here you go, heres another bill for what the insurance company didn't pay, that'll be 38,400.00.

Did I forget the insurance? oh yea, cuz the guy ain't drawing a paycheck anymore, you get to go cobra, thats about 1000.00 per month. Need I keep going?

Tell me big guy have you had any rain in your life?

You have got to be kidding, are you truly for a "free society?" good, build your own fricken road, I hope you're good at telecom, 'cuz if you don't pay my prices, you ain't getting on the airwaves unless you buy your own bandwitdh.

Power? there wouldn't be any, hope you can run a stihl and know the difference between a poplar and a locust.
must be your kids can kill their own food. Did you ever take a medication? I'm kinda glad some of the drug companies got a couple of breaks to come up with some that I'm taking. Hey, thats not your fault, but thanks for paying your taxes.
be careful what you ask for. you may just get it and have to deal with the consequences.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

Second, I truly believe that even the most irresponsible wise up when they're up against reality. What did people do before the Nanny State?

do ya, unfortunatly, most of the windfall lottery millions (that go broke within 5 years say differently)

The numbers are something like 80% of lottery winners go broke within 5 years. But pointing to a particular behavior or pattern in a culture or subculture, doesn't make the mentality behind that behavior unalterable.

Also, unless you were to refer to criminals, you couldn't find a subgroup that rejects causality more diligently than people that play lotto at the "religious" level -- by comparison, Vegas devotees epitomize statistical mastery.

most of the pigs at the trough in the "dot bomb" would say differently too. I'm hear to tell ya, given 10.00 in the pocket today vs. putting it a savings account, I KNOW what the majority would do

Sorry, you may have strong feelings Re what the Majority would do but those hardly add up to an argument against the justice of letting people live the lives that follow from the character they've built. The safety net you're asking for -- one that could never be built; one that stalls the economy in countless ways and therefore hurts the people you seek to protect from themselves; one that's self refuting, as to claim Standard of Living rights is self-refuting -- is no more fair than if the more able were to stand and ask that these people's finances be taken over by the state to assure that they're never a burden to society.

Get off "what did people do before the nanny state." arguement, it don't fly well. Heres what people did, They lived on farms,milked cows, with gardens, with their parents, and grandparents, think... the waltons. that WAS the reality, that was the majority. "back in the day"... Of course, the life expenctancey was lower, construction materials were hard to come by, farm equipment was measured in real horses...

Not true, in that industrialization was sweeping the nation way before the GD; Man had built cities for millennia and many of the most successful did avoid the commune model.

Further, as nothing stated in the above challenges the autonomous nature of the human experience, the validity of setting up societies that take that fact into account, the benefits to those with less character of letting their betters thrive, or, more important than anything else, the Justice of letting people live their lives, your objections don't address any essentials.

Pointing to depravity in our culture doesn't add up to an argument for enslaving those who aren't depraved, in the name of that depravity.

R: Third, I don't care if they don't wise up. The lives of others aren't here for the less willing to mooch off of. That's the nature of free societies, folks.

C: So, mister sink or swim, lets say mom and or pops comes down with the big "c" word, whacha gunna do when the private pay insurance runs out, hmm? it will run out you know. According to you, screw 'em, not your fault they didn't plan for that. I guess you don't take second out on your home to help out, nosiree, you tell 'em good luck to ya, damn, that chemo's expensive. Must be your kids are never going to get hurt in an accident, or have to have long term care. Thats really going to suck for them, having to pay their own bills while they don't have a job, can't get work after the recovery, but I understand, its cuz they were too stoopid to plan for all that.
God, I want to see your portfolio.

This quick, convenient, typical summation of the issue is loaded with false alternatives.

Again, the idea that if Gov doesn't do something it doesn't get done, flies in the face of how most effective charity work gets done. It also defies the impact Gov programs have had on the population, as they create more demand for themselves by worsening the problems in question. (How could they not? These programs bypass the cause of these problems, and try to bypass one of the defining attributes of the human experience, freewill.)

Not wanting to be enslaved in the name of others' misery, doesn't mean that I don't value specific people enough to want to help them out. Further, as much as one may want to help out, truly worthwhile people don't want to see the lives of people they care about adversely impacted by life's likelihoods.

On health care:

The current unfathomable mess is the result of FDR's detached from reality morality.

Prior, healthcare was as it should be. Since the end user paid, healthcare costs were under control. All kinds of tables were published as to what was a fair charge for all kinds of procedurs, most of which took patient income into account for the more expensive procedures.

When he took us to war, FDR needed industry to gear up to arm the nation. As always, industry went looking for the very best talent it could afford. Given the pressures, they got into bidding wars for the best white and blue talent available.

This infuriated FDR and his advisors -- "how selfish of people to ask for higher wages at a time like this," never mind the real need of the best talent going to the concerns that could pay them more -- so under the pretense of worrying about inflation due to soaring wages -- inflation is the rise in price of goods and services due to an ever-increasing money supply, not, a the idiots running Gov for 100+ years think, increases in price due to fluctuations in supply and demand; that flux is valid and must remain pure so that the economy can adjust to it, assuring maximum efficiency -- FDR past a a wage freeze.

But reality doesn't budge. Industry still had to find ways was to create a workforce. Voila, Benefits. Voila, for the first time in free history, a crucial service like healthcare was severed from user-pays, to "it's free." When this generation got to retirement, LBJ used their expectation of "free" healthcare and the guilt over the assassination to pass his fantasies into law (many of these laws were threats to private insurers that didn't want to take Gov money to insure the under or uninsured, because they knew what every child knows: take the freebee now, and you're a Gov pawn forever. Insurance caved in when their licenses were threatened if they didn't play ball.) Now, not only did we have people expecting to not have to think about a key service in terms of dollars and what they could afford, but we had an unlimited supply of other people's money to draw from.

It didn't take long for a system that was now completely detached from fiscal reality to go nuts.

It all ended in 1974, when Nixon, seeing that there was no way the Gov could cover this insatiable appetite for price no cost medical care, passed the laws that brought is HMOs.

Interference always recks.

Full privatization of healthcare is the best way to keep costs down, assure innovation, responsible use of resources, and to get out of the mentality of seeing others as either resources or drains. The more crucial the service, the stronger the argument to shelter said industry form the Commune mentality.

Heres one to consider.
a fella works for a fortune 100 company. Over 10 yrs at that company, 25 years in the field. "Full" bene's, plus a 6 figure deal. Got it?
good, Heart attack number one.
not bad, insurance pays for all but 43,450.00
disability insurance kicks in, theres 1/2 salary for 6 months. good deal, all is good. except, employer tells guy, "you know, you should stay home". Ok, got it.
Ever try to get a job after a heart attack? hmm, thought not.
Oh, just for giggles, now, slap, boom bang, another heart attack, here you go, heres another bill for what the insurance company didn't pay, that'll be 38,400.00.

I love how shamelessly you psychologize a person you know nothing about, looking for cheap rhetoric when you should be looking to argue the point on its own merits.

Any impact prior medical history has on anyone's employment options stems from the disasters that follow from the political mentality behind our pathetic healthcare system.

Tell me big guy have you had any rain in your life?

Nope.

This is beyond asinine, made worse by its irrelevance, becoming pathetically laughable as the system you're advocating for is the reason healthcare has come to this.

You have got to be kidding, are you truly for a "free society?" good, build your own fricken road, I hope you're good at telecom, 'cuz if you don't pay my prices, you ain't getting on the airwaves unless you buy your own bandwitdh.

Yeah, those roads just show up, right? People don't pay for them. They're not built inefficiently. Tolls and arbitrary traffic control via Police aren't just another source of income for the Machine. Traffic jams aren't a reality that sucks fortunes out of our pockets because of inefficiency, etc.

Where private roads have been tried, we get the same awesome efficiencies and soar in quality as any other private field.

Further, if the private sector doesn't undertake a particular project or industry, it usually means that it's unnecessary in FISCAL terms. Further, like all perversions, though one can find benefits to building an interstate system prematurely, there are tons of reasons why we should've waited for it to be undertaken by privateers, meaning, waited until there was such a need for it that private industry could undertake that enormous task.

As for the bandwidth:

So what?

It's no different than any other invention, meaning, its owners make the most when they sell the most, and competition, something lacking in communications since Gov is involved in a huge way, assures the best possible pricing and options. Again, pointing to the shortcomings of a Gov-saturated industry for an argument for more Gov control is ludicrous. One needs a special kind of rationalization to set aside Capitalism.

Unless you turn off the presumptions and psychologizing, we're done here. Unless you stop pointing to the horrible consequences of government interference and attributing them to freedom, I can't see that I have much else to say.

Thanks.

[xort]

The issue of people spending all their savings from SS prematurely can be easily dealt with.

Continue to have a system where your pay is automatically deducted for SS, 7% & a 7% match. But instead of letting the gov't mismangae it put it into accounts similar to what most private employers have with a menu of choices.

"But too many people will invest in risky schemes and loose it all"...not if it is set up with limits. Restrict the types of accounts to the conservative end of the spectrum. Also put age restrictions on it. When you turn 35 you can't put SS money into the more aggressive funds and by 50 all the pre-existing funds have to be moved into conservative funds like money market or bond funds. You can still invest non-SS money any way you like. This would be your most conservative portion of your portfolio. And of course you cannot touch it until age 65.
There's probably something I haven't accounted for but you get the general idea. Something similar to this could work.
Too bad the dems only want to play politics instead of fixing something THEY broke. Bush's plan wasn't perfect but you can bet he would have entertained adjustments to it for compromises sake. But the dems only chose to say "Bush evil" and let us continue to suffer the consequences of their actions. The truly evil are the dems in charge, pushing their agenda.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by xort

The issue of people spending all their savings from SS prematurely can be easily dealt with.

Continue to have a system where your pay is automatically deducted for SS, 7% & a 7% match. But instead of letting the gov't mismangae it put it into accounts similar to what most private employers have with a menu of choices.

"But too many people will invest in risky schemes and loose it all"...not if it is set up with limits. Restrict the types of accounts to the conservative end of the spectrum. Also put age restrictions on it. When you turn 35 you can't put SS money into the more aggressive funds and by 50 all the pre-existing funds have to be moved into conservative funds like money market or bond funds. You can still invest non-SS money any way you like. This would be your most conservative portion of your portfolio. And of course you cannot touch it until age 65.
There's probably something I haven't accounted for but you get the general idea. Something similar to this could work.
Too bad the dems only want to play politics instead of fixing something THEY broke. Bush's plan wasn't perfect but you can bet he would have entertained adjustments to it for compromises sake. But the dems only chose to say "Bush evil" and let us continue to suffer the consequences of their actions. The truly evil are the dems in charge, pushing their agenda.

This is close to the Swiss model.

As an in-between step, I guess I'm OK with it. However, note that we're still stalling those who are able and willing to take greater risks from doing so, as we're forcing them to invest their limited investment funds in certain ways. That also has an impact on the terms under which capital would be available to industry. It would, however, be far better than what we have today.

We're also forcing a certain lifestyle on people. For good or not so good reasons, some may chose to starve during retirement and play hard earlier, or they may want to go the other way, taking massive risks earlier, maybe retiring earlier, and wanting to spend what they're forced to invest in other ways. Again, this is far, far better than what we do now.

Last, I think there's an argument to be made that making the Nanny State more efficient through such proposals is a dangerous thing. (I find tax cuts to be dangerous for the same reasons. True, cutting taxes increases growth and reduces property rights violations in terms of %s, but it also increases net taxes paid by those who are being taxed a lower %, and it increases Gov income, which unleashes more Beast.)

[PBzeer]

The government already runs the Thrift Savings Plan. Let people put their money there. But, there's one simple reason most politicans aren't for privatization, and that's because they lose the revenue from the SS taxes.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

[i]
are you suggesting that some gov't body should have a check off sheet that would determine whether I'm smart enough to manage my own money or not? thats scary.

You don't want the state to impose itself on those who aren't willing to chose a saner fiscal course, but you're OK with the state taking money away from the more able (that's where the money is) to provide a standard of living for people that repeatedly act against their own interests?

[cardiacpaul]

[i]I love how shamelessly you psychologize a person you know nothing about, looking for cheap rhetoric when you should be looking to argue the point on its own merits.[/I]

I know a little about this guy...
Its me. savings (almost 7 figures) gone, house, gone. 401k, gone, IRA, gone. and I STILL have just about half a mil in medical bills that will NEVER be paid.
so, spend a while in the real world.

Without medicare and supplimental insurance (out of pocket about 4300.00 a year...medicare, insurance, deductibles, and co-pays.), my medications alone would be a bit over 1400.00 per month.

Yes, I paid into it, most years, I paid the max. almost 30 years I paid.
Just what color is the sky in your world?
Apparently you've never had a medical problem, or been so silver-spooned, you have no idea about costs.
walk a mile big guy, until then, I remain in reality.

Any impact prior medical history has on anyone's employment options stems from the disasters that follow from the political mentality behind our pathetic healthcare system.

Bullshite.
I've had hiring managers tell me I would be a huge insurance liability. Imagine if you will, if I'm driving to a clients site and I have another "cardiac event" and run into someone, who gets sued?
Imagine I'm banging away at a clients keyboard, and I have a cardiac event, falling face first onto their keyboard, who get sued for emotional distreaa? not me. Therefore, liability issues. That may or not be the gov'ts faule, I don't know, and I don't care, all I know is you have a hard time securing gainful employment afterward, (dick cheney not withstanding)

"but you're OK with the state taking money away from the more able (that's where the money is) to provide a standard of living for people that repeatedly act against their own interests?"

Ahh, my myopic friend, now we get to it.
I had, I paid, I purchased, I planned. I took steps. I did what any prudent person would do. And ~ Its not enough. period.
Are you saying that those who have keep and those who don't fend for themselves?

If so, I certainly wish you well, and hope the hell you never get cancer, heart attack, parkinsons, or have a family member inflicted, because there is a rude awakening due.

"Unless you turn off the presumptions and psychologizing, we're done here. Unless you stop pointing to the horrible consequences of government interference and attributing them to freedom, I can't see that I have much else to say."

I have seen first hand the "presumptions" of which you speak.
I have been involved with the deregulation of telecom. I also can see where SWB nee At&T has once again monopolized the industry, LDC, ILEC and Cell. Was this the intent of Judge Green? I doubt it.
I have first hand knowledge of the health care crisis in the US and of government intervention in same and in MY life. I don't see where your opinions are any more than the rantings of a libertarian that has no experience of any concequence. It all looks good on paper, in practice, its all good, till something happens to YOU. So, I agree, we're done.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

spend a while in the real world.

Time in the real world?

The reason medical bills are so high is because of this interference by Gov in the name of people they insult as unable.

My claim isn't that a private system would be able to make anyone immortal, or afford anyone more than he can afford. My claim is that freeing the system would provide the best possible care across the income board.

Separate from that fact but far more important, is the injustice of assuming that one is entitled to the benefits of other people's wealth. I don't need rights when in Nirvana. I need him in the real world, to protect me from people who assume I'm here to serve their needs, on their terms, with a tone of self-righteousness that's usually an indication that they know they're wrong.

Without medicare and supplimental insurance (out of pocket about 4300.00 a year...medicare, insurance, deductibles, and co-pays.), my medications alone would be a bit over 1400.00 per month.

OK.

So what?

Most crucial is the fact that the ridiculously high prices of healthcare are largely due to Gov interference, so pointing out that you're in the middle of a related mess doesn't counter the claim that a free system would afford everyone far better healthcare.

Further, there's no Right to immortality, no right to all possible healthcare, paid for by others by expropriating money from them, no right to any and all developments in the medical field if you can't afford them.

You scream of the indecency of expecting people to stand on their own. What of the indecency of forcing other people to come to your rescue?

In addition, all things are finite. At some point one runs out of the resources to fight a serious ailment and that's that -- irrespective of whether or not having more resources would've extended one's life Where do see the possibility for endless care, and how is it that others have to sacrifice their standard of living to afford someone the medical coverage of a higher standard of living?

Apparently you've never had a medical problem, or been so silver-spooned, you have no idea about costs.

Apparently, you don't get how irrelevant this is, to say nothing of cheap. It's also wrong.

B]R:[/b] Any impact prior medical history has on anyone's employment options stems from the disasters that follow from the political mentality behind our pathetic healthcare system.
CP: Bullshite.
I've had hiring managers tell me I would be a huge insurance liability. Imagine if you will, if I'm driving to a clients site and I have another "cardiac event" and run into someone, who gets sued?
Imagine I'm banging away at a clients keyboard, and I have a cardiac event, falling face first onto their keyboard, who get sued for emotional distreaa? not me. Therefore, liability issues. That may or not be the gov'ts faule, I don't know, and I don't care, all I know is you have a hard time securing gainful employment afterward, (dick cheney not withstanding)

So you declare my POV bullshite, go into a tirade, then declare that you don't know if it's Gov's fault?

Excellent!

It is Gov's fault. It's also the fault of the mentality of victimhood and wealth redistribution through unwarranted lawsuits, the same mentality behind public healthcare and the Nanny State in general.

Ahh, my myopic friend. I had, I paid, I purchased, I planned. I took steps. I did what any prudent person would do. And ~ Its not enough. period.

The fact that you may have done all a prudent person could do doesn't mean that Gov isn't to blame for all that effort not being enough.

Further, you didn't do all you could, as examining this issue would make clear that the fight is against Gov interference, not freedom. I'm not advocating an abandonment of the current system at the expense of people that have done all they could, and now have a reasonable expectation that they'll be taken care of. My point is simple: a free medical field, like all fields, affords us unimaginable service/$. My assertion is that even if this wasn't the case, which it is, I don't see how that entitles anyone to more than he's been able to earn.

Are you saying that those who have keep and those who don't fend for themselves?

I'm saying that if be go back to a Gov-free healthcare system, we'd have far better healthcare. We'd also have a dignified society, where everyone's problems aren't everyone's burden by "Right."

BTW: who promised you endless healthcare, or enough to get you to a certain age? Open ended agreements are null. There's no such thing. All agreements are finite, and therefore, even under a free system, people would be limited by what they can afford. All we can do is mazimize what htey can afford by embracing the only approach that yields the best possible service.

Only Gov makes open ended pledges and, not surprisingly, can't deliver.

R: "Unless you turn off the presumptions and psychologizing, we're done here. Unless you stop pointing to the horrible consequences of government interference and attributing them to freedom, I can't see that I have much else to say."

CP: I have seen first hand the "presumptions" of which you speak.
I have been involved with the deregulation of telecom. I also can see where SWB nee At&T has once again monopolized the industry, LDC, ILEC and Cell. Was this the intent of Judge Green? I doubt it.

I have first hand knowledge of the health care crisis in the US and of government intervention in same and in MY life.

But how does this experience translate to valid conclusion? Being there and not knowing why it is as it is, and what it should be, doesn't add up to much.

I don't see where your opinions are any more than the rantings of a libertarian

I'm not a libertarian -- not doing well on the presumptions, are we?

that has no experience of any concequence.

How would you know this?

And of what use is experience without the requisite mindset to know what to do with that experience?

Also, note how easy it would be to dismiss everything you've written by declaring you biassed, or reducing your points as the ramblings of a Leftie, etc.

Make points, man.

The futility of such presumptions is why such presumptions are -- WHERE -- considered ill-mannered. It wasn't to spare the feelings of the person you assume to analyze, it was spare yourself the embarrassment of thinking you could have such powers.

It all looks good on paper, in practice, its all good, till something happens to YOU

.

Only if you're a child that's convinced that your problems are the world's, in spite of the fact that that mindset is why things aren't anywhere near as good as they could be.

So, I agree, we're done.

You never showed, bro.