|
On January 07 2011 23:41 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 21:15 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
What has happened in the modern age of democracy is now that people who aren't learned scholars of international politics, economics, business, and gov't are outvoting those who are. Political parties have to find issues those groups do care about and use those issues to pull in the voting masses.
The republican base is motivated by social fears - abortion, gay marriage, religion, even some racism and xenophobia.
The democratic base is motivated by dangling the carrot, so to speak - welfare, healthcare, equal opportunity this and that, restraints and regulations on business which "protects" consumers.
Both are manipulation. Both are filled with lies and half truths. This is the nature of modern American politics though. All that we see now, and it's quite evident on this forum, is that both sides only see the other as the base of that party, ignorant and motivated by party propaganda. Both sides seem to the other as blissfully ignorant to the lies they've been fed by their leaders.
Both sides are right.
Until people realize that everything said is simply a bullshit argument designed to trap uneducated Americans into voting emotionally instead of logically, this country will sink ever deeper into a schism of elite and plebes - those with power, and those without.
Props for a quality post, dude.  I think you have very precisely described the biggest downside of a democracy. I wonder what the solution to this problem is. One drastic step might be to let people vote only if they pass a voters license test to sort out the uninformed. However, that clearly violates the idea of equality. You may alternatively try to educate people to a level where everyone can function as an informed voter. You probabaly need to combine a good education with politicians being able to explain complicated issues in an easy-to-understand way. But reality shows that it is much more convenient to let the people stay uninformed and use fear/carrots to achieve power. 
Phoenix does have some really good arguments. He'd be fun to have a chat about politics with, but it would probably last a few hours
I'm fine agreeing to disagree, I just hate it when people try to insult me personally for thinking differently. My views are very well researched. You don't have to believe me, but if you knew me, then it would be obvious. I read about 30 political books a year and then donate them to the public library.
So the crux of my argument is that Phoenix is a very bright and thoughtful person.
|
On January 07 2011 23:54 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 23:41 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 07 2011 21:15 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
What has happened in the modern age of democracy is now that people who aren't learned scholars of international politics, economics, business, and gov't are outvoting those who are. Political parties have to find issues those groups do care about and use those issues to pull in the voting masses.
The republican base is motivated by social fears - abortion, gay marriage, religion, even some racism and xenophobia.
The democratic base is motivated by dangling the carrot, so to speak - welfare, healthcare, equal opportunity this and that, restraints and regulations on business which "protects" consumers.
Both are manipulation. Both are filled with lies and half truths. This is the nature of modern American politics though. All that we see now, and it's quite evident on this forum, is that both sides only see the other as the base of that party, ignorant and motivated by party propaganda. Both sides seem to the other as blissfully ignorant to the lies they've been fed by their leaders.
Both sides are right.
Until people realize that everything said is simply a bullshit argument designed to trap uneducated Americans into voting emotionally instead of logically, this country will sink ever deeper into a schism of elite and plebes - those with power, and those without.
Props for a quality post, dude. I think you have very precisely described the biggest downside of a democracy. I wonder what the solution to this problem is. One drastic step might be to let people vote only if they pass a voters license test to sort out the uninformed. However, that clearly violates the idea of equality. You may alternatively try to educate people to a level where everyone can function as an informed voter. You probabaly need to combine a good education with politicians being able to explain complicated issues in an easy-to-understand way. But reality shows that it is much more convenient to let the people stay uninformed and use fear/carrots to achieve power. Phoenix does have some really good arguments. He'd be fun to have a chat about politics with, but it would probably last a few hours I'm fine agreeing to disagree, I just hate it when people try to insult me personally for thinking differently. My views are very well researched. You don't have to believe me, but if you knew me, then it would be obvious. I read about 30 political books a year and then donate them to the public library. So the crux of my argument is that Phoenix is a very bright and thoughtful person.
What is very important, in my eyes, is that we came from calling each other trolls and raging to a point where we actually exchange real arguments and respect each others opinions. If we can do this on the internet, maybe we can do this in real life, too. Not all hope is lost.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 07 2011 23:34 Scruffy wrote:
The main question blacks have to ask themselves is "Has my life gotten any better under Democrats?" Probably not. 50 years of social welfare programs and people aren't that much better off. Plus we have a lot of debt/non-tax paying citizens to show for it. We're not better off than 50 years ago? Are you serious? Aside from the fact that I doubt you're old enough to make that determination, I can cite dozens of statistics and case studies that would suggest, in fact, average living conditions are better than they were 50 years ago. Now things like poverty are relative, so in that sense you might be right, but it's relative to the rest of the world as well.
|
On January 08 2011 01:01 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 23:34 Scruffy wrote:
The main question blacks have to ask themselves is "Has my life gotten any better under Democrats?" Probably not. 50 years of social welfare programs and people aren't that much better off. Plus we have a lot of debt/non-tax paying citizens to show for it. We're not better off than 50 years ago? Are you serious? Aside from the fact that I doubt you're old enough to make that determination, I can cite dozens of statistics and case studies that would suggest, in fact, average living conditions are better than they were 50 years ago. Now things like poverty are relative, so in that sense you might be right, but it's relative to the rest of the world as well.
I'm talking about percentages of blacks that are below the poverty line. I'll try to find backups later (at work). I have seen the issue touched on in various books though.
|
On January 07 2011 23:30 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 14:50 Zooper31 wrote:On January 06 2011 14:44 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 14:41 Zooper31 wrote:On January 06 2011 14:38 InvalidID wrote:On January 06 2011 14:35 Zooper31 wrote:On January 06 2011 14:09 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 14:03 Gentleman7 wrote:On January 06 2011 13:19 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 12:52 happyness wrote:
[quote]
Too true.
I don't hate the tea party or anything. I believe we need to get out of debt and taxes should be as low as possible, but the wars we are in are by far the biggest burden to the budget. I don't see why conservatives can't see this. Look at the budgets and spending of this country and try to support your claim. Social policies such as SS, medicare, medicaid, and welfare represent substantially more spending than on defense. Allow me to point some facts out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_WarCheck out the amount of money spent on the Iraq War. The total cost of the war barely exceeds the cost of just 1 year of social security. Add in medicare, medicaid and other entitlements and compare. If you cut those programs by half you could fund over 5 Iraq wars a year! The defense budget for 2010 is listed as $664 billion. Compare this to those 3 big entitlement expenditures listed above: $1421 billion! Do you really think we're in a costly war? We could cut out entitlements for an entire year and that would cover 3 Iraqs. We haven't even been close to full war mode since WWII. If we actually had a serious war that was a direct threat to the American people, we effectively could spend dozens of times more money on it without risking inflation, simply by cutting socialist welfare policies. People don't realize it, but the US is a massive welfare state. The amount of money we spend on helping out the poor, elderly, disabled, or just outright lazy is astronomical. So, you could reduce the amount of everyone's social security checks by 10% or let a madman research nuclear devices for use on our allies. And lets not forget, any conflict in the middle east drives up oil prices and costs the US possibly even more than we'd have ever spent on this war. "The US is a massive welfare state" Really? Have you ever been outside of the country? We are one of the MOST conservative industrialized countries on the world. I'm not sure what you mean by "welfare" but if you mean unemployment benefits, you have no grasp on how economics works. Same for you social security arguments; end SS and you end spending by the elderly which hurts our econ. Not to mention the fact that the "social policies" are designed to HELP whereas Iraq did nothing but hurt. I'd also like to see a source for the 1.4kb number - is that since Roosevelt and the great depression? If so, it's a ridiculous statistic. And no, Hussein was not going after Nukes when we invaded >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budgetThere you go. Look for yourself. I don't make this stuff up. You don't believe it because you cannot hold your beliefs about gov't economics if you know it's true. Misinformation is a serious problem when it comes to our spending, and people need to wake the hell up. Oh and Hussein was definitely going after nukes when we invaded. It's fact. You should stop using wikipedia as you're only source of information. Also wheres the proof, because it seems the US, the people who invaded solely on that fact, can't seem to find it themselves. Wikipedia is pretty good for directly verifiable facts. If you dont believe something there, you can click the reference button. In the case of the US budget it is: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf . If you believe that source is inaccurate, I would challenge you to present a more reputable source for the US budget. How hard was that now. Just linking a wikipedia page shows nothing. Anyone on the internet can change information on any page and then link that page as proof of fact. Actually not true. Many pages must be verified by staff before being changed. I have a friend who does a lot of work for Wikipedia. I also have to say that it's the most accessible and well organized place for information. The article they have is really easy to read and is just a good article. Many college professors are fond of Wikipedia for objective information, because it's really really good. Is that why every teacher in every subject refused wikipedia as a source when I went to school? I do agree with the fact that its an amazingly awesome website for information, just take any information you get and double check it imo. The reason professors don't want you to use wikipedia for assignments is because it's so damn easy, you're supposed to put some actual research in and read a book or something. Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 15:52 Krikkitone wrote:On January 06 2011 15:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 15:19 Krikkitone wrote:On January 06 2011 15:11 thehitman wrote:
When the new congress cuts military spending it will be a good sign. Otherwise all these new legislation's are crap.
If the USA are to survive and all non politically engaged economists say so, they must stop the wars.
If the USA pulled out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea and Columbia it would cut the expenditure by about 15%
If USA closed all their military bases and returned all soldiers home it would cut 25% of the expenditure. And if the US cut entitlement spending by 5-15% it would have the same effect on the budget. However, I do think the idea of abandoning a conventional military is a good idea Replace with -Nukes to fight Nation states -"Police Infantry" for fighting non-nation state groups in weak nation states (with solid air/drone support)... However this would still be very expensive... as it would require multiple well trained+equipped individuals. A conventional military is required for many reasons: Occupation and assistance: We cannot give aid to our allies or give aid in foreign disasters without a conventional military. We also cannot actually man our holdings in other parts of the world. If we want to push back China out of South Korea, we cannot do that with nukes. I disagree... we could definitely push China out of south Korea with Nukes... or at least the threat of nukes. provided we gave sufficient warning to China before they moved into South Korea. A full conventional military action between nuclear powers is likely to become a nuclear war anyways. A nonnuclear power would definitely be deterred. On January 06 2011 15:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
You cannot rely on nukes as your only deterrent. No nation wants to commit to using them. If we have no conventional army, we have no way to deter enemeis from taking small bites at us repeatedly. We cannot respond to such aggression with nuclear force, so we'd be forced to take a loss for no reason. In addition, nukes are an awfully heavy solution to any war, and even a war hawk is going to be cautious about using one ever. "Small bites" that consist of conventional enemy forces could definitely be countered by nukes On January 06 2011 15:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
It is really hard to take out a specific terrorist camp without leveling a city with a nuke. You need conventional forces to take out key targets and perform small scale assaults. In the end, if you wanted to only rely on nukes you'd just be blanketing a country with them to take out every military target you need to take out. That's no way to win a war (unless it's against zerg).
If the enemy is attacking in a non conventional way, ie guerilla forces/terrorists.... then conventional forces are not what you want, you want those "Police Infantry"... people that know which 'civilian' to shoot, and the way to have them shot. Basically any Country using conventional military forces can be safely handled with nukes Any Country using nukes can Only be safely handled with nukes Organizations (including countries) using non conventional warfare such as terrorism/guerilla warfare should be handled differently... and a conventional military isn't what is needed in that case. What you need is a militarized version of a police force.
Hypothetical war with North Korea: nuke them. What an awful foreign policy
Why?... if it has been previously stated that that would be our response... The "local ally" South Korea would still have their own conventional forces. You wouldn't necessarily only have ICBMs either... and you wouldn't have to drop them all at once either...one per day until the survivors surrender. Both the "Nuclear" portion and the "Police" portion of the military would have many things similar to current conventional forces.... "Nuclear" would need: fighters/nuclear bombers/carriers/subs for more tactical nukes on minor conventional powers "Police" would need armored transports (in land, air, and sea), gunships, drones Conventional forces are most definitely required in order to occupy areas, defend assets, have a physical presence etc. and so that you're only military capability isn't starting a nuclear war. The actions of this 'police force' you speak of are exactly what's being done by the military in Afghanistan, they're not standing in a field fighting massive pitched battles, they're systematically hunting for insurgents, clearing areas of enemies and IED's, arresting suspects in towns, seizing weapons etc.
Exactly, that is what the "conventional" forces are doing... but that is not what they are designed for. They don't need the newest battle tanks or Anti-Air for that. Their training and equipment needs to be desgned for the type of job they are going to have.
The types of forces that are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan are what we need. What we don't need are the types of forces sitting in Germany and South Korea. In either of those cases if the situation got hot nukes would start flying anyways.... so scrap the useless conventional forces, and just keep the threat of nukes on the table to force reparations.
Now some small number conventional forces may still be needed. But you only At Best need enough conventional forces to beat the largest Nonnuclear power... and there are almost no militarily significant nonnuclear powers since Iraq was destroyed and North Korea went nuclear. And from the US perspective as a global power, the conventional forces of local allies are better for that purpose anyways. (someone else is paying for them, and they don't cause much resentment among the local populace, and they don't need to be deployed)
|
On January 08 2011 01:12 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2011 01:01 Jibba wrote:On January 07 2011 23:34 Scruffy wrote:
The main question blacks have to ask themselves is "Has my life gotten any better under Democrats?" Probably not. 50 years of social welfare programs and people aren't that much better off. Plus we have a lot of debt/non-tax paying citizens to show for it. We're not better off than 50 years ago? Are you serious? Aside from the fact that I doubt you're old enough to make that determination, I can cite dozens of statistics and case studies that would suggest, in fact, average living conditions are better than they were 50 years ago. Now things like poverty are relative, so in that sense you might be right, but it's relative to the rest of the world as well. I'm talking about percentages of blacks that are below the poverty line. I'll try to find backups later (at work). I have seen the issue touched on in various books though.
Poverty line is relative. There's no doubt that the average quality of life has risen dramatically in 50 years of "social welfare programs". Any decent study can prove such a thing. And I'm not just talking about the US. Of course life is still bad for many poor people (not just blacks), especially in impoverished northern urban centers, but as a whole life has improved noticeably for everyone, but especially blacks.
Also, people don't insult you personally or call you a troll because you have differing views. Don't try to dismiss others so quickly, especially when people like me are trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume you're a raging troll. People insult you personally because you make completely outrageous assertions (as well as racist remarks) and other declarations without evidence that are designed to be inflammatory whether you intend it or not, then you backpedal, ignore and dismiss people who respond to you, and eventually insult people with partisan language. Those are classic troll tactics. Whether or not you are aware of this is up to you, but continuing to callously dismiss others and throw around "liberal this" and "liberals that" certainly doesn't help your position.
|
On January 07 2011 23:34 Scruffy wrote:
The main question blacks have to ask themselves is "Has my life gotten any better under Democrats?" Probably not. 50 years of social welfare programs and people aren't that much better off. Plus we have a lot of debt/non-tax paying citizens to show for it.
Pay-as-you-go might as well be a MLM marketing scheme. The President can issue "emergency funding" and the like to bypass it. If pay as you go works, then how the hell did the national debt increase by 3.1 trillion? That makes sense.
I am from Alabama, so you are right Lefnui, I MUST be racist. You don't even know me you idiot. I can call you names too, see? I'm pretty sure if I was actually racist, then I wouldn't live where I live right now. Its an upgraded SLAVE HOUSE from the 1830s by the way...
I'm sure your elitist ass wouldn't be good enough for that, would it?
Blacks need to ask themselves whether their situation has become better in the last 50 years? You mean since 1960, four years before Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, the hallmark bill of ethnic equality in the States? Seriously?
With regard to racism. I understand that you see the term racist as derogatory, but a racist is not simply a person that "hates" members of other ethnic groups. It is a variant of genetic determinism that maintains that the fact that somebody is genetically linked to a certain ethnic group reveals an important fact about that person with regard to psychological factors and patterns of social behaviour. If you think, for instance, that it is meaningful to distingiush and address people according to their skin color on the basis that they share a genetic heritage which importantly determines their actions then you are a racist. Reading your posts, I can only make sense of your arguments if that is the position you hold.
|
On January 08 2011 01:50 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2011 01:12 Scruffy wrote:On January 08 2011 01:01 Jibba wrote:On January 07 2011 23:34 Scruffy wrote:
The main question blacks have to ask themselves is "Has my life gotten any better under Democrats?" Probably not. 50 years of social welfare programs and people aren't that much better off. Plus we have a lot of debt/non-tax paying citizens to show for it. We're not better off than 50 years ago? Are you serious? Aside from the fact that I doubt you're old enough to make that determination, I can cite dozens of statistics and case studies that would suggest, in fact, average living conditions are better than they were 50 years ago. Now things like poverty are relative, so in that sense you might be right, but it's relative to the rest of the world as well. I'm talking about percentages of blacks that are below the poverty line. I'll try to find backups later (at work). I have seen the issue touched on in various books though. Poverty line is relative. There's no doubt that the average quality of life has risen dramatically in 50 years of "social welfare programs". Any decent study can prove such a thing. And I'm not just talking about the US. Of course life is still bad for many poor people (not just blacks), especially in impoverished northern urban centers, but as a whole life has improved noticeably for everyone, but especially blacks. Also, people don't insult you personally or call you a troll because you have differing views. Don't try to dismiss others so quickly, especially when people like me are trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume you're a raging troll. People insult you personally because you make completely outrageous assertions (as well as racist remarks) and other declarations without evidence that are designed to be inflammatory whether you intend it or not, then you backpedal, ignore and dismiss people who respond to you, and eventually insult people with partisan language. Those are classic troll tactics. Whether or not you are aware of this is up to you, but continuing to callously dismiss others and throw around "liberal this" and "liberals that" certainly doesn't help your position.
Actually % of blacks below the poverty line has been Roughly constant for the last 50 years according to the census bureau (looking at the 18-64 age group) about 22% ~1960, 22% now (fluctuating ~16-25% in between)
The same is true of general poverty but that has stayed lower. (in the 10% range)
So the efforts of Democrats/Republicans, etc. has not helped poor blacks (although it has probably helped some middle/upperclass blacks) with respect to the rest of society.
Society has improved in an absolute sense in the last 50 years, but the relative position of poor blacks to the rest of society has not.
And the statement wasn't racist... there were no underlying assumptions that
1. only blacks were lazy
or
2. only blacks would vote for people that gave them money
Its more that blacks are the race most receiving the racist message that they need extra help/ its okay to fail because discrimination does it. Some poor whites receive the message too, but its not directed at their race. (something they can't change... they can potentially change their class)
Because genetics that affects your appearance Does affect how society interacts with you. And also if that genetics makes you appear similar to the members of your biological family, it makes you appear as part of a group that society will tend to lump together, because families tend to have common characteristics.
|
On January 08 2011 02:13 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2011 01:50 Krigwin wrote:On January 08 2011 01:12 Scruffy wrote:On January 08 2011 01:01 Jibba wrote:On January 07 2011 23:34 Scruffy wrote:
The main question blacks have to ask themselves is "Has my life gotten any better under Democrats?" Probably not. 50 years of social welfare programs and people aren't that much better off. Plus we have a lot of debt/non-tax paying citizens to show for it. We're not better off than 50 years ago? Are you serious? Aside from the fact that I doubt you're old enough to make that determination, I can cite dozens of statistics and case studies that would suggest, in fact, average living conditions are better than they were 50 years ago. Now things like poverty are relative, so in that sense you might be right, but it's relative to the rest of the world as well. I'm talking about percentages of blacks that are below the poverty line. I'll try to find backups later (at work). I have seen the issue touched on in various books though. Poverty line is relative. There's no doubt that the average quality of life has risen dramatically in 50 years of "social welfare programs". Any decent study can prove such a thing. And I'm not just talking about the US. Of course life is still bad for many poor people (not just blacks), especially in impoverished northern urban centers, but as a whole life has improved noticeably for everyone, but especially blacks. Also, people don't insult you personally or call you a troll because you have differing views. Don't try to dismiss others so quickly, especially when people like me are trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume you're a raging troll. People insult you personally because you make completely outrageous assertions (as well as racist remarks) and other declarations without evidence that are designed to be inflammatory whether you intend it or not, then you backpedal, ignore and dismiss people who respond to you, and eventually insult people with partisan language. Those are classic troll tactics. Whether or not you are aware of this is up to you, but continuing to callously dismiss others and throw around "liberal this" and "liberals that" certainly doesn't help your position. Actually % of blacks below the poverty line has been Roughly constant for the last 50 years according to the census bureau (looking at the 18-64 age group) about 22% ~1960, 22% now (fluctuating ~16-25% in between) The same is true of general poverty but that has stayed lower. (in the 10% range) So the efforts of Democrats/Republicans, etc. has not helped poor blacks (although it has probably helped some middle/upperclass blacks) with respect to the rest of society. Society has improved in an absolute sense in the last 50 years, but the relative position of poor blacks to the rest of society has not. And the statement wasn't racist... there were no underlying assumptions that 1. only blacks were lazy or 2. only blacks would vote for people that gave them money Its more that blacks are the race most receiving the racist message that they need extra help/ its okay to fail because discrimination does it. Some poor whites receive the message too, but its not directed at their race. (something they can't change... they can potentially change their class) Because genetics that affects your appearance Does affect how society interacts with you. And also if that genetics makes you appear similar to the members of your biological family, it makes you appear as part of a group that society will tend to lump together, because families tend to have common characteristics.
This. I'm just offended to be called a racist when you know nothing of me personally. Why is it ok to call people racists just because that is your opinion? I could call everyone on this thread racist, but I'm not (because its not true). Its a pretty serious allegation, and I think you basing this off of two lines of one post is stupid. I say the admins should be the ones to determine this. If I am being racist/insensitive, then I should be banned. I guess we will wait and see. I really love SC/SC2 though, and the TL community, so I am hoping this is not the case.
|
Lol it's funny how we can talk about black people and their problems here on TL since there aren't any black people that play starcraft o.O
|
On January 08 2011 01:43 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 23:30 jello_biafra wrote:On January 06 2011 14:50 Zooper31 wrote:On January 06 2011 14:44 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 14:41 Zooper31 wrote:On January 06 2011 14:38 InvalidID wrote:On January 06 2011 14:35 Zooper31 wrote:On January 06 2011 14:09 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 14:03 Gentleman7 wrote:On January 06 2011 13:19 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:[quote] Look at the budgets and spending of this country and try to support your claim. Social policies such as SS, medicare, medicaid, and welfare represent substantially more spending than on defense. Allow me to point some facts out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_WarCheck out the amount of money spent on the Iraq War. The total cost of the war barely exceeds the cost of just 1 year of social security. Add in medicare, medicaid and other entitlements and compare. If you cut those programs by half you could fund over 5 Iraq wars a year! The defense budget for 2010 is listed as $664 billion. Compare this to those 3 big entitlement expenditures listed above: $1421 billion! Do you really think we're in a costly war? We could cut out entitlements for an entire year and that would cover 3 Iraqs. We haven't even been close to full war mode since WWII. If we actually had a serious war that was a direct threat to the American people, we effectively could spend dozens of times more money on it without risking inflation, simply by cutting socialist welfare policies. People don't realize it, but the US is a massive welfare state. The amount of money we spend on helping out the poor, elderly, disabled, or just outright lazy is astronomical. So, you could reduce the amount of everyone's social security checks by 10% or let a madman research nuclear devices for use on our allies. And lets not forget, any conflict in the middle east drives up oil prices and costs the US possibly even more than we'd have ever spent on this war. "The US is a massive welfare state" Really? Have you ever been outside of the country? We are one of the MOST conservative industrialized countries on the world. I'm not sure what you mean by "welfare" but if you mean unemployment benefits, you have no grasp on how economics works. Same for you social security arguments; end SS and you end spending by the elderly which hurts our econ. Not to mention the fact that the "social policies" are designed to HELP whereas Iraq did nothing but hurt. I'd also like to see a source for the 1.4kb number - is that since Roosevelt and the great depression? If so, it's a ridiculous statistic. And no, Hussein was not going after Nukes when we invaded >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budgetThere you go. Look for yourself. I don't make this stuff up. You don't believe it because you cannot hold your beliefs about gov't economics if you know it's true. Misinformation is a serious problem when it comes to our spending, and people need to wake the hell up. Oh and Hussein was definitely going after nukes when we invaded. It's fact. You should stop using wikipedia as you're only source of information. Also wheres the proof, because it seems the US, the people who invaded solely on that fact, can't seem to find it themselves. Wikipedia is pretty good for directly verifiable facts. If you dont believe something there, you can click the reference button. In the case of the US budget it is: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf . If you believe that source is inaccurate, I would challenge you to present a more reputable source for the US budget. How hard was that now. Just linking a wikipedia page shows nothing. Anyone on the internet can change information on any page and then link that page as proof of fact. Actually not true. Many pages must be verified by staff before being changed. I have a friend who does a lot of work for Wikipedia. I also have to say that it's the most accessible and well organized place for information. The article they have is really easy to read and is just a good article. Many college professors are fond of Wikipedia for objective information, because it's really really good. Is that why every teacher in every subject refused wikipedia as a source when I went to school? I do agree with the fact that its an amazingly awesome website for information, just take any information you get and double check it imo. The reason professors don't want you to use wikipedia for assignments is because it's so damn easy, you're supposed to put some actual research in and read a book or something. On January 06 2011 15:52 Krikkitone wrote:On January 06 2011 15:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 15:19 Krikkitone wrote:On January 06 2011 15:11 thehitman wrote:
When the new congress cuts military spending it will be a good sign. Otherwise all these new legislation's are crap.
If the USA are to survive and all non politically engaged economists say so, they must stop the wars.
If the USA pulled out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea and Columbia it would cut the expenditure by about 15%
If USA closed all their military bases and returned all soldiers home it would cut 25% of the expenditure. And if the US cut entitlement spending by 5-15% it would have the same effect on the budget. However, I do think the idea of abandoning a conventional military is a good idea Replace with -Nukes to fight Nation states -"Police Infantry" for fighting non-nation state groups in weak nation states (with solid air/drone support)... However this would still be very expensive... as it would require multiple well trained+equipped individuals. A conventional military is required for many reasons: Occupation and assistance: We cannot give aid to our allies or give aid in foreign disasters without a conventional military. We also cannot actually man our holdings in other parts of the world. If we want to push back China out of South Korea, we cannot do that with nukes. I disagree... we could definitely push China out of south Korea with Nukes... or at least the threat of nukes. provided we gave sufficient warning to China before they moved into South Korea. A full conventional military action between nuclear powers is likely to become a nuclear war anyways. A nonnuclear power would definitely be deterred. On January 06 2011 15:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
You cannot rely on nukes as your only deterrent. No nation wants to commit to using them. If we have no conventional army, we have no way to deter enemeis from taking small bites at us repeatedly. We cannot respond to such aggression with nuclear force, so we'd be forced to take a loss for no reason. In addition, nukes are an awfully heavy solution to any war, and even a war hawk is going to be cautious about using one ever. "Small bites" that consist of conventional enemy forces could definitely be countered by nukes On January 06 2011 15:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
It is really hard to take out a specific terrorist camp without leveling a city with a nuke. You need conventional forces to take out key targets and perform small scale assaults. In the end, if you wanted to only rely on nukes you'd just be blanketing a country with them to take out every military target you need to take out. That's no way to win a war (unless it's against zerg).
If the enemy is attacking in a non conventional way, ie guerilla forces/terrorists.... then conventional forces are not what you want, you want those "Police Infantry"... people that know which 'civilian' to shoot, and the way to have them shot. Basically any Country using conventional military forces can be safely handled with nukes Any Country using nukes can Only be safely handled with nukes Organizations (including countries) using non conventional warfare such as terrorism/guerilla warfare should be handled differently... and a conventional military isn't what is needed in that case. What you need is a militarized version of a police force.
Hypothetical war with North Korea: nuke them. What an awful foreign policy
Why?... if it has been previously stated that that would be our response... The "local ally" South Korea would still have their own conventional forces. You wouldn't necessarily only have ICBMs either... and you wouldn't have to drop them all at once either...one per day until the survivors surrender. Both the "Nuclear" portion and the "Police" portion of the military would have many things similar to current conventional forces.... "Nuclear" would need: fighters/nuclear bombers/carriers/subs for more tactical nukes on minor conventional powers "Police" would need armored transports (in land, air, and sea), gunships, drones Conventional forces are most definitely required in order to occupy areas, defend assets, have a physical presence etc. and so that you're only military capability isn't starting a nuclear war. The actions of this 'police force' you speak of are exactly what's being done by the military in Afghanistan, they're not standing in a field fighting massive pitched battles, they're systematically hunting for insurgents, clearing areas of enemies and IED's, arresting suspects in towns, seizing weapons etc. Exactly, that is what the "conventional" forces are doing... but that is not what they are designed for. They don't need the newest battle tanks or Anti-Air for that. Their training and equipment needs to be desgned for the type of job they are going to have. The types of forces that are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan are what we need. What we don't need are the types of forces sitting in Germany and South Korea. In either of those cases if the situation got hot nukes would start flying anyways.... so scrap the useless conventional forces, and just keep the threat of nukes on the table to force reparations.
Now some small number conventional forces may still be needed. But you only At Best need enough conventional forces to beat the largest Nonnuclear power... and there are almost no militarily significant nonnuclear powers since Iraq was destroyed and North Korea went nuclear. And from the US perspective as a global power, the conventional forces of local allies are better for that purpose anyways. (someone else is paying for them, and they don't cause much resentment among the local populace, and they don't need to be deployed)
Where do people get these ideas from?
Weakening conventional forces to the point where one relies on nuclear deterrence is a dangerous ideology to adopt. Research the scholarly debate in post-Soviet Ukraine for more information, if you're interested.
It's very difficult to take people seriously when they mention the nuclear option as being one that would "inevitably" be used; it shows a lack of knowledge about the subject to say the least.
|
On January 08 2011 02:58 Jstor wrote:
Lol it's funny how we can talk about black people and their problems here on TL since there aren't any black people that play starcraft o.O
Debo plays starcraft
|
On January 06 2011 20:01 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 18:59 Velr wrote:On January 06 2011 17:53 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
It is still the best healthcare system in the world though. The quality of care, the quality of medication, the variety of doctors and medicines available, and of course the wait times for surgeries and procedures are phenomenal and unobtainable through a gov't health care system.
The theoretically best Healthcare that money can buy has about as much to do with a good Healthcare system as invading Iraq to secure peace or Obama with socialism (well, you won't get the last one probably). Wow... Your so clueless on the materia, it really hurts to read your bullshit. About every damn statistic on the planet claims that your Healthcare system is fucking expensive and bad at the same time (read: inefficient). Your making up points on the go witheout any facts... my god. Your a moron. Our healthcare system is so good that Canadians often come to America for surgeries and treatments
Please don't parrot Glenn Beck. "Often" is flat wrong. Do some come? Yes. Do the vast majority? No. Does the fact that some people come magically make U.S. healthcare > Canadian healthcare? No. Nor does it provide any meaningful comparisons as to what makes healthcare better in one place than another.
Saying things like that is the very reason so many people around the country (and the world) are constantly pulling their hair out. For some reason people hear a 2 minute sound-bite and think they're well-educated about a subject, when often (like in this case), they're completely wrong and causing others to be just as poorly informed.
For every story you have about how "horrible Canadian healthcare is" (and the implication of all socialism being terrible), there's at least one about how horrible American healthcare is.
|
On January 08 2011 03:35 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 20:01 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 18:59 Velr wrote:On January 06 2011 17:53 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
It is still the best healthcare system in the world though. The quality of care, the quality of medication, the variety of doctors and medicines available, and of course the wait times for surgeries and procedures are phenomenal and unobtainable through a gov't health care system.
The theoretically best Healthcare that money can buy has about as much to do with a good Healthcare system as invading Iraq to secure peace or Obama with socialism (well, you won't get the last one probably). Wow... Your so clueless on the materia, it really hurts to read your bullshit. About every damn statistic on the planet claims that your Healthcare system is fucking expensive and bad at the same time (read: inefficient). Your making up points on the go witheout any facts... my god. Your a moron. Our healthcare system is so good that Canadians often come to America for surgeries and treatments Please don't parrot Glenn Beck. "Often" is flat wrong. Do some come? Yes. Do the vast majority? No. Does the fact that some people come magically make U.S. healthcare > Canadian healthcare? No. Nor does it provide any meaningful comparisons as to what makes healthcare better in one place than another. Saying things like that is the very reason so many people around the country (and the world) are constantly pulling their hair out. For some reason people hear a 2 minute sound-bite and think they're well-educated about a subject, when often (like in this case), they're completely wrong and causing others to be just as poorly informed.
Most top leaders and ambassadosr or anyone who holds a decent governmental job comes to the US for major operations. That is a fact.
|
On January 08 2011 03:36 t3hwUn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2011 03:35 Craton wrote:On January 06 2011 20:01 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 18:59 Velr wrote:On January 06 2011 17:53 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
It is still the best healthcare system in the world though. The quality of care, the quality of medication, the variety of doctors and medicines available, and of course the wait times for surgeries and procedures are phenomenal and unobtainable through a gov't health care system.
The theoretically best Healthcare that money can buy has about as much to do with a good Healthcare system as invading Iraq to secure peace or Obama with socialism (well, you won't get the last one probably). Wow... Your so clueless on the materia, it really hurts to read your bullshit. About every damn statistic on the planet claims that your Healthcare system is fucking expensive and bad at the same time (read: inefficient). Your making up points on the go witheout any facts... my god. Your a moron. Our healthcare system is so good that Canadians often come to America for surgeries and treatments Please don't parrot Glenn Beck. "Often" is flat wrong. Do some come? Yes. Do the vast majority? No. Does the fact that some people come magically make U.S. healthcare > Canadian healthcare? No. Nor does it provide any meaningful comparisons as to what makes healthcare better in one place than another. Saying things like that is the very reason so many people around the country (and the world) are constantly pulling their hair out. For some reason people hear a 2 minute sound-bite and think they're well-educated about a subject, when often (like in this case), they're completely wrong and causing others to be just as poorly informed. Most top leaders and ambassadosr or anyone who holds a decent governmental job comes to the US for major operations. That is a fact.
Source?
Actually I would challenge either side to provide real comparative statistics. Thus far it has been anecdotes and assertions.
|
On January 08 2011 03:36 t3hwUn wrote:
Most top leaders and ambassadosr or anyone who holds a decent governmental job comes to the US for major operations. That is a fact.
Let us assume this is correct. It still does not say anything about the quality of your healthcare system No one doubts the skill of US physicians. The core problem is that the majority of people do not have access to quality healthcare (bceause they have no insurenace or becuase they have one that does not want to cover their expenses) or if they do, the relation between cost and obtained service is worse than in many other countries.
|
On January 07 2011 23:34 Scruffy wrote:
I am from Alabama, so you are right Lefnui, I MUST be racist. You don't even know me you idiot. I can call you names too, see?
I suppose it is technically possible that someone who isn't racist could say blatantly racist things. I certainly didn't claim that you're a racist because you're from Alabama since I wasn't even aware of that(why would I be?). I have however pointed out that you have said racist things in this thread, which is undeniably true:
Scruffy wrote:
Do you really think African-American's poverty demographics have shifted in the past 50 years? They have probably gotten worse. Its almost like the Dems want to tell them (although more covertly, obviously) "Hey, guess what guys, vote us in, and we will pay you to not work!" Pretty sweet deal if you can get it I guess.
It's the same thing that Phoenix said, that black people vote in Democrats so that they can sit around lazily and collect money. That is pure racism. And notice how neither of you have been able to defend that concept at all. You have provided absolutely no evidence to support it.
Both of you continually make baseless and racist arguments, they are challenged, and then you refuse to respond to the challenges. You simply claim "I've won this argument" and move on. Well color me unimpressed by your form of debating.
I'm pretty sure if I was actually racist, then I wouldn't live where I live right now. Its an upgraded SLAVE HOUSE from the 1830s by the way...
I'm pretty sure the fact that you live in a former slave house doesn't prove anything. A racist person could live in a former slave house. A person can post racist statements from a former slave house, as you have clearly demonstrated in this thread.
I'm sure your elitist ass wouldn't be good enough for that, would it?
Not exactly sure what you mean by that.
|
Well admins. I am a blatant racist according to Lefnui. I guess I deserve to be banned. I really liked the community otherwise.
|
On January 08 2011 05:31 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2011 03:36 t3hwUn wrote:
Most top leaders and ambassadosr or anyone who holds a decent governmental job comes to the US for major operations. That is a fact.
Let us assume this is correct. It still does not say anything about the quality of your healthcare system No one doubts the skill of US physicians. The core problem is that the majority of people do not have access to quality healthcare (bceause they have no insurenace or becuase they have one that does not want to cover their expenses) or if they do, the relation between cost and obtained service is worse than in many other countries.
As I mentioned earlier, the problems within the US medical system will never be fixed by central gov't control and regulation. That will only increase the cost and reduce the quality of care.
The problems with the US healthcare system are related to outrageous malpractice insurance practices causing medical practitioners to spend many factors more than they otherwise would for a treatment.
Doctors have to:
a) pay malpractice insurance, the likes of which are easily several hundred thousand dollars even for a general practitioner/pediatrician. I talk to my doctor about this sometimes, and it's not a myth.
b) run extra tests/procedures to cover their asses against any unlikely but possible scenario, because if they don't people can sue them for incompetency. This drives up the cost of healthcare a ton.
c) avoid getting sued at all costs. Getting sued successfully usually ends their career, since they get kicked out of the AMA. This is the true cost of malpractice lawsuits, so doctors have to spend everything they can to avoid them.
When you say that the majority of people do not have access to quality healthcare because they have no/poor insurance you are outright lying. I believe around 85% of this country has insurance, and lets keep in mind a good bunch of uninsured Americans are uninsured by choice. Many young, healthy people choose to remain uninsured because they believe it's not worth the cost. Many people who are not college/high school graduates and who don't have steady jobs are not insured either. Unemployed people have trouble getting insurance at a reasonable rate, but why wouldn't they? They're not working, so the motivations to insure them over someone who is working a stable job are not the same.
The media likes to glorify insurance horror stories and take shots at big business in general for being the culprit. The truth is that while sometimes bad things happen and people get screwed, the large vast majority of policyholders never experience something that bad. The average joe is going to perhaps have to call up their company to fix a billing error every now and then, but that's no reason to abandon our system altogether.
In fact, capitalism ensures that if a company is being abusive, corrupt, or malicious people will just leave. It happens all the time. Employers, under pressure from employees, will switch providers. What happens if the gov't is being abusive, corrupt, or malicious? What if they're just not up to par in quality? The people cannot switch to a new provider. That's why socialist systems are so dangerous - they don't fix themselves.
I think there are much better ways to improve our system than turning to gov't control. When the gov't starts acting as a free market entity it breaks the mechanics of capitalism and often makes things much much worse.
Just remember, it's life, liberty, and happiness. It's not life, liberty, happiness, and healthcare =D
|
On January 08 2011 10:03 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
In fact, capitalism ensures that if a company is being abusive, corrupt, or malicious people will just leave. It happens all the time. Employers, under pressure from employees, will switch providers. What happens if the gov't is being abusive, corrupt, or malicious? What if they're just not up to par in quality? The people cannot switch to a new provider. That's why socialist systems are so dangerous - they don't fix themselves.
I think there are much better ways to improve our system than turning to gov't control. When the gov't starts acting as a free market entity it breaks the mechanics of capitalism and often makes things much much worse.
Just remember, it's life, liberty, and happiness. It's not life, liberty, happiness, and healthcare =D
I am quite sceptical whether your argument - while accurate in theory - holds true in real life.
a) The first problem is that companies do what is in their power to pervert markets, that is they do what they can to make markets as imperfect as possible. THis is important because all the healthy functions of a free market are based on the assumption of a perfect market. In practice, corporations make it harder for the consumer to compare products, they strive towards monopolies, there use illegal agreements about prices between competitors etc.
b) That aside, lets apply a little capitalist logic to the healthcare sector. Insurance companies want to make profit, that is, they fare best when they pay much less than they charge people. Every person prevented from getting healthcare means more profit, that is, it is in the best interest of the insurance companies to deny paying for treatments whenever possible. In a perfect market that would not be a problem because bad apples would lose custormers but that brings us the point a)
Government control may be the solution to the problems caused by a combination of a) and b). Just make sure that there are enough competitors on the market (i.e. disallow ergers or acquisitions that lead to market shares greater X with X to be defined by experts) and force to insurance companies to provide identical baseline insurance, so prices are comparable. With these simple rules you can enforce a functioning market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
