|
On November 07 2010 09:30 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 09:14 Ferrose wrote:
Let's just get rid of SS, medicare/aid, and the DoE. What do we do now? Cut taxes by 20+% Too bad. Maybe they shouldn't be completely retarded and go into retirement with no savings. Show nested quote +and our kids have no schools to go to, unless they can afford private school. Yeah, no. If private schooling didn't have to compete with public, you'd have plenty of cheaper schools that would still outperform current public schooling. And its not like people couldn't afford it with 20% more disposable income. So, yeah, sounds good to me.
You do realize that what you want to do is to transform USA into a third world country?
The sad part is that this is what the rest of the world often sees from the US, which also is the reason to why alot of other countries think of the US as a retarded younger brother with an automatic weapon.
|
On November 07 2010 09:43 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 09:34 Ferrose wrote:On November 07 2010 09:30 kzn wrote:The poorest people have no healthcare, Too bad. All I can say is, "Wow. >.<" All I can say is you are massively overestimating the number of people who are too poor to afford basic health insurance.
I'm pretty sure it was more than 30 percent before the obama thing.
|
On November 07 2010 09:43 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 09:34 Ferrose wrote:On November 07 2010 09:30 kzn wrote:The poorest people have no healthcare, Too bad. All I can say is, "Wow. >.<" All I can say is you are massively overestimating the number of people who are too poor to afford basic health insurance.
Well it's greater than 30 some million. I'd hardly call 10% of the population a meager sum.
Edit: Just looked at some studies online. It looks like 30million is actually underestimating the actual figures. :/
|
On November 07 2010 09:48 lvatural wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 09:43 kzn wrote:On November 07 2010 09:34 Ferrose wrote:On November 07 2010 09:30 kzn wrote:The poorest people have no healthcare, Too bad. All I can say is, "Wow. >.<" All I can say is you are massively overestimating the number of people who are too poor to afford basic health insurance. Well it's greater than 30 some million. I'd hardly call 10% of the population a meager sum.
To be fair, a lot of the uninsured people are uninsured by choice.
|
^^
Well it's hardly a choice if you don't have the income to afford it.
|
On November 07 2010 09:48 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 09:43 kzn wrote:On November 07 2010 09:34 Ferrose wrote:On November 07 2010 09:30 kzn wrote:The poorest people have no healthcare, Too bad. All I can say is, "Wow. >.<" All I can say is you are massively overestimating the number of people who are too poor to afford basic health insurance. I'm pretty sure it was more than 30 percent before the obama thing.
Thats because the health insurance system in the US is absolutely retarded, so it is massively expensive to purchase health insurance for yourself. Whoever came up with the idea of giving health insurance tax benefits only to employer provided healthcare is single-handedly responsible for most of the problems with the US healthcare system today.
On November 07 2010 09:46 Euronyme wrote:
You do realize that what you want to do is to transform USA into a third world country?
The sad part is that this is what the rest of the world often sees from the US, which also is the reason to why alot of other countries think of the US as a retarded younger brother with an automatic weapon.
You're going to need an actual argument if you want to actually convince anyone of anything. Its already been empirically proven that tax rates are inversely correlated with GDP growth rates, so what I'd really be doing is skyrocketing US growth rates into the 4-5% range on average, instead of 1.5-2.5%.
And that will result in faster quality of life increases for the entire population than anything you can come up with.
|
On November 06 2010 08:25 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The fact that Marx was an economist like Adam Smith proves my point: that you can't use authority argument with the economic "science", because it is ideology-related. That's precisely why Marx called his discipline Political Economy: because economy for him was always subordinated to politics. I have the same opinion: this idea that economy is an objective science that politics should basically follow is a huge joke. "Political Economy" was the name of the discipline before Marx came long, FYI. Again, I do not disagree that there is ideology in Economics, especially when choosing one's model (google normative vs. positive). But that is a poor reason for rejecting economics as a discipline. Any time you create a model about how humans interact with each other, you are creating an economic model. To reject this method of analysis is to reject the only tool we have to determine the efficacy of policies. You are essentially saying we shouldn't even bother modeling human interactions and just go with policies on an arbitrary basis. That is bordering on the religious. If not economics, what do you use to judge your policies? Your gut? Show nested quote +Now, I don't know if you are serious about scandinavia; I guess you are not. Socialism means high taxes, strong presence of the state, strong healthcare, strong public sector, public pensions, etc... If we agree on this definition, Scandinavian countries are the most socialist democracies today. Now if you want to say that the countries with the highest social protection and the highest fiscality are right wing, well, do so. I don't agree on that definition. I have been using "socialist" in the sense of government control of the means, the way Marx intended. Scandinavia is quite the opposite, which again I view as a capitalist country with high wealth redistribution. Show nested quote +You clearly don't know the situation in UK right now. The state did cut more than 400 000 public jobs, which means that about a million jobs are disappearing in the next months / years. Public debt is one of the highest in Europe. Social sitaution is an absolute disaster. I'll leave it to the Brits to comment on their country, but my main point was that cutting those jobs was not necessary for the good of the UK's economy. Again, look at British bond rates. In addition, you can't simply use the UK's economic situation as an example of how "right-wing" economics have failed. Take a look at this chart, which encompasses just how "right-wing" a country is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom_historical_rankingsAt the top, you have countries doing quite well, countries that are doing ok, and countries that are doing poorly. It irks me when people use the current recession as some sort of confirmation of their pre-conceived biases. Does the fact that Germany is on that list but France is not, yet Germany is doing quite well, somehow mean the French system is shit? Using your naive method of judging economic systems, it certainly would.
Not woth your guts, but with your thought. Politics should be based much more on philosophical thinking than on so-called scientific economic calculations. The reason why I consider myself as a leftist is not because I believe that it's "more efficient", but because my whole being bleed when I see the way right winger think.
You use a Marxist definition if the term socialism which is obviously not the common one. Socialism in a modern democracy doesn't go against capitalism or even free-market. Socialism in today's wetsren politics means a strong presence of the state in the economic sphere, which is clearly the case in Scandinavia.
Your chart shows exactly what I criticize in Economics: it's a succession of number which doesn't show anything real. Point is, you can have country in a disastrous state at so many level, and which are doing great economically, just because an elite of millionaires and some huge corporations are doing a fucktone of money.
|
On November 07 2010 09:55 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 09:48 Euronyme wrote:On November 07 2010 09:43 kzn wrote:On November 07 2010 09:34 Ferrose wrote:On November 07 2010 09:30 kzn wrote:The poorest people have no healthcare, Too bad. All I can say is, "Wow. >.<" All I can say is you are massively overestimating the number of people who are too poor to afford basic health insurance. I'm pretty sure it was more than 30 percent before the obama thing. Thats because the health insurance system in the US is absolutely retarded, so it is massively expensive to purchase health insurance for yourself. Whoever came up with the idea of giving health insurance tax benefits only to employer provided healthcare is single-handedly responsible for most of the problems with the US healthcare system today. Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 09:46 Euronyme wrote:
You do realize that what you want to do is to transform USA into a third world country?
The sad part is that this is what the rest of the world often sees from the US, which also is the reason to why alot of other countries think of the US as a retarded younger brother with an automatic weapon. You're going to need an actual argument if you want to actually convince anyone of anything. Its already been empirically proven that tax rates are inversely correlated with GDP growth rates, so what I'd really be doing is skyrocketing US growth rates into the 4-5% range on average, instead of 1.5-2.5%. And that will result in faster quality of life increases for the entire population than anything you can come up with.
So your point is that people who would rather risk paying say 500.000 dollars in a medical bill than to pay an insurance, would go hand in hand to buy it if a tax was removed. Clever.
Do you really think that leaving 20-30% of the population for dead if injured will boost your GDP? This is going pretty far off from freedom and democracy, that I'm told your country tells itself it has. It's nice to see that you want to create a similar third world country to the ones you invade atleast.. makes sence in a way I guess.
Before I go to bed, I gotta ask you four things.
1, Have you any sort of higher education?
2, Where in the US do you live?
3, Do you realize that the USA you want, is the same sort of country that the red cross sends medical supplies, food and water cleaning systems to?
4, Are you christian/ religious?
I guess I should take it for granted that you also want to completely remove the police and fire department, as they actually cost you money, but you don't always need them..
|
On November 07 2010 10:24 Euronyme wrote:
So your point is that people who would rather risk paying say 500.000 dollars in a medical bill than to pay an insurance, would go hand in hand to buy it if a tax was removed. Clever.
Perhaps if you are incapable of reading that was my point, but no.
What exactly are you proposing for these people? You're proposing that they're retarded, and don't deserve to decide how to spend money that they worked for, not you.
Pretty sure "you worked for it, do what you want with it" is better in general than "fuck you give me 40% of it because I'm smarter than you".
Do you really think that leaving 20-30% of the population for dead if injured will boost your GDP?
Irrelevant, since thats never been suggested.
1, Have you any sort of higher education?
In the last year of a double major in philosophy and economics, philosophy is already complete.
2, Where in the US do you live?
Florida.
3, Do you realize that the USA you want, is the same sort of country that the red cross sends medical supplies, food and water cleaning systems to?
Nope, because its not. You can keep spouting the same conclusion over and over all you want, but it means literally nothing to me because you evidently cannot support it.
I guess I should take it for granted that you also want to completely remove the police and fire department, as they actually cost you money, but you don't always need them..
Nope! If you've had introductory economics, you'll know why.
|
On November 07 2010 09:30 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 09:14 Ferrose wrote:
Let's just get rid of SS, medicare/aid, and the DoE. What do we do now? Cut taxes by 20+% Too bad. Maybe they shouldn't be completely retarded and go into retirement with no savings. Show nested quote +and our kids have no schools to go to, unless they can afford private school. Yeah, no. If private schooling didn't have to compete with public, you'd have plenty of cheaper schools that would still outperform current public schooling. And its not like people couldn't afford it with 20% more disposable income. So, yeah, sounds good to me.
The biggest problem i see with getting rid of medicare etc is that in the end it really hurts the economy. Just think how many people cant work if they cant afford to get their illnesses treated. Im sure thats not a number that should be ignored. I can understand that some people arent really a fan of your new healthcare system, but thats probably just because its so much worse than it could be. Just look at certain european countries (especially the nordic region has superb healthcare), or even canada. If you strictly want to look at it from an economic point of view just think more people working=better economy. You might not end up earning more money but hell at least some people who didnt have the previlege to be born into a family thats not on the brink of poverty get "a chance at life" as you take it for granted (at least thats how your posts sound to me).
|
the market liberal fairy tale of " reduce taxes and money will explode" was so often proven wrong in reality that I cant believe how many people are still out there who believe that.
And really you think the US debt comes from some medicare? Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that medicare stuff was from before Bush era and when Clintons presidency ended the US had a good plus in their money and no debt.
And how much money did the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan eat up? Combine that with the problems on the stock markets and you got your deficit.
|
On November 07 2010 10:37 Blobskillz wrote:
the market liberal fairy tale of " reduce taxes and money will explode" was so often proven wrong in reality that I cant believe how many people are still out there who believe that.
Yeah :|
"Reduce taxes and the country will prosper!" is pure abstract appeal, the direct opposite of empirical evidence (which ironically kzn thinks is his arguments strength), given the ample amount of precedents.
|
On November 07 2010 10:27 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 10:24 Euronyme wrote:
So your point is that people who would rather risk paying say 500.000 dollars in a medical bill than to pay an insurance, would go hand in hand to buy it if a tax was removed. Clever. Perhaps if you are incapable of reading that was my point, but no. What exactly are you proposing for these people? You're proposing that they're retarded, and don't deserve to decide how to spend money that they worked for, not you. Pretty sure "you worked for it, do what you want with it" is better in general than "fuck you give me 40% of it because I'm smarter than you". Show nested quote +Do you really think that leaving 20-30% of the population for dead if injured will boost your GDP? Irrelevant, since thats never been suggested. In the last year of a double major in philosophy and economics, philosophy is already complete. Florida. Show nested quote +3, Do you realize that the USA you want, is the same sort of country that the red cross sends medical supplies, food and water cleaning systems to? Nope, because its not. You can keep spouting the same conclusion over and over all you want, but it means literally nothing to me because you evidently cannot support it. Show nested quote +I guess I should take it for granted that you also want to completely remove the police and fire department, as they actually cost you money, but you don't always need them.. Nope! If you've had introductory economics, you'll know why.
One point in having taxes is that 10% of your population is currently unemployed, and I dare say alot more wouldn't be able to cough up a couple of 100k dollars to pay medical bills. I guess they could take a loan, but then again something about a financial crisis due to batshit crazy unsafe loans in the US comes to mind.. So yeah, unless they can make a loan, and be in debt for generations to stay alive, they will die. You keep saying I can't support it, but it's pure logic.
Make it impossible for poor to get health care = poor dies. Is that concept really too complicated?
I doubt that because of your 2% gdp increase everyone in the US instantly would become millionaires.
I find it strange that someone in a civilized country without any moral issues can say that poor people does not deserve to live.
Cultural differences I guess.
Edit: some spelling errors (it's 3 am here).
|
I view american politics as outdated.
Your two party system obviously doesn't work, as I've heard from a lot of American friends of mine that they have trouble with who to vote for because they agree on some things and disagree on others with both parties.
You're very conservative. Norway's conservative party called "Høyre" is similar to your democrats, and only our most conservative party, "FRP", are able to sometimes take sides with the Republicans.
Religion seems to play a big role in your politics.
The fear of socialism (which many Americans think is communism) and government control.
The American attitude towards helping others, especially your views on universal healthcare.
Your parties' infighting and frontal attacks on each other.
Your voters inability to understand that things aren't done overnight, and that it takes way longer to correct mistakes than to never have made them.
Your extreme fear of Islam. (It does have something to do with politics)
Also:
France, Hungary, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Germany = pretty extreme racism;
What?
|
ye was thinking too where all those racists in germany are lol ^^
make any open racist statement here in germany and you can fuck up your life. In that regard US seems to be way more racist then most germans
|
On November 07 2010 10:34 ChinaRestaurant wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 09:30 kzn wrote:On November 07 2010 09:14 Ferrose wrote:
Let's just get rid of SS, medicare/aid, and the DoE. What do we do now? Cut taxes by 20+% The poorest people have no healthcare, Too bad. old people have none if they can't afford it, Maybe they shouldn't be completely retarded and go into retirement with no savings. and our kids have no schools to go to, unless they can afford private school. Yeah, no. If private schooling didn't have to compete with public, you'd have plenty of cheaper schools that would still outperform current public schooling. And its not like people couldn't afford it with 20% more disposable income. So, yeah, sounds good to me. The biggest problem i see with getting rid of medicare etc is that in the end it really hurts the economy. Just think how many people cant work if they cant afford to get their illnesses treated.
You have no idea what medicare is.
|
On November 07 2010 11:33 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 10:34 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On November 07 2010 09:30 kzn wrote:On November 07 2010 09:14 Ferrose wrote:
Let's just get rid of SS, medicare/aid, and the DoE. What do we do now? Cut taxes by 20+% The poorest people have no healthcare, Too bad. old people have none if they can't afford it, Maybe they shouldn't be completely retarded and go into retirement with no savings. and our kids have no schools to go to, unless they can afford private school. Yeah, no. If private schooling didn't have to compete with public, you'd have plenty of cheaper schools that would still outperform current public schooling. And its not like people couldn't afford it with 20% more disposable income. So, yeah, sounds good to me. The biggest problem i see with getting rid of medicare etc is that in the end it really hurts the economy. Just think how many people cant work if they cant afford to get their illnesses treated. You have no idea what medicare is.
Hence the etc. :> Meant to include the new healthcare as well so lets just say i meant healthcare in the beginning. Way to be hellbent on trying to prove someone wrong.
edit: goddamn typos
|
On November 07 2010 10:46 Euronyme wrote:
One point in having taxes is that 10% of your population is currently unemployed, and I dare say alot more wouldn't be able to cough up a couple of 100k dollars to pay medical bills.
That is precisely why I would expect them to purchase their own health insurance when they are employed. The number of people who are never employed can be (and will be) easily dealt with by charitable foundations. Everyone else, if they are intelligent, will purchase lifetime health insurance plans when they are employed so that even if they lose their job they aren't instantly at risk of dying of a cold.
That isn't possible now either, which is the most retarded thing about our system.
You keep saying I can't support it, but it's pure logic.
No, its pure fantasy. You're making up situations that would never occur in a country run the way I am suggesting.
I find it strange that someone in a civilized country without any moral issues can say that poor people does not deserve to live.
Well, great. Too bad I've never said that either.
|
They often say a picture is worth a thousand words. kzn, I salute you for representing reality, something a lot of these people know nothing of.
Some guy said "And really you think the US debt comes from some medicare? Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that medicare stuff was from before Bush era and when Clintons presidency ended the US had a good plus in their money and no debt.
And how much money did the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan eat up? Combine that with the problems on the stock markets and you got your deficit."
To that, I say this:
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/8zgkF.gif)
Man, we had no debt after Medicare came around, it truly saved us. Give me a break. Notice the trend in the graph after 1965, when Medicare was enacted. You people know nothing of America's problems. I'll give you a hint. Its Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.
Also, this doesn't include 2006-2010. The debt has gone up to 13.6 TRILLION now. Man, those democrats know how to spend some money.
|
On November 07 2010 05:31 Krigwin wrote:
There is no intrinsic difference between a Ferrari and healthcare (and its not "a life", since everyone is guaranteed lifesaving medical care in the US already (which they shouldn't be)).
I'm referring from even remotely insulting someone, and I still wont but lets gets real, that is just absurd statement, its nonsense, its how a 1 year old baby think, its unimaginable someone can say that, its unhuman.
You sir are everything that's wrong with US and even the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
