Another way of looking at decreasing Doc salaries.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
niranjan162 said:
I dont think your realize how big the top 10% is. Some of the people in this group are certainly not rich. There are probably some people in that group who make under 100k.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/27/magazines/fortune/obama_budget_tax.fortune/index.htm

Heres an article for you to read.

You talk about how its unfair to tax people in lower income brackets, but then say that life isnt fair when it comes to taxing the rich. Your supporting opposing view points.

The housing bubble was created by two things, greed and stupidity. Greed on the part of the lender and stupidity on the part of the people taking these loans.

I suppose that the progressive income taxes are the most fair thing to be done. But after seeing how the government has handled the money thus far, I have no faith in them to manage it wisely.

Also its unfathomable to be raising taxes at all, on anyone, in a recession. We need to be putting money into the hands of the people instead of letting the government sink it into failing companies.

Also you may have some luck getting into a professional job, but only hard work gets you through professional schools, this can be said doubly for medicine. People dont get the privilege of being a doctor they earn it.
Click to expand...

No, I am saying that both things are unfair... taxing the rich at a high percentage and taxing people who can't afford to be taxed. If both things are unfair... which would does the most harm? Taxing someone that can afford it or taxing someone who can't?

And the housing crisis was due to a lot of things... I have tried to understand the cause of it and the economic recession and it all seems to come back to everyone blaming everyone else. At this point I just want a solution.... the blame game isn't helping anyone.
 
I vote we spend billions of dollars bailing out companies who made irresponsible decisions.
 
I say we allow the companies to fold which will put millions of people out of work, crash the stock market, and put the nail in the coffin of consumer confidence just to appease my principles!

I hate the situation... but it only gets worse if we let the financial basis of our country falter.
 
Niran, I read that article... and while I am not an economist or CPA or whatever... it seems like it says that ~5million people will pay ~$4000 more a year in taxes. From the example that is 1.3% more a year for a family that makes $300k/year.

That doesn't seem so bad... maybe I am missing the point.
 
VanBrown said:
No, I am saying that both things are unfair... taxing the rich at a high percentage and taxing people who can't afford to be taxed. If both things are unfair... which would does the most harm? Taxing someone that can afford it or taxing someone who can't?

And the housing crisis was due to a lot of things... I have tried to understand the cause of it and the economic recession and it all seems to come back to everyone blaming everyone else. At this point I just want a solution.... the blame game isn't helping anyone.
Click to expand...

Well this was basically our chance to "reset" the economy. But the government keeps dumping money into businesses and banks that made poor decisions. Im no economist, so I dont know how bad the effect of shutting these companies down would be to unemployment.
 
VanBrown said:
I say we allow the companies to fold which will put millions of people out of work, crash the stock market, and put the nail in the coffin of consumer confidence just to appease my principles!

I hate the situation... but it only gets worse if we let the financial basis of our country falter.
Click to expand...
Which will allow entrepreneurs to come in, learn from the mistakes of their predecessors and make americas economy better than it was originally. All while saving ourselves a trillion dollars to spend on necessities such as the Iraq war (ok this is a joke).
 
VanBrown said:
I say we allow the companies to fold which will put millions of people out of work, crash the stock market, and put the nail in the coffin of consumer confidence just to appease my principles!

I hate the situation... but it only gets worse if we let the financial basis of our country falter.
Click to expand...

The people who bitch about the government bailing out the banks and other similar companies don't understand how big of a backbone they are to our financial world.

Consumer spending and loaning is our backbone. I don't see how people can't understand that. No, let the banks fail is what I here all of the time out in the general public. F'n idiots.
 
ChubbyChaser said:
Which will allow entrepreneurs to come in, learn from the mistakes of their predecessors and make americas economy better than it was originally. All while saving ourselves a trillion dollars to spend on necessities such as the Iraq war (ok this is a joke).
Click to expand...

Good luck getting that start up capital with no bank lending. Shessh.
 
VanBrown said:
I say we allow the companies to fold which will put millions of people out of work, crash the stock market, and put the nail in the coffin of consumer confidence just to appease my principles!

I hate the situation... but it only gets worse if we let the financial basis of our country falter.
Click to expand...

the financial system is based on capitalism but we are trying to save it with socialism.

Think about it what reason do these CEO's have to do better? AIG's been bailed out 4 times. That CEO maybe thinking i can do whatever I want and the government will pay to save me.
 
DOquestions said:
Good luck getting that start up capital with no bank lending. Shessh.
Click to expand...
You act like there wont be any banks out there. There are banks out there who were more careful in who they decided to give loans too....I think BBT is one, not sure

Do you know how little work was required to get a loan 5 years ago?? Basically sign a sheet of paper. One migrant worker (keep in mind his income involved moving place to place in search of work...no security whatsoever)in california took out a 600K loan no money down...now tell me how does that make sense?

What about Bank of America buying up all these other little banks...you know what they are thinking? "We got to get as big as possible so we become to big too fail so the government will bail us out as well."

There will always be loans out there, they just wont be as easy to come by. *Gasp* they might rely on your credit score!!
 
Last edited:
niranjan162 said:
the financial system is based on capitalism but we are trying to save it with socialism.

Think about it what reason do these CEO's have to do better? AIG's been bailed out 4 times. That CEO maybe thinking i can do whatever I want and the government will pay to save me.
Click to expand...
Exactly..by bailing out these companies, businesses have no incentives to make wise financially responsible decisions.
 
niranjan162 said:
Well this was basically our chance to "reset" the economy. But the government keeps dumping money into businesses and banks that made poor decisions. Im no economist, so I dont know how bad the effect of shutting these companies down would be to unemployment.
Click to expand...

No lending means no jobs.

Where do construction companies get the money to do their jobs? Umm, banks.

Where do companies get money to get projects done? Umm, banks.

Where do people get their health insurance from? Umm, insurance companies like AIG. No AIG, no insurance. No insurance means fewer patients at the hospital. Fewer patients at the hospital means staff cuts (all around the board). Staff cuts means lowered econonomic stimulus for the local community. Lower spending in communities means companies fail to make a profit.

Why can't you people understand these very simple economic principles?
 
Freddie and Fannie represent over $2 trillion in assets. I am not sure our country can survive them failing.

And to the migrant worker loan... I would love to see a link because there must have been more going on there... if not then I blame the lack of oversight by the government and the idiocy of the loaning institution on that one.


and Niran.. I would love capitalism to save the economy... but it has proven that it can't. I am not in favor of the government buying up banks and things any more than you are but I am less in favor of trying to deal with the consequences of what happens if we just hope it gets better.
 
DOquestions said:
No lending means no jobs.

Where do construction companies get the money to do their jobs? Umm, banks.

Where do companies get money to get projects done? Umm, banks.

Where do people get their health insurance from? Umm, insurance companies like AIG. No AIG, no insurance. No insurance means fewer patients at the hospital. Fewer patients at the hospital means staff cuts (all around the board). Staff cuts means lowered econonomic stimulus for the local community. Lower spending in communities means companies fail to make a profit.

Why can't you people understand these very simple economic principles?
Click to expand...
Why cant you understand that people need to live within their means and be held responsible for the decisions that they make? If these banks go under will people hurt? Absolutely, but it is not the end of all civilization. What we are doing with these bailouts is postponing the inevitable. Deficit spending does not work, and people should not be tricked into thinking fast growth and easy profits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/b..._r=1&scp=1&sq=caution pays hudson city&st=cse
 
ChubbyChaser said:
You act like there wont be any banks out there. There are banks out there who were more careful in who they decided to give loans too....I think BBT is one, not sure

Do you know how little work was required to get a loan 5 years ago?? Basically sign a sheet of paper. One migrant worker (keep in mind his income involved moving place to place in search of work...no security whatsoever)in california took out a 600K loan no money down...now tell me how does that make sense?

What about Bank of America buying up all these other little banks...you know what they are thinking? "We got to get as big as possible so we become to big too fail so the government will bail us out as well."

There will always be loans out there, they just wont be as easy to come by. *Gasp* they might rely on your credit score!!
Click to expand...

Stick to your medical school studies as it is obvious you have no idea how serious this economic mess is. You obviously have no idea how big of a factor that the major banks have. You little local bank doesn't deal with the multimillion dollar lends that the large banks deal with.

Do you realize that 5 years ago you could go to the bank and ask for 200k and they would give you 300k instead? You act like I have no idea what I'm talking about.
 
ChubbyChaser said:
Why cant you understand that people need to live within their means and be held responsible for the decisions that they make? If these banks go under will people hurt? Absolutely, but it is not the end of all civilization. What we are doing with these bailouts is postponing the inevitable. Deficit spending does not work, and people should not be tricked into thinking fast growth and easy profits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/b..._r=1&scp=1&sq=caution pays hudson city&st=cse
Click to expand...

Do us all a favor. Go to your local undergraduate college and sign up for economics 101. After taking that class, come back and make the same post that you just made.

People not hurt if banks don't lend, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol.
 
DOquestions said:
Do us all a favor. Go to your local undergraduate college and sign up for economics 101. After taking that class, come back and make the same post that you just made.

People not hurt if banks don't lend, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol.
Click to expand...
Umm...how about you quit resulting to personal insults and re-read my post. I said people will hurt, but it will not be forever. It boils down to this...hurt now or hurt worse later?

But I guess because I believe in a little responsibility, that makes me an idiot. O well, I am through arguing. Talk to me in 10, 20, 30 years.
 
DOquestions said:
No lending means no jobs.

Where do construction companies get the money to do their jobs? Umm, banks.

Where do companies get money to get projects done? Umm, banks.

Where do people get their health insurance from? Umm, insurance companies like AIG. No AIG, no insurance. No insurance means fewer patients at the hospital. Fewer patients at the hospital means staff cuts (all around the board). Staff cuts means lowered econonomic stimulus for the local community. Lower spending in communities means companies fail to make a profit.

Why can't you people understand these very simple economic principles?
Click to expand...

Look, I don't think anyone on here is advocating for zero lending. Anyone who does is an idiot. What some of us are trying to say is that you need to realize is that so many Americans have lost any concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY that they may have had. Just because a bank is willing to offer you a loan does not mean you should take it.

Like Chub said, "live within your means." Someone making $50,000/yr should not be purchasing a $500,000 house. People have neglected any responsibility they may have had and now the government swoops in to act as a safety net. This is exactly what Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership wants. They want American people dependent on the government. I agree that we need lending for the economy to run efficiently, but we need RESPONSIBLE lending. I hear/read day after day on news that it is these evil banks that "preyed on the people." Come on! If these people aren't smart enough to realize that they cannot afford an extravagant loan just because they want to live in a big house, they deserve to be conned. That's just plain, outright stupidity.

To protect me from getting pounced on, I am not saying that all people who have been foreclosed are stupid or irresponsible. But, a large majority of the people are. These people were unable to pay their mortgages BEFORE they started losing their jobs, let alone after.
 
DOquestions said:
No lending means no jobs.

Where do construction companies get the money to do their jobs? Umm, banks.

Where do companies get money to get projects done? Umm, banks.

Where do people get their health insurance from? Umm, insurance companies like AIG. No AIG, no insurance. No insurance means fewer patients at the hospital. Fewer patients at the hospital means staff cuts (all around the board). Staff cuts means lowered econonomic stimulus for the local community. Lower spending in communities means companies fail to make a profit.

Why can't you people understand these very simple economic principles?
Click to expand...

This stuff is already happening. People with good credit arent getting loans. When the CEO's were asked if they had plans to help people who had always paid on time 2 people raised their hands.

Hospitals are already being hit by the economy theyve already started laying people off.

Raising taxes stifles community spending as well.

These people who are trying to bailout AIG are all the same people who said AIG was way to big to fail. They didnt know what they were talking about then, who knows if they do now?

VanBrown said:
Freddie and Fannie represent over $2 trillion in assets. I am not sure our country can survive them failing.

And to the migrant worker loan... I would love to see a link because there must have been more going on there... if not then I blame the lack of oversight by the government and the idiocy of the loaning institution on that one.


and Niran.. I would love capitalism to save the economy... but it has proven that it can't. I am not in favor of the government buying up banks and things any more than you are but I am less in favor of trying to deal with the consequences of what happens if we just hope it gets better.
Click to expand...

I kno the migrant worker story chubbychaser was talking about. Theres a documentary called "house of cards" its on cnbc or cnn or something see if you can youtube it. It does a good job of explaining why the housing bubble happened. It featured him. He used these loans to buy a $500,000 home, then was going to refinance the house and use that money to start a business. They show you the inside of his house and its pretty swank. leather couches, flat screen t.v., sound system.

The whole economy was inflated based on the housing bubble and it spread into the financial district through CDOs, and mortgage backed securities.

People's greed and irresponsibility got the country into this mess. People need to have more individual repsonsibility. I agree the government should help out. But have you seen anything that suggests they know what they are doing?
 
DOquestions said:
Stick to your medical school studies as it is obvious you have no idea how serious this economic mess is. You obviously have no idea how big of a factor that the major banks have. You little local bank doesn't deal with the multimillion dollar lends that the large banks deal with.

Do you realize that 5 years ago you could go to the bank and ask for 200k and they would give you 300k instead? You act like I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to retake econ. If we let the banks fail, their assets do not just disappear. They will be broken up into smaller entities, restructured, and the good parts of the companies will be purchased by other, wiser banks. It's the beauty of the free market. One company's trash is another's treasure. Look what happened with Lehman Brothers. It failed and it was a huge story, but many of the employees didn't even miss a day of work. The name at the top of their paycheck just changed to Barclay's or another company.

The real point is this. We, as a country, cannot afford to allow companies to exist which are too big to be allowed to fail. The sooner we stop propping up these companies and start building a strong financial system, the sooner we will be out of the recession and better off as a nation. In case you haven't noticed, pouring hundreds of billions into failing banks has not stopped the slide, nor has it freed up capital for lending. The megabanks are just pocketing the cash to cover some of their losses. We're delaying the inevitable.
 
cpants said:
Maybe you need to retake econ. If we let the banks fail, their assets do not just disappear. They will be broken up into smaller entities, restructured, and the good parts of the companies will be purchased by other, wiser banks. It's the beauty of the free market. One company's trash is another's treasure. Look what happened with Lehman Brothers. It failed and it was a huge story, but many of the employees didn't even miss a day of work. The name at the top of their paycheck just changed to Barclay's or another company.

The real point is this. We, as a country, cannot afford to allow companies to exist which are too big to be allowed to fail. The sooner we stop propping up these companies and start building a strong financial system, the sooner we will be out of the recession and better off as a nation. In case you haven't noticed, pouring hundreds of billions into failing banks has not stopped the slide, nor has it freed up capital for lending. The megabanks are just pocketing the cash to cover some of their losses. We're delaying the inevitable.
Click to expand...

Who lent the money to Barclay's, Nomura, Bain, and Hellman and Friedman to buy Lehman Brothers? To the poster that said entrepreneurs will buy the pieces of the failing banks: they won't. No one is buying anything right now, because no wants to borrow (they don't have the assets to cover), and no one wants to lend (they don't know how much their own assets and liabilities are worth). A market economy is fundamentally dependent on its banks. If one company fails, banks finance the transfer of assets from the failing company to the buying one.

Don't forget the domino effect: if a company goes bankrupt, it defaults on most of its debt. Lets say Company A bought $1 million of beer from Company B, with payment scheduled for next month. If Company A goes bankrupt today, Company B won't be getting its money. Now lets say that this happens a few times to Company B. Company B is now about to go bankrupt as well. And lo and behold, Company B was doing business with Company C...
 
AUD said:
Who lent the money to Barclay's, Nomura, Bain, and Hellman and Friedman to buy Lehman Brothers? To the poster that said entrepreneurs will buy the pieces of the failing banks: they won't. No one is buying anything right now, because no wants to borrow (they don't have the assets to cover), and no one wants to lend (they don't know how much their own assets and liabilities are worth). A market economy is fundamentally dependent on its banks. If one company fails, banks finance the transfer of assets from the failing company to the buying one.

Don't forget the domino effect: if a company goes bankrupt, it defaults on most of its debt. Lets say Company A bought $1 million of beer from Company B, with payment scheduled for next month. If Company A goes bankrupt today, Company B won't be getting its money. Now lets say that this happens a few times to Company B. Company B is now about to go bankrupt as well. And lo and behold, Company B was doing business with Company C...
Click to expand...

I don't deny that companies will fail. It will get worse before it gets better. But if we keep propping up these toxic companies and their toxic assets we just delay the inevitable. Eventually the country will lose the political capital or the foreign credit to keep borrowing money to hand over to the banks. Then they will still fail, while the taxpayers look at debt that we will be paying for generations. Better to let it bottom now. Start restructuring Citi, BOA, AIG, and any other companies that are too big to fail immediately.
 
cpants said:
I don't deny that companies will fail. It will get worse before it gets better. But if we keep propping up these toxic companies and their toxic assets we just delay the inevitable. Eventually the country will lose the political capital or the foreign credit to keep borrowing money to hand over to the banks. Then they will still fail, while the taxpayers look at debt that we will be paying for generations. Better to let it bottom now. Start restructuring Citi, BOA, AIG, and any other companies that are too big to fail immediately.
Click to expand...

What I meant to say is that there is a possibility too many companies will fail. I don't believe the market is a perfect system, capable of recovering from any disaster you throw at it. Is this one of those situations? We won't find out until the economy is back on track and after economists have all the data of this recession.

As for restructuring, don't think that's not happening already. The government has a 80% stake in AIG, its not going to keep it the way it was before it failed. All the bailout money has an enormous number of conditions that companies must comply with. When the government "gives" money to these failing enterprises, they're actually forcing the company to sell them preferred stock or using Treasury warrants to buy stock. That means that when the government decides to sell, it gets its money first. Look up the Chrysler bailout in 1979 by Carter, I believe they used warrants in that one. The stock gives them large stakes in the company, and warrants dilute other shareholders even more.
 
AUD said:
What I meant to say is that there is a possibility too many companies will fail. I don't believe the market is a perfect system, capable of recovering from any disaster you throw at it. Is this one of those situations? We won't find out until the economy is back on track and after economists have all the data of this recession.

As for restructuring, don't think that's not happening already. The government has a 80% stake in AIG, its not going to keep it the way it was before it failed. All the bailout money has an enormous number of conditions that companies must comply with. When the government "gives" money to these failing enterprises, they're actually forcing the company to sell them preferred stock or using Treasury warrants to buy stock. That means that when the government decides to sell, it gets its money first. Look up the Chrysler bailout in 1979 by Carter, I believe they used warrants in that one. The stock gives them large stakes in the company, and warrants dilute other shareholders even more.
Click to expand...

great now the government has even more control over our lifes
 
ChubbyChaser said:
great now the government has even more control over our lifes
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate? If I hadn't told you, you probably wouldn't have noticed. Like it or not, our government is BIG. Always will be.
 
Doctor's often work 60 hours and still make more than the majority of Americans. Here is a hint lobbying for congress to increase doctor's salaries won't happen. Also using the argument "If I don't make this much in medicine I won't go into it" Is pretty lame since there are 5 people willing to take your spot. Also keeping the "best and brightest" in the field of medicine is also a lame argument. Where will these "best and the brightest" go to? Law??? I banking??? business???
 
Last edited:
Brigade4Radiant said:
Doctor's often work 60 hours and still make more than the majority of Americans. Here is a hint lobbying for congress to increase doctor's salaries won't happen. Also using the argument "If I don't make this much in medicine I won't go into it" Is pretty lame since there are 5 people willing to take your spot. Also keeping the "best and brightest" in the field of medicine is also a lame argument. Where will these "best and the brightest" go to? Law??? I banking??? business???
Click to expand...
Hoooray for posts that have nothing to do with the subject matter being discussed.
 
I am really enjoying your posts, people! This has been a really awesome thread.

My personal ten cents, unasked for, but certainly given with pleasure:

Stop looking for easy answers and dare to look at the issue from a different perspective. It's boring to have to argue with people who regurgitate the same tired old propaganda - the government is out to get you, tax-cuts are the only thing that can save us, universal healthcare will bankrupt us, people should be more responsible, let's allow the free market to make healthcare prices cheaper, omg obama will make us into socialists, blah, blah, blah... :bang:

chubbychaser: "... every person is given opportunities to improve themselves through education, hardwork, etc..."

Come on, that is just naive. Some groups of people just have less opportunities for advancement in life. This country will not provide equal opportunities to its citizens while education is not subsidized (like in the rest of the developed and half-developed world) and healthcare access and standard are restricted by ability to pay (google waivers of Title XIX of the Social Security Act).

Aladdin: "...What some of us are trying to say is that you need to realize is that so many Americans have lost any concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY that they may have had. Just because a bank is willing to offer you a loan does not mean you should take it...."

You are right we have lost personal responsibility. But that doesn't mean that just by telling ourselves "we should be more responsible, duh" we will magically have a bunch of smarter, responsible people who will not take what is not theirs. Civil responsibility and ethics are built over generations and because of the government, which props up laws that are here to protect the common man. The purpose of "big bad government" is to serve the people and to protect their interests (and if the laws are just, it can do exactly that). The purpose of hedge funds, banks, mortgage lenders and the like is to make more money. They do not have a responsibility to us. Just expecting the law of the jungle to produce a fair outcome for everyone, will only work, if you were the lion, and you didn't take the gazelle into consideration. But I guess you can make the point that the gazelle is really just a welfare queen and has never done anything to better herself, so the outcome is fair.

DOquestions and VanBrown - you guys are awesome! Please keep up the good work. I am glad you are going into the medical profession. We need more socially responsible and compassionate people like you out there. Don't give into the overwhelming odds. Keep your good hearts!:clap:
 
Luna1 said:
I am really enjoying your posts, people! This has been a really awesome thread.

My personal ten cents, unasked for, but certainly given with pleasure:

Stop looking for easy answers and dare to look at the issue from a different perspective. It's boring to have to argue with people who regurgitate the same tired old propaganda - the government is out to get you, tax-cuts are the only thing that can save us, universal healthcare will bankrupt us, people should be more responsible, let's allow the free market to make healthcare prices cheaper, omg obama will make us into socialists, blah, blah, blah... :bang:

chubbychaser: "... every person is given opportunities to improve themselves through education, hardwork, etc..."

Come on, that is just naive. Some groups of people just have less opportunities for advancement in life. This country will not provide equal opportunities to its citizens while education is not subsidized (like in the rest of the developed and half-developed world) and healthcare access and standard are restricted by ability to pay (google waivers of Title XIX of the Social Security Act).

Aladdin: "...What some of us are trying to say is that you need to realize is that so many Americans have lost any concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY that they may have had. Just because a bank is willing to offer you a loan does not mean you should take it...."

You are right we have lost personal responsibility. But that doesn't mean that just by telling ourselves "we should be more responsible, duh" we will magically have a bunch of smarter, responsible people who will not take what is not theirs. Civil responsibility and ethics are built over generations and because of the government, which props up laws that are here to protect the common man. The purpose of "big bad government" is to serve the people and to protect their interests (and if the laws are just, it can do exactly that). The purpose of hedge funds, banks, mortgage lenders and the like is to make more money. They do not have a responsibility to us. Just expecting the law of the jungle to produce a fair outcome for everyone, will only work, if you were the lion, and you didn't take the gazelle into consideration. But I guess you can make the point that the gazelle is really just a welfare queen and has never done anything to better herself, so the outcome is fair.

DOquestions and VanBrown - you guys are awesome! Please keep up the good work. I am glad you are going into the medical profession. We need more socially responsible and compassionate people like you out there. Don't give into the overwhelming odds. Keep your good hearts!:clap:
Click to expand...

I llike how you chastise people with differing opinions than yours as "regurgitating propaganda", while your revelations are the same thing that your cohorts have been saying.

The people you're calling out and the people your praising are providing reason and evidence. You brought none of this to the discussion. Good job with the name calling. Labeling people as heartless though, that musta taken alot of thought and reason.
 
niranjan162 said:
I llike how you chastise people with differing opinions than yours as "regurgitating propaganda", while your revelations are the same thing that your cohorts have been saying.

The people you're calling out and the people your praising are providing reason and evidence. You brought none of this to the discussion. Good job with the name calling. Labeling people as heartless though, that musta taken alot of thought and reason.
Click to expand...

👍 Thank you for discouraging me to share my opinion. Is that how you will be talking to all of your colleagues? Or just the ones with different ideas. Belittling the opinions of others is always unnecessary.

Actually I never labeled anyone as "heartless". Just said 2 people are compassionate, their opinions led me to believe that. That doesn't mean I called anyone else heartless (A+B=C does not mean X+Y not= C). Please don't put words into my mouth. Good job on jumping to conclusions. That must have taken a lot of thought and reason.
 
Luna1 said:
I am really enjoying your posts, people! This has been a really awesome thread.

My personal ten cents, unasked for, but certainly given with pleasure:

Stop looking for easy answers and dare to look at the issue from a different perspective. It's boring to have to argue with people who regurgitate the same tired old propaganda - the government is out to get you, tax-cuts are the only thing that can save us, universal healthcare will bankrupt us, people should be more responsible, let's allow the free market to make healthcare prices cheaper, omg obama will make us into socialists, blah, blah, blah... :bang:

chubbychaser: "... every person is given opportunities to improve themselves through education, hardwork, etc..."

Come on, that is just naive. Some groups of people just have less opportunities for advancement in life. This country will not provide equal opportunities to its citizens while education is not subsidized (like in the rest of the developed and half-developed world) and healthcare access and standard are restricted by ability to pay (google waivers of Title XIX of the Social Security Act).

Aladdin: "...What some of us are trying to say is that you need to realize is that so many Americans have lost any concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY that they may have had. Just because a bank is willing to offer you a loan does not mean you should take it...."

You are right we have lost personal responsibility. But that doesn't mean that just by telling ourselves "we should be more responsible, duh" we will magically have a bunch of smarter, responsible people who will not take what is not theirs. Civil responsibility and ethics are built over generations and because of the government, which props up laws that are here to protect the common man. The purpose of "big bad government" is to serve the people and to protect their interests (and if the laws are just, it can do exactly that). The purpose of hedge funds, banks, mortgage lenders and the like is to make more money. They do not have a responsibility to us. Just expecting the law of the jungle to produce a fair outcome for everyone, will only work, if you were the lion, and you didn't take the gazelle into consideration. But I guess you can make the point that the gazelle is really just a welfare queen and has never done anything to better herself, so the outcome is fair.

DOquestions and VanBrown - you guys are awesome! Please keep up the good work. I am glad you are going into the medical profession. We need more socially responsible and compassionate people like you out there. Don't give into the overwhelming odds. Keep your good hearts!:clap:
Click to expand...

ten cents?! you must be in the high income bracket. 😉
 
Luna1 said:
I am really enjoying your posts, people! This has been a really awesome thread.

My personal ten cents, unasked for, but certainly given with pleasure:

Stop looking for easy answers and dare to look at the issue from a different perspective. It's boring to have to argue with people who regurgitate the same tired old propaganda - the government is out to get you, tax-cuts are the only thing that can save us, universal healthcare will bankrupt us, people should be more responsible, let's allow the free market to make healthcare prices cheaper, omg obama will make us into socialists, blah, blah, blah... :bang:
Click to expand...

I like how you chastise people with differing opinions than yours as "regurgitating propaganda", while your revelations are the same thing that your cohorts have been saying.

Thanks for discourging us from voicing our opinion


Luna1 said:
chubbychaser: "... every person is given opportunities to improve themselves through education, hardwork, etc..."

Come on, that is just naive. Some groups of people just have less opportunities for advancement in life. This country will not provide equal opportunities to its citizens while education is not subsidized (like in the rest of the developed and half-developed world) and healthcare access and standard are restricted by ability to pay (google waivers of Title XIX of the Social Security Act).
Click to expand...

Some people do have better opportunities, than others. This is true. But a little personal responsibility can go a long way. But lets say you come from a ****ty public school. A little hard work and you can distinguish yourself from the rest of the people in your classes. You graduate pretty high in your class, because of this and get accepted to a state college with the help of some AA and a good personal statement about how you had to rise up to compete. College is more competitive, you do poorly freshman year but meet with the study skills people and work on raising your grad sophomore year. You do well in your classes, decide you want to become a doctor, apply to med school, You didnt go to an ivy leage college but you still get into med school. Work hard become a doctor and work hard some more...etc.

A little simplistic? yea, Out of the realm of possibility? no.


Luna1 said:
Aladdin: "...What some of us are trying to say is that you need to realize is that so many Americans have lost any concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY that they may have had. Just because a bank is willing to offer you a loan does not mean you should take it...."


You are right we have lost personal responsibility. But that doesn't mean that just by telling ourselves "we should be more responsible, duh" we will magically have a bunch of smarter, responsible people who will not take what is not theirs. Civil responsibility and ethics are built over generations and because of the government, which props up laws that are here to protect the common man. The purpose of "big bad government" is to serve the people and to protect their interests (and if the laws are just, it can do exactly that). The purpose of hedge funds, banks, mortgage lenders and the like is to make more money. They do not have a responsibility to us. Just expecting the law of the jungle to produce a fair outcome for everyone, will only work, if you were the lion, and you didn't take the gazelle into consideration. But I guess you can make the point that the gazelle is really just a welfare queen and has never done anything to better herself, so the outcome is fair.
Click to expand...

Since when did government = ethics? The values of generations have been passed on, but our society has been moving to a more progressively logic/science based point of view.

Past generations have had a more religious centered values system. Some people thought separation of state and church was important.

What we have been losing is a sense of unity as a country.

Who doesnt like some venison? Althought I know politicians prefer pork...

Luna1 said:
DOquestions and VanBrown - you guys are awesome! Please keep up the good work. I am glad you are going into the medical profession. We need more socially responsible and compassionate people like you out there. Don't give into the overwhelming odds. Keep your good hearts!:clap:
Click to expand...

ChubbyChaser and Aladdin - you guys are jerks, how could you guys go spreading around propaganda.

What those are your opinions? Screw that, you are just jerks who hate the government, No I dont care that AIG has had to been bailed out 4 times because the government just threw money at them, it was their money to help people. CEO's are people too ok!

What are you talking about, Lobbying? Dont they have those in hotels or something?

God, why do you even want to do medicine? You like the science of medicine? Unacceptable, I dont care how much science you like you have to sacrifice everything to help people. Especially the ones that blow smoke in your face and try to attack you when they're high on crack, Dont you know those actions are just cries for help?
 
niranjan162 said:
I like how you chastise people with differing opinions than yours as "regurgitating propaganda", while your revelations are the same thing that your cohorts have been saying.

Thanks for discourging us from voicing our opinion

Who doesnt like some venison? Althought I know politicians prefer pork...

ChubbyChaser and Aladdin - you guys are jerks, how could you guys go spreading around propaganda.

What those are your opinions? Screw that, you are just jerks who hate the government, No I dont care that AIG has had to been bailed out 4 times because the government just threw money at them, it was their money to help people. CEO's are people too ok!

What are you talking about, Lobbying? Dont they have those in hotels or something?

God, why do you even want to do medicine? You like the science of medicine? Unacceptable, I dont care how much science you like you have to sacrifice everything to help people. Especially the ones that blow smoke in your face and try to attack you when they're high on crack, Dont you know those actions are just cries for help?
Click to expand...

I love it. Best post of today.
 
Brigade4Radiant said:
Doctor's often work 60 hours and still make more than the majority of Americans. Here is a hint lobbying for congress to increase doctor's salaries won't happen. Also using the argument "If I don't make this much in medicine I won't go into it" Is pretty lame since there are 5 people willing to take your spot. Also keeping the "best and brightest" in the field of medicine is also a lame argument. Where will these "best and the brightest" go to? Law??? I banking??? business???
Click to expand...

Do you like being stomped all over?
 
Brigade4Radiant said:
Doctor's often work 60 hours and still make more than the majority of Americans. Here is a hint lobbying for congress to increase doctor's salaries won't happen. Also using the argument "If I don't make this much in medicine I won't go into it" Is pretty lame since there are 5 people willing to take your spot. Also keeping the "best and brightest" in the field of medicine is also a lame argument. Where will these "best and the brightest" go to? Law??? I banking??? business???
Click to expand...

yea actually.
 
niranjan162 said:
ChubbyChaser and Aladdin - you guys are jerks, how could you guys go spreading around propaganda.

God, why do you even want to do medicine? You like the science of medicine? Unacceptable, I dont care how much science you like you have to sacrifice everything to help people. Especially the ones that blow smoke in your face and try to attack you when they're high on crack, Dont you know those actions are just cries for help?
Click to expand...

Hilarious
 
starfishprime said:
Here comes a bitchin' analogy:

So there are two brothers, Bill - a high school teacher, and Dr. Bob - a doctor. Like any good red-blooded American good ol' boys, Bill and Dr. Bob really love beer*. So, they both use all of their salaries to buy beer. Bill makes $50,000 and buys 50,000 beers, while Dr. Bob makes $200,000 and buys 200,000 beers. Next year, because of global economic factors, the value of the dollar decreases, and now beers cost $1.05 each instead of $1.00 (5% inflation). Boo. Now, Bill can only buy 47,619 beers, and Dr. Bob can only buy 190,476. Bill's salary is pegged to inflation, so it goes up to $52,500 and he can buy 50,000 beers again. Dr. Bob's salary only goes up $5,000 - but hey, that's twice the raise his brother got. Now, Dr. Bob can buy 195,238 beers. While Bill gets just as drunk this year as last year, poor Dr. Bob has taken a 5,000 beer pay cut 🙁🙁🙁.

(*note: 'beer' is the standard unit of exchange in economics according to me)
Click to expand...

I get the whole "funny analogy" thing, but goddamn that's taking it too far! Probably the most depressing circumstance I've read on SDN, what were you trying for, shock value? Sick ****... 🙁
 
starfishprime said:
Here comes a bitchin' analogy:

So there are two brothers, Bill - a high school teacher, and Dr. Bob - a doctor. Like any good red-blooded American good ol' boys, Bill and Dr. Bob really love beer*. So, they both use all of their salaries to buy beer. Bill makes $50,000 and buys 50,000 beers, while Dr. Bob makes $200,000 and buys 200,000 beers. Next year, because of global economic factors, the value of the dollar decreases, and now beers cost $1.05 each instead of $1.00 (5% inflation). Boo. Now, Bill can only buy 47,619 beers, and Dr. Bob can only buy 190,476. Bill's salary is pegged to inflation, so it goes up to $52,500 and he can buy 50,000 beers again. Dr. Bob's salary only goes up $5,000 - but hey, that's twice the raise his brother got. Now, Dr. Bob can buy 195,238 beers. While Bill gets just as drunk this year as last year, poor Dr. Bob has taken a 5,000 beer pay cut 🙁🙁🙁.

(*note: 'beer' is the standard unit of exchange in economics according to me)
Click to expand...


haha nice analogy. but what about the part where bill the high school teacher gets laid off due to statewide budget cuts and has to go without beer for a full year? all while his brother Dr. Bob has the most secure job in america
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Taking bio 1 and 2 at another uni
Replies
9
Views
671
LizzyM
LizzyM
LizzyM
Another season of Zoom interviews
Replies
0
Views
796
LizzyM
LizzyM
2026PreMed
Is mass emailing faculty at school the best way to gain a research position ?
Replies
6
Views
984
eigen
eigen
T
Best way to list research productivity? (WA list)
Replies
3
Views
377
LizzyM
LizzyM
T
  • Question Question
Waitlisted at multiple schools of varying quality?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Dee2daK
Dee2daK
Top