Originally Posted by JA$ON (Post 20076670)

Native americanas are a GREAT example. No group is "helped" more by the government, and as a result....no group is in worse shape. They are giving huge swaths of land (reservations) but they do not own this land. Its held in Trust. They generally don't build, modify, improve the land because its not THIERS. They have to get approval for almost any building etc and can't sell it. How often do you see someone renting an apartment put in beautiful wood floors? Never, because they can't realize the value they are adding to the property.
And because they are given help (food stamps, disability etc etc etc) from the Gov at a much higher rate than anyone else, but not enough to live a nice comfortable life, they have become dependent on this nanny state we've created. Don't agree? Check this out....

The Lumbee tribe refuses to be "recognized" by the Government and take ANY handouts that are given to Tribes in the Federal System (the government was trying to force them to take millions to help them and they are fighting to not take it because they don't want to be beholden to the strings that come with it) The have NO CASINOS, They own their OWN land. And guess what, surprise, lol, when you give people opportunity to own and improve their land, start businesses and don't let them suckle of the nanny state tit....they thrive! This tribe has made tens of millions from banking, construction and on and on. Indians succeed at the same rate as any other group when you just leave them alone! Give them individual freedom, liberty and let them participate in the free market and they will do just fine.....just like everyone else does when given the same thing.

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20076704)

Steal someone's land and then whine about them getting 'helped' when they get a pebble of it back. You can't make this shit up.

Originally Posted by deltav (Post 20076713)

As someone who has worked firsthand with Native American & reservation issues and seen a lot of the nuances in play both in person and documented in detail, I will say you have no idea what you're talking about. This is talking-out-the-ass at its finest, with a facile libertarian case-study thrown in for good measure. Whatever.

Originally Posted by twinvisible (Post 20076708)

Well healthcare and wall street are two examples of leaving things to the private sector. How has that worked out? The largest recession and the highest health care costs in the world.

Texas' population has 25% uninsured population (a nice bunch are kids with no options)... another example of leaving it to the states and states failing miserably.

Charities cannot pick up the tab for all the failings of states and private companies... I know Libertarians like to think this but it doesnt happen

What country follows the Libertarian m.o.? Give me one example where this works. Somalia?

Originally Posted by JA$ON (Post 20076722)

So you think that Native americans should own their land and NEED us to take care of them because they are incapable of doing it themselves?

They are NO DIFFERENT than any other group of people, they should have the same freedoms, no?

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20076704)

Steal someone's land and then whine about them getting 'helped' when they get a pebble of it back. You can't make this shit up.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters (Post 20076728)

Plain and simple :

Blacks did better after slavery because they were not "land locked" by a hostile government.
Owning land and being shot at for trying to leave it to conduct trade was a serious problem.


End.

Originally Posted by twinvisible (Post 20076708)

Well healthcare and wall street are two examples of leaving things to the private sector.

Originally Posted by brentbacardi (Post 20076743)

Um actually no. If it was left to the private sector, most banks would be out of business and new ones would be taking over that did not engage in risky behaviors. Survival of the fittest works if you let it. Those scum bankers should be out of jobs, not taking down big bonuses on the tax dollar.

Originally Posted by brentbacardi (Post 20076743)

Um actually no. If it was left to the private sector, most banks would be out of business and new ones would be taking over that did not engage in risky behaviors. Survival of the fittest works if you let it. Those scum bankers should be out of jobs, not taking down big bonuses on the tax dollar.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters (Post 20076765)

Nice theory, but here is real history for you to digest :


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

Originally Posted by JA$ON (Post 20076773)

Your making his point for him

"failure of 1,043 out of the 3,234"

1,043 went under and were NOT bailed out...only the solvent institutions remained.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters (Post 20076776)

So you think it makes sense for everybody in 1/3 of the nations PRIVATE banks to lose every dime they have?
Yet no other type banks failed.


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Originally Posted by blackmonsters (Post 20076776)

So you think it makes sense for everybody in 1/3 of the nations PRIVATE banks to lose every dime they have?
Yet no other type banks failed.


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Originally Posted by JA$ON (Post 20076786)

Why would you assume I would think people loosing money was good? I just said that the post you made was proving his point. The bad go out of business, the strong survive.

NOW...that happens on a small scale every day, restaurant has bad food, it goes under...one makes a heat steak, it survives. Sometimes it happens on a much larger scale (like the S&L crisis or a huge wealth boom) but there are billions of dollars being made every day. There are big wins and big losses.

If you look at the 10 years surrounding the S&L cruising, HUGE wealth was created in this country and yes, that scandal lost 100 billion for people, and thats not fun for them, but as a whole, the nation prospered.

If I told you US citizens became richer to the tune of 10 trillion dollars that decade, you'd say it was fruitful, no? Of COURSE there are losses, but the losses are FAR outweighed by the gains.

Time to head to dinner, I'll teach you more tomorrow, JK :) I like a good debate

Originally Posted by JA$ON (Post 20076725)

And if you think the banking system is "unregulated" you're kidding yourself. And the truth is....you can add to the tens of thousands of pages of regulations that exist and people will usually find a way to avoid / circumvent / eliminate / backdoor them.

Originally Posted by JA$ON (Post 20076725)

Do you feel that strong regulations have been put in place since 2008 that keep institutions from engaging in the type of risky behavior that they were beforehand? (serious question)

Originally Posted by brentbacardi (Post 20076743)

Um actually no. If it was left to the private sector, most banks would be out of business and new ones would be taking over that did not engage in risky behaviors. Survival of the fittest works if you let it. Those scum bankers should be out of jobs, not taking down big bonuses on the tax dollar.

Originally Posted by PR_Glen (Post 20076292)

pride is a weakness, that has always been the truth.