Obama is a Canon shooter - DPChallenge Forums

08/15/2008 02:23:23 PM · #201

I do agree with you on the aspect that everyone should be entitled to prioritise life in the way they see fit, but on their own dime. I have always planned for the day that something bad may happen. I grew up out of poverty and know what it is like to have not. My parents and their parents never asked the government for welfare. I will not ask either. Accountability and making your life better are each persons own responsibility. If you fail at that then you fail at life. There are no guaranties in life.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Phil:
Dude, I could tell you stories that would literally make you sick to your stomach.

I do not choose to prioritise my life around ringtones, drugs and careless sexual encounters - nor do I think them sensible priorities for anyone. I don't really understand the mentality of people who are rude and ungratious - especially to health workers. I am full of admiration for people like you who provide those essential services in challenging environments. I can understand why you would feel aggrieved, but, however, sometimes we need to step back and look at the bigger picture.

I think that we should all recognise that people come under very different and sometimes intense pressures to ourselves. I don't always understand, but at least I am sufficiently self-aware to know that I don't understand, and that social barriers will probably always prevent me from fully understanding, our differences.

I do think that everyone should be entitled to prioritise life in the way that they wish to, even if I disagree with their choices (eg, I am sure that my investment in camera equipment would be questionable prioritisation for most people, and I could never understand someone who invested in their "eternal soul" by way of church tithe). Everyone (without exception) has their failings - encourage people to be more sensible, but sanctimonious condescension is utterly wasted.

I would always fight for there to be a safety net for all of us in terms of the basic human needs for survival and participation in modern society - even the people who are in my opinion rude and whose decisions are foolish and wasteful. Encourage them to make more sensible choices, but our common humanity is too important to ignore.

08/15/2008 02:23:47 PM · #202

Originally posted by Matthew:

I do think that everyone should be entitled to prioritise life in the way that they wish to, even if I disagree with their choices (eg, I am sure that my investment in camera equipment would be questionable prioritisation for most people, and I could never understand someone who invested in their "eternal soul" by way of church tithe). Everyone (without exception) has their failings - encourage people to be more sensible, but sanctimonious condescension is utterly wasted.

I would always fight for there to be a safety net for all of us in terms of the basic human needs for survival and participation in modern society - even the people who are in my opinion rude and whose decisions are foolish and wasteful. Encourage them to make more sensible choices, but our common humanity is too important to ignore.

Yeah..but if you were paying 2K+ for a camera and then turnign around and using food stamps to pay for your food...something would be terribly wrong.

The same goes for the 'little things'. These little things add up. If they can't affod to buy food..they don't need 'extras' like special rings while you wait...etc.

08/15/2008 03:21:28 PM · #203

Originally posted by coronamv:

Much as I hate anecdotes...

I was too proud to go on the dole when I was entitled to do so (or ask for money) when I was young and out of work. In the end, I ran out of cash - I still bear the odd psychological scar from times when I had absolutely no money to eat properly or repay what I look back on as laughably small debts - and went on the dole until I got a job. I got a job quickly because the dole was not much cash and I did not like the humiliation of the dole queue.

I have repaid that dole money several thousand times over in the last ten years in taxes. In my opinion, money very well invested by the state.

If the alternative had been to start selling possessions in order to eat, or the humiliation of being forced to account for every penny spent, who knows whether I would have ever moved on to a psychologically more secure place and been motivated to progress my career?

Message edited by author 2008-08-15 15:21:58.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

08/15/2008 03:27:04 PM · #204

Originally posted by Matthew:

If the alternative had been to start selling possessions in order to eat, or the humiliation of being forced to account for every penny spent, who knows whether I would have ever moved on to a psychologically more secure place and been motivated to progress my career?

Humility is not a bad thing..neither is taking responsibility and making sure you know where 'every penny' is spent. Any responsible person will realize exactly where and what they are spending their money. Failing to do so..is one of the quickest ways to get yourself into financial problems.

David Ey

Nikon D80

08/15/2008 03:36:53 PM · #205

Originally posted by Matthew:

I have repaid that dole money several thousand times over in the last ten years in taxes.

Let me see if I understand correctly. Are you saying you have paid an additional amount over and above the amount you would normally pay with your income? No?, I didn't think so.

08/15/2008 04:46:51 PM · #206

It is funny that I am now starting to see a patern. People who are for welfare are either on it or have been on it a some point in their life. Mathew what about the people who never pay in and always take out from the welfare system? Also if you don't mind what reason were you in the position to require welfare when you were younger and what helped you get out of it. Thanks

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

08/15/2008 07:00:45 PM · #207

Originally posted by egamble:

Humility is not a bad thing..neither is taking responsibility and making sure you know where 'every penny' is spent.

Humility v humiliation. Knowing how you spend your money v. having to account for every penny. Very different concepts.

Originally posted by David Ey:

Let me see if I understand correctly. Are you saying you have paid an additional amount over and above the amount you would normally pay with your income? No?, I didn't think so.

I said that the money I received helped me secure my prospects at a difficult time. Making the most of that I have made a lot of money and paid a lot of taxes. Without that initial support, there is every chance that I would have been a far less productive member of society generating far less GDP.

Originally posted by coronamv:

People who are for welfare are either on it or have been on it a some point in their life.

And people who have been lucky enough not to have needed it never realise how easy it can be to reach a position where can be important, or view it as being "too much", or attractive, when it is a very small and unattractive proposition.

Originally posted by coronamv:

Mathew what about the people who never pay in and always take out from the welfare system?

you mean, like the long term severely disabled? No issues from me. People who have a valid claim within the rules? No issued from me. People who dodge the system and break the rules? They are breaking the law and should be prosecuted accordingly. Dismantling the system to deal with them, as has been proposed, is an absurd proposition.

Originally posted by coronamv:

Also if you don't mind what reason were you in the position to require welfare when you were younger and what helped you get out of it.

I don't pretend that I had it particularly bad and I was never in danger of starving because I am lucky in terms of family etc. However, I worked hard during university holidays but did not make enough to cover my term-time costs. Upon leaving university it was not easy to find a job (no experience + over qualified) and at the time I had no facilities to get credit etc. The stress of debt was very depressing (even when I had no dependents, no real long term financial commitments and no risk of starving), and that is a very powerful psychological dampener. I signed on and the money kept me going for a few weeks when I needed it. I got a temporary job then a scholarship to law school.

Given that we are facing a recession in the west (with a real risk of more people than jobs), then the existence of the most basic of centrally funded safety nets would seem to be incredibly sensible to prevent unnecessary abject poverty and the associated malaise upon society. The US welfare system was jump-started by the Great Depression for this very reason.

Originally posted by coronamv:

I have always planned for the day that something bad may happen.

Well, in my line of work I have seen the most secure seeming businesses become spectacularly insolvent, banks go bust, pension schemes collapse with effectively zero return of total contributions for pensioners. I have made roomfuls of people who had secure-seeming jobs redundant without any notice or warning. I have wound up a metals trader which managed to fraudulently fictionalise hundreds of millions of dollars worth of assets, leaving creditors with nothing.

So even the best laid plans - bank savings, investment in metals, investment in skills, investment in pensions - I assure you that I have dealt with the collapse of them all and they were all totally outside the control of the individuals affected.

dponlyme

Nikon D3000

08/15/2008 07:58:17 PM · #208

[quote= Coronamv] I do agree with you on the aspect that everyone should be entitled to prioritise life in the way they see fit, but on their own dime. I have always planned for the day that something bad may happen. I grew up out of poverty and know what it is like to have not. My parents and their parents never asked the government for welfare. [quote]

I had similar plans but then something bad happened and it was more than my plan could handle. If your parents never had to ask for help from government programs then apparently they didn't absolutely need it now did they, seeing as how you didn't starve and had a place to live. I am glad that you and your family managed even without a lot but that does not mean that every ones circumstances allow for that. what if your parents could not get by and had no family to help them. Would they have just not fed you? You advocate personal responsibility and sometimes and in certain circumstances that requires that you ask for help. Is their welfare fraud? Of course there is I'm sure but that does not mean that all people are perpetrating it and you really have no right to assume that someone is perpetrating it. Let's get real here also... even if they shut down food stamps altogether you wouldn't see any of your tax money back.. and has been noted the government doesn't spend our tax money very wisely or frugally anyway. Maybe guidelines need changing to make people more accountable and to give them a leg up instead of just a hand out but please let's not throw the baby out with the bath water and just abandon those in bad circumstances. This would perpetuate bad outcomes for all of society.

Message edited by author 2008-08-15 19:59:31.

08/15/2008 08:14:50 PM · #209

Fair Enough of an arguement. So would you agree that the system is fundamentally broke and needs fixing? For instance limited resources to be paid back once a person is considered capable of achieving a decent sustainalbe income? For the offenders.. Jail time for fraud and no chance of ever getting welfare again.Also I keep hearing the word Luck and circumstance. why does everyone who has been lowered to poverty consider it bad luck or unfortunate circumstances?

Phil

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

08/15/2008 11:51:49 PM · #210

Originally posted by Matthew:

I agree with the majority of your above comments but I do think what I quoted should be noted for context.

I have no problem with someone buying a ringtone, Xbox, Blackberry, or even having 8 kids from 8 different men. What I do have a problem with is them doing it without earning it. If you can afford your camera equipment after you've paid for your own necessities I think that's great - and also none of my business. If you allowed your fellow man to pay for your necessities so you could buy that camera equipment then I think that's quite unfair and very open for a bit of judgement and debate. These programs are supposed to be for the poor and down and out and, of course, my definition for poor and down and out might be different than most but I just can't consider someone downloading ringtones during a game of Tiger Woods 09 to fit that description.

I have neighbors down the lane that I cannot understand. They drive camoflage trucks, drink Malwaukee's Best and spit their "chaw" in plastic cups. Their priorities are way different than mine and as I said, I just can't understand it. That being said, it's their business and if that's what floats their boat then I say sail it. Totally different circumstance than allowing the sweat of your brethren to pay your way so you can enjoy a lifestyle that you haven't earned.

I do feel the need to once again say that if you're down and out I think we should gather, pick you up, dust you off and help you in the right direction. If you continue to stay down and out because you are unwilling to educate yourself, find work at a lower wage than you are accustomed to, or just being lazy then you should reap what you sow. I can't pretend to know anything about Europe's welfare but here you can actually draw a check plus free healthcare for the rest of your life simply because you are stupid. We are rewarding people for not taking the time to get themselves educated in the most basic of basics. Heck, I'm the stupidest person I know and I work.

08/16/2008 10:28:51 AM · #211

Well Stupid may be fitting but un-educated is a better word. But I do agree education is the key not a free handout.

Phil

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

08/16/2008 12:13:32 PM · #212

Originally posted by coronamv:

Well Stupid may be fitting but un-educated is a better word.

Of course you're correct. Just throwing "stupid" around as a point maker; however, deal with around 500 a week and see how quickly they turn from uneducated to stupid. :D

dponlyme

Nikon D3000

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

08/16/2008 04:50:24 PM · #213

Originally posted by coronamv:

Some things cannot be attributed to controllable factors. Illness for instance.

edit: no I don't think the system is necessarily fundamentally broken but then I have very limited information on which to base my judgement. I know that it has been a blessing for me and my family. I can't identify with those who would abuse and commit fraud. I would say that if anything it is these people who are broken: those who have lost or never had a moral compass and not that the system is broken. As with all things I'm sure it could be administered better to weed these people out more effectively.

Message edited by author 2008-08-16 16:59:22.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/16/2008 07:12:28 PM · #214

Ok lets look at illness. Without knowing what illness you can claim is uncontrollable it limits this arguement to more then just speculation. Certain Lifestyles can lead to illness. Being overweight, the whole mental illness factors can come from your enviroment. Many things that can be controlled. But you are right some people get unexpected illnesses. Which you hope they have planned for. I have. So what makes me so special to have planned for an emergency when others have not? Now if your already on the brink of collapse from either not being educated enough to find a job that will sustain you lifestyle or unwilling to just work hard enough to afford life why should society be punished for your failures? My idea that the system is broke is correct. Example leave a hundred dollar bill on the sidewalk outside any religious institution. Go back the next day see if it is still there. Man is inherantly greedy. You must take away the road that leads to someones ablility to achieve this greed. Thus make it hard for someone to cheat the system. Or you can educate your society. Either way giving someone a free ride is not the answer. How would you feel if we still had welfare but it was a loan based system.. And no taxation is not a loan based system.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/16/2008 07:41:59 PM · #215

I'm hearing this real well. "If you can't survive on your own, too bad..."

God have mercy on us.

R.

08/16/2008 08:16:45 PM · #216

Originally posted by coronamv:

So would you agree that the system is fundamentally broke and needs fixing? For instance limited resources to be paid back once a person is considered capable of achieving a decent sustainalbe income?

How about it is treated as a form of insurance - everyone pays against the risk of it happening both before and after it happens to them? Spreads the cost so that it becomes negligible.

Originally posted by coronamv:

For the offenders.. Jail time for fraud and no chance of ever getting welfare again.

Fraud is already a crime that gets prosecuted. As for the penalty, why wouldn't you propose to extend the death penalty for all cases of detected fraud? (serious question)

Originally posted by coronamv:

Also I keep hearing the word Luck and circumstance. why does everyone who has been lowered to poverty consider it bad luck or unfortunate circumstances?

If you are made redundant through no fault of your own, isn't that bad luck? If your house becomes subject to negative equity due to a collapse in local house prices, isn't that bad luck? If your pension provider or other investment provider goes bust and there is no money to return your contributions, isn't that bad luck?

Some people also get taken advantage of by others by being duped, missold etc. These people would probably look upon themselves as having suffered bad luck.

Some people are incompetent at the jobs they take and get fired - I guess from their point of view they see that as bad luck (though from the outside I guess you might see that otherwise).

08/16/2008 08:38:57 PM · #217

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by coronamv:
So would you agree that the system is fundamentally broke and needs fixing? For instance limited resources to be paid back once a person is considered capable of achieving a decent sustainalbe income?
How about it is treated as a form of insurance - everyone pays against the risk of it happening both before and after it happens to them? Spreads the cost so that it becomes negligible. Because although I think everyone should have insurance "that they pay for" I also do not like things being mandatory. With insurance when a company is forced to cover even the worst people " ones that abuse it the most" the cost only goes up for those who do not use it. It is not a fair and equal system.

Originally posted by coronamv:
For the offenders.. Jail time for fraud and no chance of ever getting welfare again.

Fraud is already a crime that gets prosecuted. As for the penalty, why wouldn't you propose to extend the death penalty for all cases of detected fraud? (serious question) Punishment must equal the crime. How about if your caught frauding the system then your left to starve or find a way on your own.
Originally posted by coronamv:
Also I keep hearing the word Luck and circumstance. why does everyone who has been lowered to poverty consider it bad luck or unfortunate circumstances?
Luck is an excuse.. used in this instance. Winning the lottery is luck Pure chance not making the right choices in life whatever they may be is not luck it is the consequences of your actions.
If you are made redundant through no fault of your own, isn't that bad luck? If your house becomes subject to negative equity due to a collapse in local house prices, isn't that bad luck? If your pension provider or other investment provider goes bust and there is no money to return your contributions, isn't that bad luck?

Some people also get taken advantage of by others by being duped, missold etc. These people would probably look upon themselves as having suffered bad luck.

Some people are incompetent at the jobs they take and get fired - I guess from their point of view they see that as bad luck (though from the outside I guess you might see that otherwise).

Really? you think that someone who is incompetent at the job they take and get fired thinks it was luck.. I mean do you really think this? I have encountered and had to fire people in the past that utterly and totally failed at their job. They may have been nice people but just could not get it. I never have had anyone not see it coming.

Too me luck is just an excuse. You have all heard of Healthsouth amd worldcom. You all heard of how many people lost their retirement by only having stock in these companies. I have friends that lost everything. Yeah they were mad. But who were they mad at? If you invest all your eggs in one basket and that basket fails then you made a bad choice on bad logic. This is an example of what you may call luck but every investment banker will tell you BAD IDEA...
Edit: forgot to highlight a section..

Message edited by author 2008-08-16 20:39:56.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

08/16/2008 09:09:19 PM · #218

Originally posted by coronamv:

Because although I think everyone should have insurance "that they pay for" I also do not like things being mandatory. With insurance when a company is forced to cover even the worst people " ones that abuse it the most" the cost only goes up for those who do not use it. It is not a fair and equal system.

I thought that your mantra was that the world is unfair sometimes. Insurance is fundamentally unfair (that is its point). Do you think that it must always be unfair to others and never to you?

Originally posted by coronamv:

Punishment must equal the crime. How about if your caught frauding the system then your left to starve or find a way on your own.

Isn't that quite harsh? Why not prosecute them for fraud in the same way you would any other fraud - as is already the case.

Originally posted by coronamv:

Luck is an excuse.. used in this instance. Winning the lottery is luck Pure chance not making the right choices in life whatever they may be is not luck it is the consequences of your actions.

Well - luck is usually used to describe forces outside your control. There are an awful lot of things in this world that you cannot control.

Originally posted by coronamv:

Really? you think that someone who is incompetent at the job they take and get fired thinks it was luck.. I mean do you really think this?

I don't. That's why I said that it might be described that way from their POV. I was answering your question as to why people blame luck. Sometimes it is justified, sometimes not.

Originally posted by coronamv:

If you invest all your eggs in one basket and that basket fails then you made a bad choice on bad logic.

Very sensible advice. But let's hope that your stockbroker is honest and your portfolio broad enough. And that you have enough time in your job to accumulate enough cash to survive any difficult times.

Message edited by author 2008-08-16 21:10:04.

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

08/16/2008 10:17:55 PM · #219

Originally posted by coronamv:

If you invest all your eggs in one basket and that basket fails then you made a bad choice on bad logic.

"Put all your eggs in one basket, and watch that basket!" -Mark Twain

08/16/2008 11:15:34 PM · #220

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by coronamv:
Because although I think everyone should have insurance "that they pay for" I also do not like things being mandatory. With insurance when a company is forced to cover even the worst people " ones that abuse it the most" the cost only goes up for those who do not use it. It is not a fair and equal system.

I thought that your mantra was that the world is unfair sometimes. Insurance is fundamentally unfair (that is its point). Do you think that it must always be unfair to others and never to you? [b][b]Actually I do say the world is unfair. My point being government should not be brought in to regulate healthcare welfare or insurance. Many more private enterprises also. Those are just a few.[/b][/b]
Originally posted by coronamv:
Punishment must equal the crime. How about if your caught frauding the system then your left to starve or find a way on your own.

Isn't that quite harsh? Why not prosecute them for fraud in the same way you would any other fraud - as is already the case.Actually if your caught committing fraud are you not usually banned from that activity in the future? Such as Securities and Trading. Or if you commit fraud in the legal profession you are disbarred. Thus no I do not think it is harsh.
Originally posted by coronamv:
Luck is an excuse.. used in this instance. Winning the lottery is luck Pure chance not making the right choices in life whatever they may be is not luck it is the consequences of your actions.

Well - luck is usually used to describe forces outside your control. There are an awful lot of things in this world that you cannot control.

Originally posted by coronamv:
Really? you think that someone who is incompetent at the job they take and get fired thinks it was luck.. I mean do you really think this?
I don't. That's why I said that it might be described that way from their POV. I was answering your question as to why people blame luck. Sometimes it is justified, sometimes not. Fair enough

Originally posted by coronamv:
If you invest all your eggs in one basket and that basket fails then you made a bad choice on bad logic.

Very sensible advice. But let's hope that your stockbroker is honest and your portfolio broad enough. And that you have enough time in your job to accumulate enough cash to survive any difficult times.

Why thank you and your right do you homework and everything to protect you and your family so no one else has too.

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

08/17/2008 12:05:09 AM · #221

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'm hearing this real well. "If you can't survive on your own, too bad..."

God have mercy on us.

R.

Still hearing wrong.

I am saying..it isn't the governments responsibility. I never said we shouldn't take care of people in need....I just said it should be through 'private' enterprises.

dponlyme

Nikon D3000

08/17/2008 04:56:16 AM · #222

Originally posted by coronamv:

Your complete indifference to your fellow humans is quite marked. What you describe as a free ride is not a pleasure cruise by any stretch of the imagination and getting assistance is not motivated by greed. Never met anyone who was greedy to be poor and barely survive. You make all people who have to rely on some form of assistance to be lazy and unethical. If people do make some bad choices then should we simply abandon them as a society? I submit to you that this would be disastrous for our country. Your best idea is if the people have no bread then let them eat cake. I agree that people need a leg up but you devalue all human life by the barbarism that you propose for those who can't provide for themselves. Consider that under your plan the children of people who have perhaps made bad decisions would starve also. Are you so uncaring that you would let an innocent child starve because of it's parents decisions. More importantly do you want to live in a world where people are left to fend for themselves any way that they have to in order to survive. It would most likely be a lot more violent a world than it already is. There are good and sound reasons for the government to help those who aren't able to help themselves. It's a lot cheaper to feed a person than to house them in a prison because they had to resort to crime to try and survive. I suppose under your plan we wouldn't need prisons though.. we would just execute everyone. After all why should the tax payers have to house and feed criminals.Are you against bankruptcy laws that protect corporations which employ huge numbers of people? Are you against government bail outs of fannie mae and freddie mac? Probably not because these make good economic sense to protect these entities but under your ideas these institutions made decisions and took actions and now should have to suffer the consequences regardless of the fact that their collapse would further wreck the economy. I submit that the government helping individual people makes just as good of sense as the corporate welfare that indeed is necessary to protect our economy. Fraud of course is unacceptable but for those who genuinely qualify and have a true need it is in the governments and our communities best interests to help them. Honestly I wonder what happened to you to make you so completely bitter and almost inhuman in your positions. To you it seems that people aren't human unless they are just like you. You have no compassion whatsoever. I guess I always knew people like you existed but I never came in contact with one until now. May God have mercy on your soul. I will pray for you.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/17/2008 09:46:54 AM · #223

Originally posted by egamble:

I am saying..it isn't the governments responsibility. I never said we shouldn't take care of people in need....I just said it should be through 'private' enterprises.

What do you think government is, anyway? In this country, it's a corporation which has all citizens as "shareholders" -- put together to pool resources for the good of the entire population; "promote the general welfare" is how the US Constitution puts it. It's one of the significant ways humans different from other top predators.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/17/2008 10:21:29 AM · #224

A Dog starv'd at his Master's Gate
Predicts the ruin of the State.
A Horse misus'd upon the Road
Calls to Heaven for Human Blood.

â�� William Blake