lol montey poython is awesome. And I agree with your point. But its just too bad the U.S. government wastes a shitload of money. And most of the conveniences in our society come from the privatized sector.
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Also I want to reply to wwtMASK about his Judeo-Christian comment, I do not know which one it is but I am pretty sure on of the ten commandments is "thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods" and I'll leave it at that.
I wish this had something at all to do with the point I was making about the inconsistency of conservative "fuck poor people" ideology with Judeo-Christian values. Since we're talking about the commandments, love thy neighbor as thyself seems to be conveniently ignored but very neatly explains why a real Christian should be happy that his tax dollars go towards helping out his fellow man. Most Republicans only seem to be happy when their tax dollars are lining their own pockets or the pockets of rich people and corporations.
O get over the whole Republican thing, A. I am not one, and B. they are a dying breed. And it has everything to do with what you are saying. You are claiming for the redistribution of finances, and all I am saying is that according to christian ideology you should be happy with you have, and collect from the fruits of your own labors instead of others. I just do not understand why the Republicans are always brought up even when they are not mentioned. Oh that's right people who buy into the two party system do not so much strengthen their argument but try and weaken their opponent's, that being the other party, argument through name calling and non-factual based arguments. Oh and one last thing I give a higher percentage of my paycheck to charity than the government gives out.
Someone clearly skipped a good part of the New Testament (how often did Jesus eat and drink for free, give food and money away, advise people to sell all their shit and give to charity, tell people to pay their fucking taxes?). Also, that percentage of your paycheck that goes to charity is still a very small drop in the bucket of what the US government spends on charity and social safety net. It'd take a lot of people donating money to equal that, and I can guarantee you that most people aren't donating, at least not enough to seriously question the involvement of government in social services and charity. Also, tax deductions make charitable giving less awesome than if the government didn't just write off the loss of revenue (that is, by making it financially attractive to donate to charity, the government is underwriting charities anyway. If you take the charitable donation deduction in your taxes, you're really just reducing the amount of your money that goes to tax revenue while the government is paying for the donation).
Actually you really need to look up your numbers. Then you would see the U.S. government donates very little based upon GDP, whereas the American people are the number one donators in the world.
I think you're missing some important points here. First, if you count all charity AND social safety net spending (Medicare, Medicaid, SS, etc), there's no way in hell that the donations of individual Americans add up to all of that. Second, "based upon GDP" is the functional phrase here. You know how much our GDP is? Are you seriously suggesting that individual Americans are donating a significant fraction of our GDP to charity? I'd love to see those numbers. Third, said donators are, iirc, giving an awful lot to churches and religious organizations. Is there any accounting at all of how much of said church offerings actually make it out to helping people? Fourth, just because it needs to be said, charities have taken a real beating financially thanks to the financial collapse of the last year and a half. Do we really want our social safety net to rely on disparate organizations that are so vulnerable that they won't be half as effective at the time when they're most needed?
Also, I am a Libertarian like The Crowing One, but I believe you need to look up the definition of free market, no offense intended, I suggest studying Von Mises. Because even the Cartesian economics taught in schools is B.S.
I wantto end this by saying none of my personal opinions are emotional driven bu rather upon logic, empirical data, and historical similarities; and has nothing to do with race or hatred.
And this is why I shy away from identifying myself as a libertarian, or at least use quotation marks.
I don't care what the "definition" of the "free market" is, and I don't care about the stance made by current Libertarians (big "L"). I believe that taxes are necessary, and I believe that there's a means of reconciling stupid libertarian stances on things like taxation, and allowing for fiscal responsibility and "small-ish" government. I'm far from a Libertarian, but they fit my viewpoint best of all the current philosophies. I also understand that government will always be "big", and it is a necessity of any modern state to ensure a minimum standard of living. Libertarians don't like that.
I think that the most reasonable conservative standpoint is socially liberal and fiscally conservative, because conservative social stances are not informed by things like logic and reason.
We can meet half-way, but the strict dogma prevents us from actually making it a winning political philosophy.
You are right, it is not as if I do not believe in taxes. But its both how, who, and why. The federal government, the most inefficient, put their filthy hands into any jar they can. Even though States can provide far better care for their state as they can directly meet their needs, unlike federal blanket coverage. And so much is wasteful spending, such as was pointed out previously the amount needed to pay for an idiotic foreign policy. I am also unsure what you mean by socially liberal and fiscally conservative, because you seem to have a non-dictionary definition of free market so this could mean any multitude of things. I also know we will always have a big government, but our government is much too large, and some of those powers the fed has should be sent back to the States.
See, the "our government is very inefficient" is an argument that I just don't buy. We spend way too much money, but the issue is the same one that faces corporate America: That those with power use their power to help themselves and their friends.
And my economic views are directly and almost entirely founded by the housing crisis, as I work, steeped in Foreclosure, for 40+ hours a week, 52 weeks a year as a Foreclosure Intervention Counselor. The shame is not that our government is "inefficient" but that they're spending way too much money and pretending that they play by different rules than corporate America.
The bank bailout came with far too few strings, and frankly, the government should have used that money to leverage the interests of middle and lower-class America. It didn't. In fact, the grant that pays my salary is millions of dollars a year, and the net effect is to create free labor for the mortgage industry. My job shouldn't exist. The banks have taken advantage of this grant to absolve themselves of any obligation to their borrowers. If things go wrong, borrowers blame their counselors. If things are unclear, the bank certainly doesn't answer questions. Frankly, I'd be more than happy to have Bank of America signing my paychecks, because that's who I really work for.
And in short, the "free market" I care about is a highly regulated market with competition. If you leave the market alone you'll have the exact opposite of "free". Those with wealth and power do not give up wealth and power.
And to satisfy your curiosity, by "socially liberal" I mean that I think people should be able to do whatever they want. Abortion? okay. Want to smoke some weed? okay. Want to own a gun? okay. etc.
By "fiscally conservative" I mean that we spend way more than is necessary. I don't buy into the "government is so inefficient" argument. As you'll find similar inefficiencies in any corporate setting. Like comparing Police Officer overtime to "quick cash" bonuses in lending.
"Small government" is a pipedream, as we've discussed. I do believe that we can "cut back" on wasteful spending and begin treating government like any other entity. Military spending is the largest offender, by far, and what you see are irrational decisions to give shittons of money to their old frat buddies. Giving powers back to the states would be awesome, but then again shit like the Oklahoma Abortion Law makes me wince. I certainly believe that we could hold government workers and programs to a higher standard, but I'm still unconvinced that "inefficiency" is as rampant as some would like us to believe.
I think that Libertarianism is onto something glorious, but I also believe that it has a while to go before it would be able to actually effect real change. If anything, looking at government like "theoretical" business is a great place to start.
And in conclusion, I'm no expert. I just wanted to wander in here and say "hi! I'm one of those disenfranchised conservatives* with no real voice, anywhere."
First note my word "world" I was speaking of foreign assistance. And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples. And yes I would rather have our society place our hands in that of private org. than that of the corrupt government that really cares little for the people but more for their own agendas. I am sorry this healthcare that you think is so great, is nothing more than part of a larger globalist agenda. Please go read something other than the one sided obama dribble.
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples.
I think you've gotten the exact opposite lesson you're supposed to learn from those examples.
I'm curious what modern conveniences that private industry has given us that had nothing to do with the government. I'm sure there are some but most I can think of the government had a hand in at least getting started.
kdrudy on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
First note my word "world" I was speaking of foreign assistance. And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples.
I would be absolutely fascinated to hear how you think "the gilded age" illustrates anything about comparative government or private efficiency. Please cite specific examples rather than waving your hand vaguely at a forty-year period of history.
I'm also curious to hear what you think "Cartesian economics" are.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
Captain Ultralow resolution pictures of birdsRegistered Userregular
And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples.
I think you've gotten the exact opposite lesson you're supposed to learn from those examples.
Also, I am a Libertarian like The Crowing One, but I believe you need to look up the definition of free market, no offense intended, I suggest studying Von Mises. Because even the Cartesian economics taught in schools is B.S.
I wantto end this by saying none of my personal opinions are emotional driven bu rather upon logic, empirical data, and historical similarities; and has nothing to do with race or hatred.
And this is why I shy away from identifying myself as a libertarian, or at least use quotation marks.
I don't care what the "definition" of the "free market" is, and I don't care about the stance made by current Libertarians (big "L"). I believe that taxes are necessary, and I believe that there's a means of reconciling stupid libertarian stances on things like taxation, and allowing for fiscal responsibility and "small-ish" government. I'm far from a Libertarian, but they fit my viewpoint best of all the current philosophies. I also understand that government will always be "big", and it is a necessity of any modern state to ensure a minimum standard of living. Libertarians don't like that.
I think that the most reasonable conservative standpoint is socially liberal and fiscally conservative, because conservative social stances are not informed by things like logic and reason.
We can meet half-way, but the strict dogma prevents us from actually making it a winning political philosophy.
You are right, it is not as if I do not believe in taxes. But its both how, who, and why. The federal government, the most inefficient, put their filthy hands into any jar they can. Even though States can provide far better care for their state as they can directly meet their needs, unlike federal blanket coverage. And so much is wasteful spending, such as was pointed out previously the amount needed to pay for an idiotic foreign policy. I am also unsure what you mean by socially liberal and fiscally conservative, because you seem to have a non-dictionary definition of free market so this could mean any multitude of things. I also know we will always have a big government, but our government is much too large, and some of those powers the fed has should be sent back to the States.
See, the "our government is very inefficient" is an argument that I just don't buy. We spend way too much money, but the issue is the same one that faces corporate America: That those with power use their power to help themselves and their friends.
And my economic views are directly and almost entirely founded by the housing crisis, as I work, steeped in Foreclosure, for 40+ hours a week, 52 weeks a year as a Foreclosure Intervention Counselor. The shame is not that our government is "inefficient" but that they're spending way too much money and pretending that they play by different rules than corporate America.
The bank bailout came with far too few strings, and frankly, the government should have used that money to leverage the interests of middle and lower-class America. It didn't. In fact, the grant that pays my salary is millions of dollars a year, and the net effect is to create free labor for the mortgage industry. My job shouldn't exist. The banks have taken advantage of this grant to absolve themselves of any obligation to their borrowers. If things go wrong, borrowers blame their counselors. If things are unclear, the bank certainly doesn't answer questions. Frankly, I'd be more than happy to have Bank of America signing my paychecks, because that's who I really work for.
And in short, the "free market" I care about is a highly regulated market with competition. If you leave the market alone you'll have the exact opposite of "free". Those with wealth and power do not give up wealth and power.
And to satisfy your curiosity, by "socially liberal" I mean that I think people should be able to do whatever they want. Abortion? okay. Want to smoke some weed? okay. Want to own a gun? okay. etc.
By "fiscally conservative" I mean that we spend way more than is necessary. I don't buy into the "government is so inefficient" argument. As you'll find similar inefficiencies in any corporate setting. Like comparing Police Officer overtime to "quick cash" bonuses in lending.
"Small government" is a pipedream, as we've discussed. I do believe that we can "cut back" on wasteful spending and begin treating government like any other entity. Military spending is the largest offender, by far, and what you see are irrational decisions to give shittons of money to their old frat buddies. Giving powers back to the states would be awesome, but then again shit like the Oklahoma Abortion Law makes me wince. I certainly believe that we could hold government workers and programs to a higher standard, but I'm still unconvinced that "inefficiency" is as rampant as some would like us to believe.
I think that Libertarianism is onto something glorious, but I also believe that it has a while to go before it would be able to actually effect real change. If anything, looking at government like "theoretical" business is a great place to start.
And in conclusion, I'm no expert. I just wanted to wander in here and say "hi! I'm one of those disenfranchised conservatives* with no real voice, anywhere."
*sort-of
Ok, I am not going to argue with the government efficiency thing because it is a waste of my time. Just look at the post office, or DMV, or police criminal cases. Secondly may I reminded that the housing crisis was due to corrupt banks, who were allowed to get away with sub prime loans because GOVERNMENT mandated it to be socially correct. And I agree with you about the Banks. In fact I will go a step further and say these Banks should never have been bailed out. They were corrupt, greedy, and poorly run, and as such should be allowed to die. Our government treats symptoms, not the cause of the disease itself. The cancer must be allowed to die so the rest of the organism may thrive.
I do agree with your definitions of Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. And I do understand their is need for regulation otherwise you end up with monopolies that are as destructive as any government. But in no situation do I believe a government should start taking over entire sectors of the market, because then we will see what a company does with a monopoly and military force.
Small government is some what possible, it can begin by state rights. And I understand your Oklahoma argument, but that is whats nice about state rights. If you do not like your state's laws you move to a state where they are more similar to your own ideology. Let the people of each state decide.
And thanks for the comments "The Crowning One", you are an intelligent guy, with legit views, andI enjoyed your discussion and hope to see you in other threads.
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
First note my word "world" I was speaking of foreign assistance. And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples. And yes I would rather have our society place our hands in that of private org. than that of the corrupt government that really cares little for the people but more for their own agendas. I am sorry this healthcare that you think is so great, is nothing more than part of a larger globalist agenda. Please go read something other than the one sided obama dribble.
Oh hey, how about more recent examples where private organizations prove that they suck at money handling even worse, because at least with the government we only have to contend with beaurecracy and incompetence, whereas with the corporations we get wanton greed on top of it. Also, go read the healthcare thread sometime. Our system sucks next to more socialized system. Only someone who is profoundly ignorant or slavishly attached to the "free market" would think that we have a good thing going here.
First note my word "world" I was speaking of foreign assistance. And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples.
I would be absolutely fascinated to hear how you think "the gilded age" illustrates anything about comparative government or private efficiency. Please cite specific examples rather than waving your hand vaguely at a forty-year period of history.
I'm also curious to hear what you think "Cartesian economics" are.
It's economics where you think a completely unregulated free-market will be sunshine and lollipops, therefore it is.
First note my word "world" I was speaking of foreign assistance. And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples. And yes I would rather have our society place our hands in that of private org. than that of the corrupt government that really cares little for the people but more for their own agendas. I am sorry this healthcare that you think is so great, is nothing more than part of a larger globalist agenda. Please go read something other than the one sided obama dribble.
Oh hey, how about more recent examples where private organizations prove that they suck at money handling even worse, because at least with the government we only have to contend with beaurecracy and incompetence, whereas with the corporations we get wanton greed on top of it. Also, go read the healthcare thread sometime. Our system sucks next to more socialized system. Only someone who is profoundly ignorant or slavishly attached to the "free market" would think that we have a good thing going here.
I have actually read some of the different bills, and greatly read independent research articles of different systems in Europe and Canada, have you? Also I'd rather be a slave to the free market system where a make it or break it based on my own talents and actions than be a irrelevant cellular slave to your commune.
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples.
I think you've gotten the exact opposite lesson you're supposed to learn from those examples.
ITT: Someone learns what Laissez Faire means.
Yeah I'm gonna get slapped for oversimplifying things, but:
It's delightful just how visible the 1929 stock market crash and Reagan spiking the Debt/GDP ratio are on the graph.
I'm not sure that it's a fact that more and more people die because they don't have health insurance. But because they don't have health insurance, the care is not delivered in the best and most efficient way.
First note my word "world" I was speaking of foreign assistance. And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples.
I would be absolutely fascinated to hear how you think "the gilded age" illustrates anything about comparative government or private efficiency. Please cite specific examples rather than waving your hand vaguely at a forty-year period of history.
I'm also curious to hear what you think "Cartesian economics" are.
It's economics where you think a completely unregulated free-market will be sunshine and lollipops, therefore it is.
um no thats now what Cartesian economics is. I believe in Austrian economics and am a big follower of Von Mises.
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
First note my word "world" I was speaking of foreign assistance. And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples.
I would be absolutely fascinated to hear how you think "the gilded age" illustrates anything about comparative government or private efficiency. Please cite specific examples rather than waving your hand vaguely at a forty-year period of history.
I'm also curious to hear what you think "Cartesian economics" are.
It's economics where you think a completely unregulated free-market will be sunshine and lollipops, therefore it is.
um no thats now what Cartesian economics is. I believe in Austrian economics and am a big follower of Von Mises.
I repeat my request: please tell us all what Cartesian economics are. I'm dying to know.
I suggest studying Von Mises. Because even the Cartesian economics taught in schools is B.S.
Oh, the econ taught in school certainly is BS in some respects, but probably not for the reasons you think.
I looked up Von Mises. Presumably you are referring to his critique of Soviet-style command economies (which was correct). That is sort of irrelevant, because when we talk about a regulated economy, we don't mean a command economy. We mean things like ameliorating the effects of monopoly (though the gov has been largely neutered in that capacity), and fraud prevention. In otherwords, enforcing the "free market" conditions of competiton and transparency.
Von Mises was also a proponent of the gold standard, so he wasn't perfect by any means.
I suggest studying Von Mises. Because even the Cartesian economics taught in schools is B.S.
Oh, the econ taught in school certainly is BS in some respects, but probably not for the reasons you think.
I looked up Von Mises. Presumably you are referring to his critique of Soviet-style command economies (which was correct). That is sort of irrelevant, because when we talk about a regulated economy, we don't mean a command economy. We mean things like ameliorating the effects of monopoly (though the gov has been largely neutered in that capacity), and fraud prevention. In otherwords, enforcing the "free market" conditions of competiton and transparency.
Von Mises was also a proponent of the gold standard, so he wasn't perfect by any means.
Yah but look what fiat money has done. The federal reserve system is partially responsible for where we are. You could almost consider it a shadow government as they are not accountable to the people, nor are they elected.
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
God, I'm 0 for 2 on the witty asides today. Don't forget to tip your waitress, folks.
Well that last one was really bad and didn't make any sense so
Yeah, I didn't go back and recheck his first post so I missed that he didn't hold to Cartesian economics. Still bad. Most of my jokes are. I just want people to realize they are jokes.
First note my word "world" I was speaking of foreign assistance. And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples.
I would be absolutely fascinated to hear how you think "the gilded age" illustrates anything about comparative government or private efficiency. Please cite specific examples rather than waving your hand vaguely at a forty-year period of history.
I'm also curious to hear what you think "Cartesian economics" are.
It's economics where you think a completely unregulated free-market will be sunshine and lollipops, therefore it is.
um no thats now what Cartesian economics is. I believe in Austrian economics and am a big follower of Von Mises.
I repeat my request: please tell us all what Cartesian economics are. I'm dying to know.
No you're right thats my bad, had a brain fart, meant Keynesian, but Cartesian economics does exist lol.
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
First note my word "world" I was speaking of foreign assistance. And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples. And yes I would rather have our society place our hands in that of private org. than that of the corrupt government that really cares little for the people but more for their own agendas. I am sorry this healthcare that you think is so great, is nothing more than part of a larger globalist agenda. Please go read something other than the one sided obama dribble.
Oh hey, how about more recent examples where private organizations prove that they suck at money handling even worse, because at least with the government we only have to contend with beaurecracy and incompetence, whereas with the corporations we get wanton greed on top of it. Also, go read the healthcare thread sometime. Our system sucks next to more socialized system. Only someone who is profoundly ignorant or slavishly attached to the "free market" would think that we have a good thing going here.
I have actually read some of the different bills, and greatly read independent research articles of different systems in Europe and Canada, have you? Also I'd rather be a slave to the free market system where a make it or break it based on my own talents and actions than be a irrelevant cellular slave to your commune.
Haha, you're cute, thinking that your actions are the only relevant ingredients to a successful life. There are plenty of people who do all the right things and end up getting boned because they got sick, or because some asshole stock traders decide to game the system, or because they just are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I suppose they're going bankrupt solely because of their actions, huh?
And yeah, I've read up quite a bit on the socialized systems around the world. We still suck compared to them. If you drew a differing conclusion from your reading, I'm guessing you read shitty sources or failed to understand what you were reading.
I suggest studying Von Mises. Because even the Cartesian economics taught in schools is B.S.
Oh, the econ taught in school certainly is BS in some respects, but probably not for the reasons you think.
I looked up Von Mises. Presumably you are referring to his critique of Soviet-style command economies (which was correct). That is sort of irrelevant, because when we talk about a regulated economy, we don't mean a command economy. We mean things like ameliorating the effects of monopoly (though the gov has been largely neutered in that capacity), and fraud prevention. In otherwords, enforcing the "free market" conditions of competiton and transparency.
Von Mises was also a proponent of the gold standard, so he wasn't perfect by any means.
Yah but look what fiat money has done. The federal reserve system is partially responsible for where we are. You could almost consider it a shadow government as they are not accountable to the people, nor are they elected.
Alright, when you say things like "shadow government", people start tuning you out. And what has Fiat money done that's so bad? Also you haven't told us what you think Cartesian Economics are.
First note my word "world" I was speaking of foreign assistance. And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples. And yes I would rather have our society place our hands in that of private org. than that of the corrupt government that really cares little for the people but more for their own agendas. I am sorry this healthcare that you think is so great, is nothing more than part of a larger globalist agenda. Please go read something other than the one sided obama dribble.
Oh hey, how about more recent examples where private organizations prove that they suck at money handling even worse, because at least with the government we only have to contend with beaurecracy and incompetence, whereas with the corporations we get wanton greed on top of it. Also, go read the healthcare thread sometime. Our system sucks next to more socialized system. Only someone who is profoundly ignorant or slavishly attached to the "free market" would think that we have a good thing going here.
I have actually read some of the different bills, and greatly read independent research articles of different systems in Europe and Canada, have you? Also I'd rather be a slave to the free market system where a make it or break it based on my own talents and actions than be a irrelevant cellular slave to your commune.
Haha, you're cute, thinking that your actions are the only relevant ingredients to a successful life. There are plenty of people who do all the right things and end up getting boned because they got sick, or because some asshole stock traders decide to game the system, or because they just are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I suppose they're going bankrupt solely because of their actions, huh?
And yeah, I've read up quite a bit on the socialized systems around the world. We still suck compared to them. If you drew a differing conclusion from your reading, I'm guessing you read shitty sources or failed to understand what you were reading.
Typical... No facts you just insult your opponent to discredit them rather than genuinely debate: "I'm guessing you read shitty sources or failed to understand what you were reading". Show me facts because otherwise I will disregard your arguments. This entire post you wrote alot but managed to say nothing.
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Typical... No facts you just insult your opponent to discredit them rather than genuinely debate: "I'm guessing you read shitty sources or failed to understand what you were reading". Show me facts because otherwise I will disregard your arguments. This entire post you wrote alot but managed to say nothing.
Dude, you can't say that a page after vaguely claiming that "the gilded age" somehow proves that government is less efficient than private industry. Do a search for recent threads with "healthcare" in the title and you will find a bonanza of links that, if followed and read, will leave you a much more informed person on the subject.
Ok, I am not going to argue with the government efficiency thing because it is a waste of my time. Just look at the post office, or DMV, or police criminal cases.
Those are your examples? The post office is very efficient - I can send a First Class letter to anywhere in the continental US and it will get there within 2-3 days on average, for a handful of change. I've never had any problems with the DMV - any time I've had to wait it's because I've gone during peak hours. As for criminal cases - I prefer that they be handled thoroughly and with an eye towards justice, not efficiently - because that's how people get railroaded.
Secondly may I reminded that the housing crisis was due to corrupt banks, who were allowed to get away with sub prime loans because GOVERNMENT mandated it to be socially correct.
CRA bullshit? And you expect us to take you seriously? We've debunked this over and over - the CRA had nothing to do with the housing crisis, and the people pushing this "analysis" were usually mixing a bit of racism with their arguments.
And I agree with you about the Banks. In fact I will go a step further and say these Banks should never have been bailed out. They were corrupt, greedy, and poorly run, and as such should be allowed to die. Our government treats symptoms, not the cause of the disease itself. The cancer must be allowed to die so the rest of the organism may thrive.
Yes, because there would have been no negative repercussions from letting an industry that comprises 40% of our economy collapse. Seriously, you seem to have a grade-school level understanding of the economy (which isn't surprising, considering that you are an adherent of Austrian "economics".) Bailing out the banks was the least bad choice of a bevy of bad choices. The problem now is that we need to make structural changes to the financial industry to prevent this from happening, but the industry is understandably opposed to such changes, and is lobbying the fuck out of Congress to stop them.
I do agree with your definitions of Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. And I do understand their is need for regulation otherwise you end up with monopolies that are as destructive as any government. But in no situation do I believe a government should start taking over entire sectors of the market, because then we will see what a company does with a monopoly and military force.
What sector of the market is the government taking over? Health care? We're having a fight over a public option, let alone a single payer model or nationalization. As several threads here have pointed out, our private health care system sucks royally. The government is being asked by the people to come in because the private companies have failed so badly, and even then we're only bringing in the government in a relatively limited manner.
Small government is some what possible, it can begin by state rights.
States rights? You really want to advocate those? Especially considering the history of that term? And cconsidering your bashing of the CRA? If I didn't know better, I'd assume you had some issues with racism.
And I understand your Oklahoma argument, but that is whats nice about state rights. If you do not like your state's laws you move to a state where they are more similar to your own ideology. Let the people of each state decide.
Yeah - let the people of each state decide, no matter how it fucks over the weak and disenfranchised! If you're a woman in OK, sucks to be you! You can just move if you don't like it! Unless you can't afford to.
Fuck. My rights as an American should not change just because I crossed a state line. Unfortunately, for too many Americans, that is the case. And they have to suffer in large part because of idiots like you, who can't comprehend how "states rights" usually means "if you're poor, female, and/or a minority, you're getting the short end of the stick."
Edit: I feel like I've made this post over and over. Blood for the blood god, logic for the logic throne indeed.
Typical... No facts you just insult your opponent to discredit them rather than genuinely debate: "I'm guessing you read shitty sources or failed to understand what you were reading". Show me facts because otherwise I will disregard your arguments. This entire post you wrote alot but managed to say nothing.
Dude, you can't say that a page after vaguely claiming that "the gilded age" somehow proves that government is less efficient than private industry. Do a search for recent threads with "healthcare" in the title and you will find a bonanza of links that, if followed and read, will leave you a much more informed person on the subject.
You can lead a libertarian to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
Dude, firstly I can only answer so many questions, because if you had not noticed this debate seems to be grouped rather disproportionately. I have read probably more than you, so do not assume. I get emails from the democrat party, the obama website, and a multitude of other pro-healthcare sites, have read the argument and just do not agree because their is not enough sustainable evidence it will be better.
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
First note my word "world" I was speaking of foreign assistance. And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples. And yes I would rather have our society place our hands in that of private org. than that of the corrupt government that really cares little for the people but more for their own agendas. I am sorry this healthcare that you think is so great, is nothing more than part of a larger globalist agenda. Please go read something other than the one sided obama dribble.
Oh hey, how about more recent examples where private organizations prove that they suck at money handling even worse, because at least with the government we only have to contend with beaurecracy and incompetence, whereas with the corporations we get wanton greed on top of it. Also, go read the healthcare thread sometime. Our system sucks next to more socialized system. Only someone who is profoundly ignorant or slavishly attached to the "free market" would think that we have a good thing going here.
I have actually read some of the different bills, and greatly read independent research articles of different systems in Europe and Canada, have you? Also I'd rather be a slave to the free market system where a make it or break it based on my own talents and actions than be a irrelevant cellular slave to your commune.
Haha, you're cute, thinking that your actions are the only relevant ingredients to a successful life. There are plenty of people who do all the right things and end up getting boned because they got sick, or because some asshole stock traders decide to game the system, or because they just are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I suppose they're going bankrupt solely because of their actions, huh?
And yeah, I've read up quite a bit on the socialized systems around the world. We still suck compared to them. If you drew a differing conclusion from your reading, I'm guessing you read shitty sources or failed to understand what you were reading.
Typical... No facts you just insult your opponent to discredit them rather than genuinely debate: "I'm guessing you read shitty sources or failed to understand what you were reading". Show me facts because otherwise I will disregard your arguments. This entire post you wrote alot but managed to say nothing.
There are several healthcare threads if you want to educate yourself on healthcare around the world. Don't come in here acting like an aggrieved party when you, yourself, are guilty of not sourcing your opinions and statements. I'm not bothering to link shit for you because, as I said, there is a healthcare thread with plenty of links, some of which I've provided myself. Do some fucking legwork first before accusing others of doing nothing.
Also, respond to the first paragraph. Are you seriously suggesting that your individual actions are all that determine your lot in life? That's some arrogance that Galt would be proud of.
Typical... No facts you just insult your opponent to discredit them rather than genuinely debate: "I'm guessing you read shitty sources or failed to understand what you were reading". Show me facts because otherwise I will disregard your arguments. This entire post you wrote alot but managed to say nothing.
Dude, you can't say that a page after vaguely claiming that "the gilded age" somehow proves that government is less efficient than private industry. Do a search for recent threads with "healthcare" in the title and you will find a bonanza of links that, if followed and read, will leave you a much more informed person on the subject.
You can lead a libertarian to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
Oh, Yah because this libertarian is going to listen to anything you have to say after you insult him and call him a racist. So tell yah what , I am done here, I will not be insulted by an ignorant drone of society. I throughout this thread have not insulted anyone personally, but of course its not a two way street. You call for tolerance and b.s. like that but you are anything but that. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you call them a racist amongst other names. Oh he is for state rights...he must be a racist. Are you really that fracking stupid? I'm done debating, the forum is yours so that you can all go around saying "i agree", "i agree too", heaven forbid their is controversy because that you cannot handle. That reminds me of characters in books from collective type societies. Well have a good day.
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Typical... No facts you just insult your opponent to discredit them rather than genuinely debate: "I'm guessing you read shitty sources or failed to understand what you were reading". Show me facts because otherwise I will disregard your arguments. This entire post you wrote alot but managed to say nothing.
Dude, you can't say that a page after vaguely claiming that "the gilded age" somehow proves that government is less efficient than private industry. Do a search for recent threads with "healthcare" in the title and you will find a bonanza of links that, if followed and read, will leave you a much more informed person on the subject.
You can lead a libertarian to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
Oh, Yah because this libertarian is going to listen to anything you have to say after you insult him and call him a racist. So tell yah what , I am done here, I will not be insulted by an ignorant drone of society. I throughout this thread have not insulted anyone personally, but of course its not a two way street. You call for tolerance and b.s. like that but you are anything but that. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you call them a racist amongst other names. Oh he is for state rights...he must be a racist. Are you really that fracking stupid? I'm done debating, the forum is yours so that you can all go around saying "i agree", "i agree too", heaven forbid their is controversy because that you cannot handle. That reminds me of characters in books from collective type societies. Well have a good day.
Or how about instead, chill out and take some time, take a few hours or a day and dig up some real sources for all these things you're claiming that we've been asking for some citations or reasoning behind (a high income tax, fiat currency, post office, dmv, the police department are all terrible- shadow government run by the fed). Come back here and show us how poor and misguided we are. We're fine with being wrong if you've got some historical/well-reasoned support.
That there is the sound of yet another libertarian/conservative running away from D&D because they can't stand the heat. No conviction in these young libertarians, I tell you. Well, it was fun while it lasted, I guess.
Back on topic: the GOP's answer to the healthcare negotiation they're effectively being shut out of is to be more obstructionist. I mean, more than they already are. In fact, they're holding up a lot of shit in the Senate in order to keep anything from being accomplished. I'm pretty certain that the independents in the report cited obstructionism as a mark against Republicans. Maybe the GOP just doesn't know this, or they're doubling down to show their bonafides to the base?
That there is the sound of yet another libertarian/conservative running away from D&D because they can't stand the heat. No conviction in these young libertarians, I tell you. Well, it was fun while it lasted, I guess.
Back on topic: the GOP's answer to the healthcare negotiation they're effectively being shut out of is to be more obstructionist. I mean, more than they already are. In fact, they're holding up a lot of shit in the Senate in order to keep anything from being accomplished. I'm pretty certain that the independents in the report cited obstructionism as a mark against Republicans. Maybe the GOP just doesn't know this, or they're doubling down to show their bonafides to the base?
Or they know that however it passes, all the credit for good healthcare reform is going to go to the Dems.
Back on topic: the GOP's answer to the healthcare negotiation they're effectively being shut out of is to be more obstructionist. I mean, more than they already are. In fact, they're holding up a lot of shit in the Senate in order to keep anything from being accomplished. I'm pretty certain that the independents in the report cited obstructionism as a mark against Republicans. Maybe the GOP just doesn't know this, or they're doubling down to show their bonafides to the base?
The alternative to obstructionism is letting the Democrats pass things that will improve a lot of people's quality of life. The Republicans really can't afford that politically. Better to take the hit of looking like obstructionist jerks than to allow the Dems to prove that their philosophy works. Especially in the wake of one of the worst presidencies in American history.
Posts
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I think you're missing some important points here. First, if you count all charity AND social safety net spending (Medicare, Medicaid, SS, etc), there's no way in hell that the donations of individual Americans add up to all of that. Second, "based upon GDP" is the functional phrase here. You know how much our GDP is? Are you seriously suggesting that individual Americans are donating a significant fraction of our GDP to charity? I'd love to see those numbers. Third, said donators are, iirc, giving an awful lot to churches and religious organizations. Is there any accounting at all of how much of said church offerings actually make it out to helping people? Fourth, just because it needs to be said, charities have taken a real beating financially thanks to the financial collapse of the last year and a half. Do we really want our social safety net to rely on disparate organizations that are so vulnerable that they won't be half as effective at the time when they're most needed?
See, the "our government is very inefficient" is an argument that I just don't buy. We spend way too much money, but the issue is the same one that faces corporate America: That those with power use their power to help themselves and their friends.
And my economic views are directly and almost entirely founded by the housing crisis, as I work, steeped in Foreclosure, for 40+ hours a week, 52 weeks a year as a Foreclosure Intervention Counselor. The shame is not that our government is "inefficient" but that they're spending way too much money and pretending that they play by different rules than corporate America.
The bank bailout came with far too few strings, and frankly, the government should have used that money to leverage the interests of middle and lower-class America. It didn't. In fact, the grant that pays my salary is millions of dollars a year, and the net effect is to create free labor for the mortgage industry. My job shouldn't exist. The banks have taken advantage of this grant to absolve themselves of any obligation to their borrowers. If things go wrong, borrowers blame their counselors. If things are unclear, the bank certainly doesn't answer questions. Frankly, I'd be more than happy to have Bank of America signing my paychecks, because that's who I really work for.
And in short, the "free market" I care about is a highly regulated market with competition. If you leave the market alone you'll have the exact opposite of "free". Those with wealth and power do not give up wealth and power.
And to satisfy your curiosity, by "socially liberal" I mean that I think people should be able to do whatever they want. Abortion? okay. Want to smoke some weed? okay. Want to own a gun? okay. etc.
By "fiscally conservative" I mean that we spend way more than is necessary. I don't buy into the "government is so inefficient" argument. As you'll find similar inefficiencies in any corporate setting. Like comparing Police Officer overtime to "quick cash" bonuses in lending.
"Small government" is a pipedream, as we've discussed. I do believe that we can "cut back" on wasteful spending and begin treating government like any other entity. Military spending is the largest offender, by far, and what you see are irrational decisions to give shittons of money to their old frat buddies. Giving powers back to the states would be awesome, but then again shit like the Oklahoma Abortion Law makes me wince. I certainly believe that we could hold government workers and programs to a higher standard, but I'm still unconvinced that "inefficiency" is as rampant as some would like us to believe.
I think that Libertarianism is onto something glorious, but I also believe that it has a while to go before it would be able to actually effect real change. If anything, looking at government like "theoretical" business is a great place to start.
And in conclusion, I'm no expert. I just wanted to wander in here and say "hi! I'm one of those disenfranchised conservatives* with no real voice, anywhere."
*sort-of
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I think you've gotten the exact opposite lesson you're supposed to learn from those examples.
I would be absolutely fascinated to hear how you think "the gilded age" illustrates anything about comparative government or private efficiency. Please cite specific examples rather than waving your hand vaguely at a forty-year period of history.
I'm also curious to hear what you think "Cartesian economics" are.
ITT: Someone learns what Laissez Faire means.
Ok, I am not going to argue with the government efficiency thing because it is a waste of my time. Just look at the post office, or DMV, or police criminal cases. Secondly may I reminded that the housing crisis was due to corrupt banks, who were allowed to get away with sub prime loans because GOVERNMENT mandated it to be socially correct. And I agree with you about the Banks. In fact I will go a step further and say these Banks should never have been bailed out. They were corrupt, greedy, and poorly run, and as such should be allowed to die. Our government treats symptoms, not the cause of the disease itself. The cancer must be allowed to die so the rest of the organism may thrive.
I do agree with your definitions of Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. And I do understand their is need for regulation otherwise you end up with monopolies that are as destructive as any government. But in no situation do I believe a government should start taking over entire sectors of the market, because then we will see what a company does with a monopoly and military force.
Small government is some what possible, it can begin by state rights. And I understand your Oklahoma argument, but that is whats nice about state rights. If you do not like your state's laws you move to a state where they are more similar to your own ideology. Let the people of each state decide.
And thanks for the comments "The Crowning One", you are an intelligent guy, with legit views, andI enjoyed your discussion and hope to see you in other threads.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
This happened
edit - warning - dead animal
Oh hey, how about more recent examples where private organizations prove that they suck at money handling even worse, because at least with the government we only have to contend with beaurecracy and incompetence, whereas with the corporations we get wanton greed on top of it. Also, go read the healthcare thread sometime. Our system sucks next to more socialized system. Only someone who is profoundly ignorant or slavishly attached to the "free market" would think that we have a good thing going here.
Eh, you're right, dude took a left into off-topic and I followed. My bad.
On topic, sort of: Jon Kyle is an idiot and an apt example of what's wrong with Republicans. Only stupid people argue with facts.
It's economics where you think a completely unregulated free-market will be sunshine and lollipops, therefore it is.
I have actually read some of the different bills, and greatly read independent research articles of different systems in Europe and Canada, have you? Also I'd rather be a slave to the free market system where a make it or break it based on my own talents and actions than be a irrelevant cellular slave to your commune.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
It's delightful just how visible the 1929 stock market crash and Reagan spiking the Debt/GDP ratio are on the graph.
um no thats now what Cartesian economics is. I believe in Austrian economics and am a big follower of Von Mises.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I repeat my request: please tell us all what Cartesian economics are. I'm dying to know.
Oh, the econ taught in school certainly is BS in some respects, but probably not for the reasons you think.
I looked up Von Mises. Presumably you are referring to his critique of Soviet-style command economies (which was correct). That is sort of irrelevant, because when we talk about a regulated economy, we don't mean a command economy. We mean things like ameliorating the effects of monopoly (though the gov has been largely neutered in that capacity), and fraud prevention. In otherwords, enforcing the "free market" conditions of competiton and transparency.
Von Mises was also a proponent of the gold standard, so he wasn't perfect by any means.
Well that last one was really bad and didn't make any sense so
Yah but look what fiat money has done. The federal reserve system is partially responsible for where we are. You could almost consider it a shadow government as they are not accountable to the people, nor are they elected.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yeah, I didn't go back and recheck his first post so I missed that he didn't hold to Cartesian economics. Still bad. Most of my jokes are. I just want people to realize they are jokes.
No you're right thats my bad, had a brain fart, meant Keynesian, but Cartesian economics does exist lol.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Haha, you're cute, thinking that your actions are the only relevant ingredients to a successful life. There are plenty of people who do all the right things and end up getting boned because they got sick, or because some asshole stock traders decide to game the system, or because they just are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I suppose they're going bankrupt solely because of their actions, huh?
And yeah, I've read up quite a bit on the socialized systems around the world. We still suck compared to them. If you drew a differing conclusion from your reading, I'm guessing you read shitty sources or failed to understand what you were reading.
Alright, when you say things like "shadow government", people start tuning you out. And what has Fiat money done that's so bad? Also you haven't told us what you think Cartesian Economics are.
I won't actually mail you a cookie.
I do kinda miss RP though. I was kinda hoping he'd be the new model for the GOP, cuz at least he seemed somewhat socially liberal.
Typical... No facts you just insult your opponent to discredit them rather than genuinely debate: "I'm guessing you read shitty sources or failed to understand what you were reading". Show me facts because otherwise I will disregard your arguments. This entire post you wrote alot but managed to say nothing.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
no he actually got me into when I was in high school back in early 2000.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Dude, you can't say that a page after vaguely claiming that "the gilded age" somehow proves that government is less efficient than private industry. Do a search for recent threads with "healthcare" in the title and you will find a bonanza of links that, if followed and read, will leave you a much more informed person on the subject.
Those are your examples? The post office is very efficient - I can send a First Class letter to anywhere in the continental US and it will get there within 2-3 days on average, for a handful of change. I've never had any problems with the DMV - any time I've had to wait it's because I've gone during peak hours. As for criminal cases - I prefer that they be handled thoroughly and with an eye towards justice, not efficiently - because that's how people get railroaded.
CRA bullshit? And you expect us to take you seriously? We've debunked this over and over - the CRA had nothing to do with the housing crisis, and the people pushing this "analysis" were usually mixing a bit of racism with their arguments.
Yes, because there would have been no negative repercussions from letting an industry that comprises 40% of our economy collapse. Seriously, you seem to have a grade-school level understanding of the economy (which isn't surprising, considering that you are an adherent of Austrian "economics".) Bailing out the banks was the least bad choice of a bevy of bad choices. The problem now is that we need to make structural changes to the financial industry to prevent this from happening, but the industry is understandably opposed to such changes, and is lobbying the fuck out of Congress to stop them.
What sector of the market is the government taking over? Health care? We're having a fight over a public option, let alone a single payer model or nationalization. As several threads here have pointed out, our private health care system sucks royally. The government is being asked by the people to come in because the private companies have failed so badly, and even then we're only bringing in the government in a relatively limited manner.
States rights? You really want to advocate those? Especially considering the history of that term? And cconsidering your bashing of the CRA? If I didn't know better, I'd assume you had some issues with racism.
Yeah - let the people of each state decide, no matter how it fucks over the weak and disenfranchised! If you're a woman in OK, sucks to be you! You can just move if you don't like it! Unless you can't afford to.
Fuck. My rights as an American should not change just because I crossed a state line. Unfortunately, for too many Americans, that is the case. And they have to suffer in large part because of idiots like you, who can't comprehend how "states rights" usually means "if you're poor, female, and/or a minority, you're getting the short end of the stick."
Edit: I feel like I've made this post over and over. Blood for the blood god, logic for the logic throne indeed.
You can lead a libertarian to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
There are several healthcare threads if you want to educate yourself on healthcare around the world. Don't come in here acting like an aggrieved party when you, yourself, are guilty of not sourcing your opinions and statements. I'm not bothering to link shit for you because, as I said, there is a healthcare thread with plenty of links, some of which I've provided myself. Do some fucking legwork first before accusing others of doing nothing.
Also, respond to the first paragraph. Are you seriously suggesting that your individual actions are all that determine your lot in life? That's some arrogance that Galt would be proud of.
Oh, Yah because this libertarian is going to listen to anything you have to say after you insult him and call him a racist. So tell yah what , I am done here, I will not be insulted by an ignorant drone of society. I throughout this thread have not insulted anyone personally, but of course its not a two way street. You call for tolerance and b.s. like that but you are anything but that. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you call them a racist amongst other names. Oh he is for state rights...he must be a racist. Are you really that fracking stupid? I'm done debating, the forum is yours so that you can all go around saying "i agree", "i agree too", heaven forbid their is controversy because that you cannot handle. That reminds me of characters in books from collective type societies. Well have a good day.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Or how about instead, chill out and take some time, take a few hours or a day and dig up some real sources for all these things you're claiming that we've been asking for some citations or reasoning behind (a high income tax, fiat currency, post office, dmv, the police department are all terrible- shadow government run by the fed). Come back here and show us how poor and misguided we are. We're fine with being wrong if you've got some historical/well-reasoned support.
Back on topic: the GOP's answer to the healthcare negotiation they're effectively being shut out of is to be more obstructionist. I mean, more than they already are. In fact, they're holding up a lot of shit in the Senate in order to keep anything from being accomplished. I'm pretty certain that the independents in the report cited obstructionism as a mark against Republicans. Maybe the GOP just doesn't know this, or they're doubling down to show their bonafides to the base?
Or they know that however it passes, all the credit for good healthcare reform is going to go to the Dems.
The alternative to obstructionism is letting the Democrats pass things that will improve a lot of people's quality of life. The Republicans really can't afford that politically. Better to take the hit of looking like obstructionist jerks than to allow the Dems to prove that their philosophy works. Especially in the wake of one of the worst presidencies in American history.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.