A 21-year-old who's refusing to pay back her student loans compares her cause to Rosa Parks' fight

Padawanbater2 · Mar 18, 2015

ginwilly said:
So you are telling me you support yourself, bought a house yet have not acquired any debt, sorry if I call nut uh on ya.

In what strange world must you own a house to support yourself? I live in a house, work two jobs and go to school in arguably the most expensive state in the union, and you're welcome to believe whatever you like

Padawanbater2 · Mar 18, 2015

Rob Roy said:
If the economic benefit to society was greater would you approve of enslaving 1/4 of the population so the other 3/4 can play online all day?

An economic benefit argument, should not be argued without considering the unintended consequences that might come with it. Peace.

That's what I was doing by asking the question hypothetically

ginwilly · Mar 18, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
In what strange world must you own a house to support yourself? I live in a house, work two jobs and go to school in arguably the most expensive state in the union, and you're welcome to believe whatever you like

The concept that we are a debtor nation with an economy propped up on debt is lost on you.

If you are surviving without any credit cards, car loans, or monthly rent then I commend you.

Rob Roy · Mar 18, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
That's what I was doing by asking the question hypothetically

Fair enough.

How would you have answered your own hypothetical question?

whitebb2727 · Mar 18, 2015

ginwilly said:
The concept that we are a debtor nation with an economy propped up on debt is lost on you.

If you are surviving without any credit cards, car loans, or monthly rent then I commend you.

There are some of us out there. I refuse to finance anything. Me and my father pooled our money and bought a small farm really cheap with 4 houses on it. 2 are now rented out. I guess though financing a house would be the one exception to my rule. I would rather make payments on a house than rent.

The key to it is figure out what it cost you to live. At a minimum you need 90 days of living expenses on top of a other emergency fund.

see4 · Mar 18, 2015

WeedFreak78 said:
Should have let it happen. The rich make poor decisions and get all the help they want, the poor make a bad decision and oh well your on your own..this economic system is gamed. I also don't see mad max type anarchy and desolation because of total collapse of our system, even though I realize millions would have suffered in innumerable ways, it needs to happen for people to realize it's all smoke and mirrors.

The businesses that were failing meant and mean absolutely nothing to me, and if their failure would not have had such a massive global economic impact, I would agree with you. However, that was not the case, their failure meant imminent global catastrophe, which would have impacted everyone.

Rob Roy said:
How does giving money that doesn't belong to you to an entity that has proven, despite the already existing cronyism, that it sucks at being a well managed business send a good message ?

It almost sounds like you are saying that if enough people are affected by something inherently wrong, that it is okay to perpetuate the thing that is inherently wrong.

Sort of like teaching kids at government schools that bullying is wrong, then putting an automatic ransom (backed by a gun) on their parents house to ensure payment.

It does not send a good message, in that we agree. I also do not think it is okay to perpetuate inherently wrong "things". However, given the choice of only two evils, I choose to not have the global economy collapse.

ginwilly said:
They didn't have to happen at 100 cents on the dollar though. Too big to fail got bigger, regulations imposed hurt the smaller banks further entrenching the too big to fail.

It's a revolving door between DC and Wallstreet. This is not party exclusive.

Know what New Zealand did? "you broke it, you fix it". They came out of it with a more secure financial system, we came out of it with more of the same.

I'm sorry but your comparisons are not equal; you comparing using New Zealand as an example is like me arguing to use Sweden as an example of universal health care. You undoubtable would stomp your feet on that one.

Not sure what you mean by, "100 cents on the dollar". Since I last checked, all but 1 or 2 businesses have paid back the loan with interest. And your extended argument of, "further entrenching the too big to fail" is a complete contradiction to your economic values. You are a free market capitalist aren't you?

ginwilly · Mar 18, 2015

see4 said:
Not sure what you mean by, "100 cents on the dollar". Since I last checked, all but 1 or 2 businesses have paid back the loan with interest. And your extended argument of, "further entrenching the too big to fail" is a complete contradiction to your economic values. You are a free market capitalist aren't you?

I don't know what you mean by taxpayers bailing out financial systems as an example of free market capitalism.

True or false, what was deemed too big to fail are now bigger.

ginwilly · Mar 18, 2015

whitebb2727 said:
There are some of us out there. I refuse to finance anything. Me and my father pooled our money and bought a small farm really cheap with 4 houses on it. 2 are now rented out. I guess though financing a house would be the one exception to my rule. I would rather make payments on a house than rent.

The key to it is figure out what it cost you to live. At a minimum you need 90 days of living expenses on top of a other emergency fund.

You are the rare bird and will live better for it. With interest rates for savings lagging significantly behind inflation, there is not much incentive to save but plenty of incentive to borrow.

This is a rather new shift in philosophy. We've gone from the average person saving 15% of their salary in the 80's to less than 5% now. We are swimming upstream and borrowing from our children and grandchildren.

Our economic "experts" that help shape policy have encouraged us to live in a bubble economy, how long we can sustain this will be determined by how long we can push debt off and create the world currency at will.

abandonconflict · Mar 18, 2015

TBoneJack said:
Buck has called various posters a "bitch" in many of his posts, with no complaint from you...

Various posters are present to speak for themselves. Let's stay on point though ya dumb racist. You started a thread to call someone a dumb bitch but you're just a dumb bitch yourself.

abandonconflict · Mar 18, 2015

Rob Roy said:
To assume that actions which benefit alot of people are always justified because more people benefit is wrong and fails to consider the totality of a given situation. If more people benefit, yet some people suffer a loss of freedom in order to achieve that benefit, that means should be rejected in favor of a different means.

In favor of the means which benefits the few and harms the many...

abandonconflict · Mar 18, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Thank you for answering honestly.

I've found most judges to be bereft of ethics. It is a requirement of the job (usually) to favor the law even when it is clearly an unethical law. Of course they don't apply the same standard to everybody either.

I'd say you are "enslaved" or "owned" to the same level as you are taxed. For instance, if the fruit of ALL of your labor is controlled by another person, you are clearly a slave to them. Logic insists that is so. Then it follows that if a percentage less than all of your labor is taxed...that would be the level of their ownership over you.

Yet you support wage labor.

see4 · Mar 18, 2015

ginwilly said:
I don't know what you mean by taxpayers bailing out financial systems as an example of free market capitalism.

True or false, what was deemed too big to fail are now bigger.

False. Only a few of the businesses that were bailed out now have larger market capitalization and greater market share. I am willing to bet I am more qualified to determine how those particular companies are doing better, and in that same bet, I am willing to wager that none of them will directly attribute the bailout as a factor in their current economic success.

Don't twist my words. Please reread what I wrote very carefully and provide a sound counter argument. As of now, I will simply resort to name calling and posting funny pictures, because clearly you do not want to engage in a rational debate with me. I did not, in any way, say that taxpayer bailouts were an example of free market capitalism. Please put on your glasses and reread my comment again.

abandonconflict · Mar 18, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Good point.

That's what happens when force (coercive government) replaces peaceful choice (free market).

Absent the proper feedback signals that doing a good job or doing a bad job sends (like in a free market) the bureaucrat is operating blindly and has no motivation to provide real customer satisfaction.

A free market aligns the interest of the service provider and the customer, a bureaucracy does not.

Private property requires force (gov't).

abandonconflict · Mar 18, 2015

WeedFreak78 said:
Why can't we, as the governed, demand the same feedback systems, which are in place in Govt., be adhered to? Or maybe the real question is....why haven't we? Try making a complaint to any Govt. agency..you're lucky if you can even get in contact with them 90% of the time. I've been told "write your rep", you know what happens..you get a form letter sent back by some intern. It's virtually impossible to get any recourse when dealing with govt as an individual. Until we as a collective stop turning our eyes to the crap that goes on we're all gonna get screwed.

The individual liberty line coming from the fanbois of rawn pawl is just a bunch of feudalism.

TBoneJack · Mar 18, 2015

abandonconflict said:
Various posters are present to speak for themselves. Let's stay on point though ya dumb racist. You started a thread to call someone a dumb bitch but you're just a dumb bitch yourself.

Well, don't sugar coat it for me...

(do you REALLY think you can make me mad?????)

Man, you're trying to pick a fight with someone who doesn't want to fight. I just want to state my opinion here and get along with everyone; even with extreme left-wingers like you.

But people like you can't practice what you preach: TOLERANCE!!!

Name-calling, a high-horse accusation, and then making a remark as bad as you accused me of - bad sentAnce structure, I know.

Can't we just all get along?

abandonconflict · Mar 18, 2015

Rob Roy said:
The reason why is government by its nature isn't reason, it's force. You can't have a system that relies for its very existence on force also be reasonable, its impossible.

One of the biggest reasons most people haven't done anything is the cards are stacked and people are molded to be ignorant by design. Government schools teach obedience, rather than how to think. That is their purpose. People erroneously believe they need a coercive government to protect them from people that might use coercion against them. Which is kind of ironic and circular.

Asking government to spank itself won't help either.
It's like when a cop shoots a person. What do they do? They have an internal investigation and miraculously find they have done no wrong.

You might be interested in learning about Voluntary human interactions. Google voluntarism or voluntaryism, if you are. Carl Watner has written a few things on that topic you might find interesting.

Voluntaryism is just privatization of everything, including gov't. It's fucking feudalism.

abandonconflict · Mar 18, 2015

TBoneJack said:
Man, you're trying to pick a fight with someone who doesn't want to fight. I just want to state my opinion here and get along with everyone

But your opinion is retarded. You started a thread to call someone a dumb bitch but you're just dumb. I'll let you have the last word though since you're so butthurt.

TBoneJack · Mar 18, 2015

abandonconflict said:
But your opinion is retarded. You started a thread to call someone a dumb bitch but you're just dumb. I'll let you have the last word though since you're so butthurt.

More name-calling. And I had HONESTLY hoped we could have honest debates. Because I can tell that you're intelligent. You've just got on a couple (or three) layers of "I hate conservatives!!!" that need to be sandblasted off.

You know sir, every great once in a while here, a real DEBATE breaks out. Where people can make honest posts about facts, their perception, etc. And get somewhere. But then, just like on cue from your leader UncleBuck, you come along, start a bunch of name-calling, and then get on your high-horse and say shit like "I'll let you have the last word though since you're so butthurt".

Come on man, how about we just respectfully debate one another in the future, without name-calling or high-horse rhetoric?

ginwilly · Mar 18, 2015

see4 said:
False. Only a few of the businesses that were bailed out now have larger market capitalization and greater market share. I am willing to bet I am more qualified to determine how those particular companies are doing better, and in that same bet, I am willing to wager that none of them will directly attribute the bailout as a factor in their current economic success.

Don't twist my words. Please reread what I wrote very carefully and provide a sound counter argument. As of now, I will simply resort to name calling and posting funny pictures, because clearly you do not want to engage in a rational debate with me. I did not, in any way, say that taxpayer bailouts were an example of free market capitalism. Please put on your glasses and reread my comment again.

I'll just let you argue with the experts then since you are attempting to pose as one.
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-04-19/big-banks-now-even-too-bigger-to-fail

http://moneymorning.com/2014/08/07/dont-listen-to-the-gao-too-big-to-fail-is-bigger-than-ever/
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/time-break-big-banks-152900958.html
Just how big are the largest banks in the U.S.? Here’s a little perspective:

In the past few months, JPMorgan Chase has agreed to pay, depending on how you do the math, somewhere between $22 billion and $25 billion in fines and penalties for various illegal activities, from hiding its suspicions about Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff to misleading investors about the notorious London Whale.

Meanwhile, as of the third quarter of 2013, 99.1 percent of banks chartered in the U.S. had less than $20 billion in total assets on their books.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76342.html
All the while, the country’s biggest financial institutions continue to grow. The five largest, which controlled $6.1 trillion in assets before the collapse, by the end of 2011 had assets worth $8.5 trillion — equal to more than half of U.S. economic output, according to Federal Reserve data.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3222657/posts
At this point, the five largest banks account for 42 percent of all loans in the United States, and the six largest banks account for 67 percent of all assets in our financial system.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/too-big-to-fail-is-now-bigger-than-ever-andy-xie-2013-05-19
Too big to fail grows up
TBTF financial institutions were considered a key factor contributing to the 2008 global financial crisis. Five years later, the problem is worse.

While one too big to fail problem remains, another is rapidly growing. Some of the players in the shadow banking system, like hedge funds, non-bank lenders and insurance companies, have also become TBTF. If some of these players fail, the cascade effect on their investors and borrowers could lead to a systemic breakdown. Governments and central banks may be forced into bailing out some speculative outfits in the next crisis.

The surviving banks account for bigger shares of the global financial system. The lesson of Lehman Brothers is that even a mid-sized financial institution can’t be allowed to go bust. Hence, it would be unimaginable to allow any of the big banks to fail now.

Since you are so much more qualified to speak on this, I'll let these folks make my argument for me. Take it up with this small fraction of the sampling that says you are not really qualified at all.

I think name calling and pics suits you more.

spandy · Mar 18, 2015

see4 said:
Bailouts were necessary. Without bailouts, the world would have experienced an economic depression far greater than that of the Great Depression in the early 20th century. There would have been no macroeconomic recovery from that.

Yeah, because every time the rich fuck up we need to save their asses.

Everyone else, pay up bitches.

A 21-year-old who's refusing to pay back her student loans compares her cause to Rosa Parks' fight

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member