Man, poor Dan, with you guys jabbing him over and over.
Martha, one of the oft quoted problems of email and forum postings is the inability to convey nuance. I am unsure of the nuance in your comment, and you may have missed mine. So, at the risk of missing that nuance, I'll take it fairly literally:
poor Dan? Dan has started a couple threads recently professing the superiority of letting the govt control our decisions, and controlling both minimum and maximum wages.
That's his view and he is entitled to it. It is (for the most part) not my view. So I challenged, and he responded and a discussion evolved. In another thread, he said he didn't want to get into defending whether we have a free market or not, so I backed off. Fair enough? Like the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen?
ERD, do you have to argue with everyone all the time?
No Ma'am, I mean YES Ma'am, I mean.... arghhh, thats one of those trick lawyer questions isn't it?!
Can I plead the Fifth?
More seriously, it depends on the topic, and your definition of 'argue'. Maybe what you see as 'arguing', I see as 'lively debate', and an opportunity to challenge my own understanding of the issues, and to learn. On this forum, I generally like to share information, and debate policies. Depends on the topic and my mood. Is there something wrong with that?
Even the very non-confrontational HaHa questioned whether Danny was just trying to stir things up. I don't think my questions/challenges were out-of-line. But heck, that's from my POV.
I think you mentioned being late to the thread - maybe you missed this, I think it adds perspective (added emphasis this time):
I'll repeat here, so no one takes the above out of context: I'm OK with govt programs that fill a gap that private business/charities cannot. I'm OK with social programs for the truly needy, and things that help people get a step up and improve themselves - I think we ALL benefit from that, even if indirectly.
-ERD50
So no, I'm not against all govt programs, but I do question (challenge? argue??) the many 'shell-games' that are pawned off as 'benefits'.
So, say you eliminate 401k plans, retirement fund tax breaks and eliminate SS and medicare. In return, government reduces taxes accordingly.
Well, I'll give you my opinion, but only if don't accuse me of arguing
Yes, I can see where it can be a good thing for the govt to encourage (maybe even 'force') people to save for retirement. Not everyone has the foresight to do it. But the problem is, the current jumble of regulations is a mess that lacks direction, and much of it is a shell-game. Look at it this way:
If you want to build a house, you don't just build a bathroom, then add a kitchen over there, and then add a few bedrooms, then decide to add a second floor, etc. You define your needs, then ARCHITECT it and PLAN it to meet that need. Then you build it. But the govt programs are mostly a mumble-jumble of 'solutions'.
Take SS for example. Explain it to me, I don't get it. Is it to help secure a basic retirement for the lowest of the working class (those that would need it the most)? If so, then why do the people who make the most money get the highest benefit? Shouldn't it be just the other way around? So what 'problem' is it trying to solve?
There are dozens (probably thousands) of examples like that . See T-Al's comments about how the 'hybrid' but low-mpg SUV is allowed in the HOV lane, but not the much higher mpg 'standard' vehicle:
http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/showpost.php?p=575659&postcount=43
Again, what 'problem' is it trying to solve? Do we want hybrids, or do we want high MPG cars (regardless of the technology)?
So, with examples like that, don't I have good reason to be more than a little skeptical (and a little vocal) when I hear someone put the words 'govt' and 'here to help you' in the same sentence?
-ERD50