EPTIf Pro is the opposite of Con
.
.
.
.
What is the opposite of Progress?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 255
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
SayGen
United States1209 Posts
If Pro is the opposite of Con . . . . What is the opposite of Progress? | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway474 Posts
On May 24 2013 12:02 SayGen wrote: 2) Racism is a problem, but only because it is convient for it to be. Look up Self fulfilling prophecy also the dems got the minorities (esp the Blacks) on lock-down. Think of entitlements/handouts as a drug. Once addicted you will do anything to keep the drug flow coming. No one likes the guy who takes away the drug. Wow...just wow. Silly me didn't think you would top your not-normal gay people comment... | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On May 24 2013 12:35 Wegandi wrote: Silly me for thinking that is what the gas tax, insurance tax fees, revenue collections from tickets ranging from parking to speeding to every other regulation on the books, etc. are for. These stimulus/cronyism have always been corrupt and politically motivated going all the way back to the late 18th Century. There's a reason why the Confederacy made it illegal for tax monies to go towards internal improvements. How much shall we funnel to bloated, ill-competitive, campaign-contributing *bribery* construction companies before we look at this and say enough is enough. We all ready spend far too much for what product we receive back. Ironic seeing how that is what cost the Confederacy overall, State's rights, and how Jefferson David desperately tried to model after the Union which was a strong central government which could control and build railways, canals etc. Whereas the Confederacy could use slaves, depending on the states rebelling said they could. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On May 24 2013 12:31 SayGen wrote: Would be nice if congressional dems stopped defending Obamacare, which is responsible for a massive increase in health insurance costs dispite his promise to lower costs. Would be nice if dems passed a REAL budget like they are congressionally mandated to do. Blame republicans---- same old tricks from the libs. Edit: his= Obama's Not using sources for wild claims---- same old tricks from the GOP. Let me preempt a response though, with actual sources and evidence. Healthcare costs are rising, but at a far lower pace than we've seen in the past decade. In one study, four Harvard Medical School researchers note that between 2009 and 2011, health care spending grew about 3% a year, after having risen at an average of 5.9% a year for the decade before that. Looking at data from 10 million people with health care plans from large companies, they found that changes to the plans and to the enrollees’ out-of-pocket expenses accounted for only about 20% of the slowing. Source Even then, healthcare reforms don't even fully take place until 2016 (iirc, might be 2014). Reductions won't happen overnight. You're starting to sound like those rubes that spout "OMG OBAMA-LLAMA! WHERE'S THE HOPE AND CHANGE YOU PROMISED?!" As for the budget, turns out we haven't had a comprehensive one since 1997. When was the last time we had a budget bill that was approved? April of 2009. But technically it was just an “omnibus spending bill,” and President Barack Obama was none too thrilled to be signing it, citing the excessive number of earmark projects. The following year, Democrats chose not to put forth a budget bill because they deemed it politically imprudent during the hotly contested midterm elections. Same thing happened the next year. You get the point. Source Ugh, fucking Democrats have been so lazy since they gained control of Congress back in 1997... wait, the GOP had control of both houses for 10 of those years... On May 24 2013 12:03 SayGen wrote: You mean the billions Obama spent didn't go to where he said they went? Also want to touch on this subject. The billions set aside for infrastructure projects are so grossly inadequate that it adds an additional barrier to doling them out. The total tab of just updating our infrastructure is estimated around $2.3 trillion. The infrastructure stimulus was only about $47 billion, or 2% of that number. Some estimates say we should be spending an additional $93 billion a year for a decade to bring it to minimum standards. So, when we have a starving system and you throw it crackers once, don't be surprised when things go horribly wrong and people die. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4996 Posts
if you want facts, here's a random one I remember from a while back. http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare's projected net worth is far off from its original estimate -- in fact, about $820 billion off. A simple google search shows more problems, but hey, when you have to pass a bill to find out what's in it, you are going to have some (many) bad apples! I would love to hear some OTHER good things Obamacare has done that is worth the ridiculous price tag. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On May 24 2013 13:41 Introvert wrote: Obamacare will be a disaster, it hasn't done a single good thing yet (the premium increase slowed? I'm fairly certain it was supposed to stop, at least that's what the pres. promised.) if you want facts, here's a random one I remember from a while back. http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html A simple google search shows more problems, but hey, when you have to pass a bill to find out what's in it, you are going to have some (many) bad apples! I would love to hear some OTHER good things Obamacare has done that is worth the ridiculous price tag. Prevented millions of 20-somethings from going medically uninsured in the worst employment environment since the 1930s, in which many have had to either get jobs without health benefits or be unemployed. In the coming years, the insurance exchanges should help these younger, healthier people afford health insurance even if companies don't offer it to them. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On May 24 2013 13:57 aksfjh wrote: Prevented millions of 20-somethings from going medically uninsured in the worst employment environment since the 1930s, in which many have had to either get jobs without health benefits or be unemployed. In the coming years, the insurance exchanges should help these younger, healthier people afford health insurance even if companies don't offer it to them. Now the causation is not quite super solid, but, Obamacare is at least consistent with healthcare inflation falling from 7.8% pre great recession to 3% now. http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2013-05-16/health-care-costs-slow-inflation-curb/ | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On May 24 2013 13:57 aksfjh wrote: Prevented millions of 20-somethings from going medically uninsured in the worst employment environment since the 1930s, in which many have had to either get jobs without health benefits or be unemployed. In the coming years, the insurance exchanges should help these younger, healthier people afford health insurance even if companies don't offer it to them. Making health insurance mandatory has prevented them from going medically uninsured...It is simply an imposition. Obamacare was probably the biggest Fascist-bill passed in the last 40 years if not more. I find it funny that so-called Progressives cheer this bill on when the giant Corp-insurers wrote the bill themselves. More of the same, but hey, if it's Blue-Team Fascism then it's A-OK just like Blue-Team Droning and same ol' same ol' Bushism's are A-OK. Kill-lists targeting American citizens...A-OK as long as it's Obama doing it! Now, the point of this is to say that Obamacare will improve health care just as mandatory car insurance improves driver safety - hint: not at all! | ||
|
TrickyGilligan
United States641 Posts
On May 24 2013 14:27 Wegandi wrote: Making health insurance mandatory has prevented them from going medically uninsured...It is simply an imposition. Obamacare was probably the biggest Fascist-bill passed in the last 40 years if not more. I find it funny that so-called Progressives cheer this bill on when the giant Corp-insurers wrote the bill themselves. More of the same, but hey, if it's Blue-Team Fascism then it's A-OK just like Blue-Team Droning and same ol' same ol' Bushism's are A-OK. Kill-lists targeting American citizens...A-OK as long as it's Obama doing it! Now, the point of this is to say that Obamacare will improve health care just as mandatory car insurance improves driver safety - hint: not at all! So, we should get rid of auto insurance in order to stop fascism? | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On May 24 2013 14:27 Wegandi wrote: Making health insurance mandatory has prevented them from going medically uninsured...It is simply an imposition. Obamacare was probably the biggest Fascist-bill passed in the last 40 years if not more. I find it funny that so-called Progressives cheer this bill on when the giant Corp-insurers wrote the bill themselves. More of the same, but hey, if it's Blue-Team Fascism then it's A-OK just like Blue-Team Droning and same ol' same ol' Bushism's are A-OK. Kill-lists targeting American citizens...A-OK as long as it's Obama doing it! Now, the point of this is to say that Obamacare will improve health care just as mandatory car insurance improves driver safety - hint: not at all! It's funny you try to classify me as some sort of Obama-loving, Bush-hating liberal. Back when Bush was in office, I often took a more centrist look at his Presidency. Even in hindsight, my only heartfelt criticisms come from Iraq and tax cuts. I'm still conflicted about the "erosion of privacy" and using drones so haphazardly, but I think increased drone use is a good idea. You should really stop clumping everybody that disagrees with you as some diametric enemy. I don't accuse Jonny, xDaunt, and DEB as all being the same Republican with the exact same views, or even similar views. Also, a righteous argument would state that mandatory insurance ends the destructive risk seeking tendencies in healthcare that often end up ruining people financially for generations. A stupid argument would be to somehow structure the requirement around improving the potential quality of healthcare, especially since we were doing pretty well on quality of care if you can afford it. The idea is to bring affordability to as many people as possible and as directly as possible. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On May 24 2013 11:54 farvacola wrote: Looks terrible, and reportedly there are still folk stuck in their cars in the water  ![[image loading]](http://www.whec.com/whecimages/repository/2013-05/washingtonbridgecollapse.jpg) In my opinion, that should be completely down to local authorities. It's not a good idea for the federal government to micro-manage to such a degree (I know that you did not say it was). Do you guys pay local county taxes? Road tax? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On May 24 2013 15:16 hzflank wrote: In my opinion, that should be completely down to local authorities. It's not a good idea for the federal government to micro-manage to such a degree (I know that you did not say it was). Do you guys pay local county taxes? Road tax? Roadways do not work in the US as they do in the UK, and scale has everything to do with it. I-5 is an interstate highway, owned and operated by the federal government. For some reference read this. Interstate Highway System | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On May 24 2013 15:20 farvacola wrote: Roadways do not work in the US as they do in the UK, and scale has everything to do with it. I-5 is an interstate highway, owned and operated by the federal government. For some reference read this. Interstate Highway System Okay, it looks like it should be managed at state level and paid for by fuel taxes. It looks like fuel taxes may not be high enough to fully cover the costs though. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On May 24 2013 15:24 hzflank wrote: Okay, it looks like it should be managed at state level and paid for by fuel taxes. It looks like fuel taxes may not be high enough to fully cover the costs though. It isn't that simple though. If you look at that network of highways, there are segments in which the roads value is insignificant to the state it is in relative to the value provided to those it connects. If left only to the states, there would be far less incentive to connect in this manner, and this becomes even more troubling when one considers how many states are slashing budgets left and right without considering the consequences. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On May 24 2013 15:27 farvacola wrote: It isn't that simple though. If you look at that network of highways, there are segments in which the roads value is insignificant to the state it is in relative to the value provided to those it connects. If left only to the states, there would be far less incentive to connect in this manner, and this becomes even more troubling when one considers how many states are slashing budgets left and right without considering the consequences. That assumes that the only choice is either State or Federal, but I propose as Walter Block has put better than me, to once again return infrastructure and especially internal improvements to market-forces (property rights). I bet most people never knew that there were over 45,000 roads in the country in the 19th Century and over 90% of them were privately owned and operated. This begs the question then - how to get from where we are to there. I propose that using Lockean homesteading and chain of contract principles that local roadways would go to the local residents whom payed the taxes in a partnership structure and that federal roadways would be auctioned off and the monies dispersed back to whom payed for the roads in the first place. Of course there would have to be a large reform movement to abolish the burdens, regulatory structures, and other impositions against that particular industry so as to make entry into the industry as free (market cost) as possible. The problem is far too many people in the US have a very Soviet mentality when it comes to certain goods and services, that is ever expanding. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On May 24 2013 15:41 Wegandi wrote: That assumes that the only choice is either State or Federal, but I propose as Walter Block has put better than me, to once again return infrastructure and especially internal improvements to market-forces (property rights). I bet most people never knew that there were over 45,000 roads in the country in the 19th Century and over 90% of them were privately owned and operated. This begs the question then - how to get from where we are to there. I propose that using Lockean homesteading and chain of contract principles that local roadways would go to the local residents whom payed the taxes in a partnership structure and that federal roadways would be auctioned off and the monies dispersed back to whom payed for the roads in the first place. Of course there would have to be a large reform movement to abolish the burdens, regulatory structures, and other impositions against that particular industry so as to make entry into the industry as free (market cost) as possible. The problem is far too many people in the US have a very Soviet mentality when it comes to certain goods and services, that is ever expanding. How many interstates were there in the 19th century? is the number you looking for is 0? Yes, yes I believe it is. Private infrastructure development -- specifically railroads -- in both the United Kingdom and the United States frequently led to financial bubbles, overbuilding and a generally under-developed infrastructure system that served primarily for the benefit of the monopolist who dominated it. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On May 24 2013 15:41 Wegandi wrote: That assumes that the only choice is either State or Federal, but I propose as Walter Block has put better than me, to once again return infrastructure and especially internal improvements to market-forces (property rights). I bet most people never knew that there were over 45,000 roads in the country in the 19th Century and over 90% of them were privately owned and operated. This begs the question then - how to get from where we are to there. I propose that using Lockean homesteading and chain of contract principles that local roadways would go to the local residents whom payed the taxes in a partnership structure and that federal roadways would be auctioned off and the monies dispersed back to whom payed for the roads in the first place. Of course there would have to be a large reform movement to abolish the burdens, regulatory structures, and other impositions against that particular industry so as to make entry into the industry as free (market cost) as possible. The problem is far too many people in the US have a very Soviet mentality when it comes to certain goods and services, that is ever expanding. Your belief that private interests are enough to motivate something like appropriate highway and road maintenance is based on a faith in the "free market" that I simply do not share and is not supported by any real world contemporary example. The road system of the 19th century is a total nonfactor save for its lack of extension and efficiency, the importance of an upkept highway system relative to national defense is commonly overlooked, and the economic benefits of having a third party guarantee means of transportation are immense. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On May 24 2013 15:57 Sub40APM wrote: How many interstates were there in the 19th century? is the number you looking for is 0? Yes, yes I believe it is. Private infrastructure development -- specifically railroads -- in both the United Kingdom and the United States frequently led to financial bubbles, overbuilding and a generally under-developed infrastructure system that served primarily for the benefit of the monopolist who dominated it. Beyond the fact that the Great Northern Railroad showed the exact opposite (the only private railroad of the 19th Century in America) of what you think happened, I'm intrigued to hear you explain how you reconcile the fact you said that such infrastructure was simultaneously overbuilt and yet, under-developed. I'll save time to link academic papers, since this should suffice; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.) Never mind the fact that the same happened with postal delivery, where Lysander Spooner's mail company absolutely destroyed the USPS. Here we have two prime examples of completely market forces without Government intervention providing higher quality service at lower prices compared to their Fascist counter-parts, which are so often parroted as being 'great and necessary'. Au contraire. They're schemes designed to enrich both parties at the expense of the consumer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company I leave it at that for now. The American Letter Mail Company was able to reduce the price of its stamps significantly and even offered free local delivery, significantly undercutting the 12-cent stamp being sold by the Post Office Department. The federal government treated this as a criminal act: Those evil evil capitalists! | ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On May 24 2013 16:15 Wegandi wrote: Beyond the fact that the Great Northern Railroad showed the exact opposite (the only private railroad of the 19th Century in America) of what you think happened, I'm intrigued to hear you explain how you reconcile the fact you said that such infrastructure was simultaneously overbuilt and yet, under-developed. I'll save time to link academic papers, since this should suffice; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.) Never mind the fact that the same happened with postal delivery, where Lysander Spooner's mail company absolutely destroyed the USPS. Here we have two prime examples of completely market forces without Government intervention providing higher quality service at lower prices compared to their Fascist counter-parts, which are so often parroted as being 'great and necessary'. Au contraire. They're schemes designed to enrich both parties at the expense of the consumer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company I leave it at that for now. Those evil evil capitalists! And where is the evidence that the successes of those ventures were not due to their existence alongside government programs and instead in spite of them? | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On May 24 2013 16:24 farvacola wrote: And where is the evidence that the successes of those ventures were not due to their existence alongside government programs and instead in spite of them? It is up to you to prove that point, but you're going to have a hard time considering neither venture took a penny of Government money, nor exercised any Government privilege. I'm all ears to hear how you lay their success at the feet of Government though. | ||
| ||
