• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Politics and people

question

  • Total voters
    6
Oh and here's a random picture of a crying cat

cCeNc.gif
 
megaprogman said:
I'm not sure. I think my question has more to do with how much one is an optimist. For example proponents of the 401k program thought they would be helping people be in control of their money and move them towards responsibility and we are about to have a ****ton of people retire without savings, which is going to put a huge burden on everyone.

So the question is, was this a social engineering failure based on the idea that people would change in response to a new law?

There are countless examples of this, but the 401k one was just on the radio.
Click to expand...

I am 66, wife is 65, we retired well even tho we grew up poor, started with very little between us....We know a lot of people in our age group who did not save, did not prepare, many who had a better start than us, and they are still working if they can, or just not enjoying their low income retirement. Most don't even own a home, still have a mortgage. They did live well while working, tho.
Somehow they got the idea that there is govt gold at the end of the rainbow, that Uncle Sam would increase SS so that it becomes a livable income. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise......as Gomer would say....
I hope their children and grandchildren take note, and adjust their retirement plans accordingly....
 
megaprogman said:
I guess this question is a fail then.
Click to expand...

Actually I think this is a pretty good one - it has often been a back-of-my-mind critique of those I am arguing with that they seem to be assuming that the current set of parameters is somehow set into reality by an unbreakable force. I can't think how many times I've gone off on rants about dynamic v static scoring.
 
I support policies that would encourage certain behaviours.

For social policies I dislike and would never support forced individual actions, or policies that prevent certain actions (non harmfull to others)

So, I do support "sin" taxes, tax policies that encourage people to save money for retirement, etc. It does to an extent from the basis of my politics

So I would not support banning alcohol, sugar, salt or harder drugs, but would support regulation and taxation to discourage excess use.
 
Definitely where people are at.

Getting people to go in a particular direction is harder than herding cats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom