On August 17 2011 04:53 Multifail wrote: Obama could have been one of the nation's best presidents, the timing for him is just horrible and timing is everything in politics (as in most things), and he knew that going in to it. But for most people, the fact that the US economy is still in trouble is his fault, even though it is more a problem of eight years of stupid combined with the fact that most Americans are just plain uncompetitive in a global economy. $20 bills didn't start growing in their garden a year after he was elected, and for most people that is a failure.
This makes me laugh. At what point in a presidents term does the economy become his responsibility? Please enlighten me to this as I kinda figured that after being in office for 4 years the economy becomes your responsibility? Guess it's always the other guys fault if he was a disliked president then just blame him. Why blame the savior of the country? Obama the first black president!
It's impossible to figure out who to blame. There are literally thousands of people in very powerful positions (in multiple countries). The modern day economy is so vast and complex that singling out one person (even the president, who has less power than you think) is a fool's venture.
People with tiny minds who need ONE person to blame are the ones who try to blame Bush or Obama. If you really want to blame Presidents, you'd have to blame both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama and likely even farther back than that.
Obama spent more in his first year than Bush did in 4 (it might have even been all eight). His spending is what is killing him the most right now. For instance, we CAN'T AFFORD the healthcare plan.
if it's still Bush's fault after four years, then maybe it could be blamed on Clinton? I suppose Carter also was simply "unlucky". Be consistent.
This cannot be accurate.
Source or I call bullshit; the BUSH TAX CUTS, prescription drug plan and the UN- ENDING WARS bush got the country into HAVE to have cost your country more than any NEEDED stimulus plan or healthcare.
Bush not spending ENOUGH is not a bragging point, especially when the real solution is to tax the rich/corporations and invest it into stabilizing the plummeting wealth of the middle class.
Corporations WONT hire people when there is no one purchasing their goods; the situation you get when you cripple your middle class.
Corporations WILL hire people when there are people purchasing their goods despite minuscule increases in their taxes. Profit is still profit.
At the end of the day though; fellow TL poster, can you really stand by the idea that national healthcare, done correctly, is a BAD thing? I man it just seems so disgustingly un-civilized to think that MEDICINE or EDUCATION is being denied to fellow citizens but it's alright because the wealthy are staying wealthy.
I'm Canadian and we have national healthcare and I pay for it in my taxes. I pay for it proudly; I would rather trust my government to be overly kind to my countries peoples, one of which being myself, than to trust a corporation, who's ends can only ever be profit, with a service as vital as the maintenance of human life.
I'm about to leave unfortunately, but I can say this, if you are Canadian, I'm not surprised you haven't heard of this... nothing against you, but I can't imagine you are as in tune with what happens and our budget as we are But if you would like, you can even google for comparisons. And the Stimulus ended up being almost a trillion dollars, if I recall, and the one that Bush signed was supported by Obama. The government can't say "the tax cuts will LOSE us money" because, guess what? The money isn't THEIRS until we pay it. it belongs to the people, FIRST. So that argument has been BS since the beginning. And healthcare is going to cost us a truckload, social security as well, AND Medicare and Medicaid. It's absurd. And the stimulus was crap, it didn't help (look at the numbers, and some of the places the money went. Like a project to find out the effect of Cocaine on monkeys, though I'm sure that's justified by the fact that it will "help them help people")
Healthcare here would so much better if it could be sold privately in a competitive market ACROSS STATE LINES. that is one of the biggest problems. I can't believe that a "human right" includes something that other people have to participate in.... there is a right to life, speech, etc, but those don't relay on others. that's a fundamental difference. And what good is providing healthcare if you destroy the county it's in later? Also, I don't trust the government to do better than private firms and companies. Ever heard the phrase "it's good enough for government work?"
Also, the top 1% (in terms of wealth)... If i recall correctly, contribute at least 90% of all dollars collected from income taxes. Yes, tax them some more. Almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax.
And Bush was bad too, spent WAY too much. it's a big problem for ALL politicians right now.
I wish I had the time for the cites, if you REALLY want, you can research it, or I can get back to you later. btw, I'm not rich, my family actually fits into the lowest tax bracket.
On August 17 2011 04:53 Multifail wrote: Obama could have been one of the nation's best presidents, the timing for him is just horrible and timing is everything in politics (as in most things), and he knew that going in to it. But for most people, the fact that the US economy is still in trouble is his fault, even though it is more a problem of eight years of stupid combined with the fact that most Americans are just plain uncompetitive in a global economy. $20 bills didn't start growing in their garden a year after he was elected, and for most people that is a failure.
This makes me laugh. At what point in a presidents term does the economy become his responsibility? Please enlighten me to this as I kinda figured that after being in office for 4 years the economy becomes your responsibility? Guess it's always the other guys fault if he was a disliked president then just blame him. Why blame the savior of the country? Obama the first black president!
It's impossible to figure out who to blame. There are literally thousands of people in very powerful positions (in multiple countries). The modern day economy is so vast and complex that singling out one person (even the president, who has less power than you think) is a fool's venture.
People with tiny minds who need ONE person to blame are the ones who try to blame Bush or Obama. If you really want to blame Presidents, you'd have to blame both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama and likely even farther back than that.
The Little Red Line doesn't care about Republicans or Democrats. The Little Red Line is an equal opportunity depression creator.
Obama spent more in his first year than Bush did in 4 (it might have even been all eight). His spending is what is killing him the most right now. For instance, we CAN'T AFFORD the healthcare plan.
if it's still Bush's fault after four years, then maybe it could be blamed on Clinton? I suppose Carter also was simply "unlucky". Be consistent.
This cannot be accurate.
Source or I call bullshit; the BUSH TAX CUTS, prescription drug plan and the UN- ENDING WARS bush got the country into HAVE to have cost your country more than any NEEDED stimulus plan or healthcare.
Bush not spending ENOUGH is not a bragging point, especially when the real solution is to tax the rich/corporations and invest it into stabilizing the plummeting wealth of the middle class.
Corporations WONT hire people when there is no one purchasing their goods; the situation you get when you cripple your middle class.
Corporations WILL hire people when there are people purchasing their goods despite minuscule increases in their taxes. Profit is still profit.
At the end of the day though; fellow TL poster, can you really stand by the idea that national healthcare, done correctly, is a BAD thing? I man it just seems so disgustingly un-civilized to think that MEDICINE or EDUCATION is being denied to fellow citizens but it's alright because the wealthy are staying wealthy.
I'm Canadian and we have national healthcare and I pay for it in my taxes. I pay for it proudly; I would rather trust my government to be overly kind to my countries peoples, one of which being myself, than to trust a corporation, who's ends can only ever be profit, with a service as vital as the maintenance of human life.
I'm about to leave unfortunately, but I can say this, if you are Canadian, I'm not surprised you haven't heard of this... nothing against you, but I can't imagine you are as in tune with what happens and our budget as we are But if you would like, you can even google for comparisons. And the Stimulus ended up being almost a trillion dollars, if I recall, and the one that Bush signed was supported by Obama. The government can't say "the tax cuts will LOSE us money" because, guess what? The money isn't THEIRS until we pay it. it belongs to the people, FIRST. So that argument has been BS since the beginning. And healthcare is going to cost us a truckload, social security as well, AND Medicare and Medicaid. It's absurd. And the stimulus was crap, it didn't help (look at the numbers, and some of the places the money went. Like a project to find out the effect of Cocaine on monkeys, though I'm sure that's justified by the fact that it will "help them help people")
Healthcare here would so much better if it could be sold privately in a competitive market ACROSS STATE LINES. that is one of the biggest problems. I can't believe that a "human right" includes something that other people have to participate in.... there is a right to life, speech, etc, but those don't relay on others. that's a fundamental difference. And what good is providing healthcare if you destroy the county it's in later? Also, I don't trust the government to do better than private firms and companies. Ever heard the phrase "it's good enough for government work?"
Also, the top 1% (in terms of wealth)... If i recall correctly, contribute at least 90% of all dollars collected from income taxes. Yes, tax them some more. Almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax.
I wish I had the time for the cites, if you REALLY want, you can research it, or I can get back to you later. btw, I'm not rich, my family actually fits into the lowest tax bracket.
What world do you live in that completely free-market health care is successful for anyone but the greedy amoral corporations selling it? Ditto for the lie about 50% of americans not paying taxes....
Obama has been in office for two and a half years, quite a difference from four.
On August 17 2011 05:11 OsoVega wrote: I'm quite conflicted to be honest. I am a supporter or Ron Paul's economic and social policies but not his foreign policy.
I don't know why you'd support his economics, they're idiotic, and the sign of someone who has no idea of what he's talking about.
When Ron Paul predicted the Housing Crisis, he had no idea what he was talking about? When Ron Paul predicted the economic downturn, he had no idea what he was talking about? When Ron Paul the ineffectiveness of the bailouts to limit unemployment at 7% or so, as Obama and Geithner considered a worst case scenario, he had no idea what he was talking about?
People keep saying that he has no idea on economics. Why is consistently predicting things correctly? WTF is with this disconnect? Is it just a meme that people repeat without thinking?
except the fact that almost any (intelligent) undergrad econ student will tell you that most of his thought processes are stupid.
Well you clearly know enough, as us so very little, so please, enlighten us.
take basic macroecon
Universities are always right.
excellent argument. instead i should listen to the politician who wants to revert us back to the gold standard.
You should listen to reasoning, whether it be from a book, politician or professor. What you shouldn't do is simply believe any of those sources and think that anyone exposed to the same teaching will agree with you.
so if i were a biology student and i met a prominent aids denialist or fundamentalist christian i should bother to listen to their views when in fact they're wrong.
They're wrong because their reasoning is wrong and you already know that. You've never given any reasoning as to why Ron Paul is wrong and I've never given any reason as to why he is right. Difference is, I was simply asked my views. You just attacked my views with zero reasoning behind it.
Obama spent more in his first year than Bush did in 4 (it might have even been all eight). His spending is what is killing him the most right now. For instance, we CAN'T AFFORD the healthcare plan.
if it's still Bush's fault after four years, then maybe it could be blamed on Clinton? I suppose Carter also was simply "unlucky". Be consistent.
This cannot be accurate.
Source or I call bullshit; the BUSH TAX CUTS, prescription drug plan and the UN- ENDING WARS bush got the country into HAVE to have cost your country more than any NEEDED stimulus plan or healthcare.
Bush not spending ENOUGH is not a bragging point, especially when the real solution is to tax the rich/corporations and invest it into stabilizing the plummeting wealth of the middle class.
Corporations WONT hire people when there is no one purchasing their goods; the situation you get when you cripple your middle class.
Corporations WILL hire people when there are people purchasing their goods despite minuscule increases in their taxes. Profit is still profit.
At the end of the day though; fellow TL poster, can you really stand by the idea that national healthcare, done correctly, is a BAD thing? I man it just seems so disgustingly un-civilized to think that MEDICINE or EDUCATION is being denied to fellow citizens but it's alright because the wealthy are staying wealthy.
I'm Canadian and we have national healthcare and I pay for it in my taxes. I pay for it proudly; I would rather trust my government to be overly kind to my countries peoples, one of which being myself, than to trust a corporation, who's ends can only ever be profit, with a service as vital as the maintenance of human life.
I'm about to leave unfortunately, but I can say this, if you are Canadian, I'm not surprised you haven't heard of this... nothing against you, but I can't imagine you are as in tune with what happens and our budget as we are But if you would like, you can even google for comparisons. And the Stimulus ended up being almost a trillion dollars, if I recall, and the one that Bush signed was supported by Obama. The government can't say "the tax cuts will LOSE us money" because, guess what? The money isn't THEIRS until we pay it. it belongs to the people, FIRST. So that argument has been BS since the beginning. And healthcare is going to cost us a truckload, social security as well, AND Medicare and Medicaid. It's absurd. And the stimulus was crap, it didn't help (look at the numbers, and some of the places the money went. Like a project to find out the effect of Cocaine on monkeys, though I'm sure that's justified by the fact that it will "help them help people")
Healthcare here would so much better if it could be sold privately in a competitive market ACROSS STATE LINES. that is one of the biggest problems. I can't believe that a "human right" includes something that other people have to participate in.... there is a right to life, speech, etc, but those don't relay on others. that's a fundamental difference. And what good is providing healthcare if you destroy the county it's in later? Also, I don't trust the government to do better than private firms and companies. Ever heard the phrase "it's good enough for government work?"
Also, the top 1% (in terms of wealth)... If i recall correctly, contribute at least 90% of all dollars collected from income taxes. Yes, tax them some more. Almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax.
I wish I had the time for the cites, if you REALLY want, you can research it, or I can get back to you later. btw, I'm not rich, my family actually fits into the lowest tax bracket.
What world do you live in that completely free-market health care is successful for anyone but the greedy amoral corporations selling it? Ditto for the lie about 50% of americans not paying taxes....
Obama has been in office for two and a half years, quite a difference from four.
Um, approx. 47% don't pay federal income tax, which is what I was referring to. And yes, the companies are in it for profit, if you let them sell more places, competition increases the quality. They make more money by getting more customers by finding the best balance of price and quality. The government does everything badly, and has no reason to do it well. Besides the fact that I would argue that it (especially the individual mandate in the bill) is unconstitutional. Obama's spending is worse than Bush's. I am now walking out the door, but do some research, on all sides.
Think about the initial step to implementing any social policy, even ones with the best of intentions like Universal Healthcare. You have to take away someone else's earned income. Theft, backed by force, is the first step to enacting these policies.
As for the richest 1 or 00.1%, it's absolutely unfair how some of them got their money. But tax cuts for them isn't the problem. The problem is that many of them are subsidized by the gov't giving them an unfair advantage in what would be a more competitive marketplace, and some were even bailed out, creating the moral hazard of reinforcing risky business behavior. These subsidies and bailouts are the gov't effectively taking tax money from the lower & middle class and giving it to the upper class.
Another problem is the Federal Reserve inflating the currency, which decreasing the purchase power of the dollar, which is a heavy tax on the middle & lower class. It effectively works to wipe out the class and create a huge disparity of wealth.
Add to that, the money we borrow from other countries to support our overspending, creates this increasing debt problem which will also hurt the middle and lower socioeconomic class.
On August 17 2011 04:53 Multifail wrote: Obama could have been one of the nation's best presidents, the timing for him is just horrible and timing is everything in politics (as in most things), and he knew that going in to it. But for most people, the fact that the US economy is still in trouble is his fault, even though it is more a problem of eight years of stupid combined with the fact that most Americans are just plain uncompetitive in a global economy. $20 bills didn't start growing in their garden a year after he was elected, and for most people that is a failure.
At this point, the only republican candidate that wouldn't cause me to leave the country if elected is Romney, so I guess I'm pulling for him?
I'm pretty sure Obama is going to coast to another term, mainly because its hard to throw out someone who has four years experience on the job, as long as he hasn't completely screwed everything up, which he hasn't.
Obama spent more in his first year than Bush did in 4 (it might have even been all eight). His spending is what is killing him the most right now. For instance, we CAN'T AFFORD the healthcare plan.
if it's still Bush's fault after four years, then maybe it could be blamed on Clinton? I suppose Carter also was simply "unlucky". Be consistent.
Your completely undocumented, uncited and clearly unbiased response is definitely worth responding to in a meaningful way.
On August 17 2011 06:27 Fleebenworth wrote: Ditto for the lie about 50% of americans not paying taxes....
You can't just pull your head out of the sand to make this comment then return without backing it up. It's true, about 50% of the country does not pay federal income tax and the top 1% pays about as much (more in 2008) as 95% of the population in federal income taxes. So, how much is enough ?
Also, I realize the hypocrisy of many members of the GOP. They say they're for reducing gov't spending, but they lobby like vultures to get their hands on any gov't money and would not support a reduction in any spending that fits their personal interests.
eg. Republicans who talk about less spending, but never talk about the fiscal cost of multiple wars and military engagements.
But just because these neocons or conservative hypocrites are wrong (or evil & greedy as some believe), that doesn't make the generic liberal view correct.
This is why I support Ron Paul, and not these other liars.
Obama spent more in his first year than Bush did in 4 (it might have even been all eight). His spending is what is killing him the most right now. For instance, we CAN'T AFFORD the healthcare plan.
if it's still Bush's fault after four years, then maybe it could be blamed on Clinton? I suppose Carter also was simply "unlucky". Be consistent.
This cannot be accurate.
Source or I call bullshit; the BUSH TAX CUTS, prescription drug plan and the UN- ENDING WARS bush got the country into HAVE to have cost your country more than any NEEDED stimulus plan or healthcare.
Bush not spending ENOUGH is not a bragging point, especially when the real solution is to tax the rich/corporations and invest it into stabilizing the plummeting wealth of the middle class.
Corporations WONT hire people when there is no one purchasing their goods; the situation you get when you cripple your middle class.
Corporations WILL hire people when there are people purchasing their goods despite minuscule increases in their taxes. Profit is still profit.
At the end of the day though; fellow TL poster, can you really stand by the idea that national healthcare, done correctly, is a BAD thing? I man it just seems so disgustingly un-civilized to think that MEDICINE or EDUCATION is being denied to fellow citizens but it's alright because the wealthy are staying wealthy.
I'm Canadian and we have national healthcare and I pay for it in my taxes. I pay for it proudly; I would rather trust my government to be overly kind to my countries peoples, one of which being myself, than to trust a corporation, who's ends can only ever be profit, with a service as vital as the maintenance of human life.
I'm about to leave unfortunately, but I can say this, if you are Canadian, I'm not surprised you haven't heard of this... nothing against you, but I can't imagine you are as in tune with what happens and our budget as we are But if you would like, you can even google for comparisons. And the Stimulus ended up being almost a trillion dollars, if I recall, and the one that Bush signed was supported by Obama. The government can't say "the tax cuts will LOSE us money" because, guess what? The money isn't THEIRS until we pay it. it belongs to the people, FIRST. So that argument has been BS since the beginning. And healthcare is going to cost us a truckload, social security as well, AND Medicare and Medicaid. It's absurd. And the stimulus was crap, it didn't help (look at the numbers, and some of the places the money went. Like a project to find out the effect of Cocaine on monkeys, though I'm sure that's justified by the fact that it will "help them help people")
Healthcare here would so much better if it could be sold privately in a competitive market ACROSS STATE LINES. that is one of the biggest problems. I can't believe that a "human right" includes something that other people have to participate in.... there is a right to life, speech etc, but those don't relay on others. that's a fundamental difference. And what good is providing healthcare if you destroy the county it's in later? Also, I don't trust the government to do better than private firms and companies. Ever heard the phrase "it's good enough for government work?"
Also, the top 1% (in terms of wealth)... If i recall correctly, contribute at least 90% of all dollars collected from income taxes. Yes, tax them some more. Almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax.
I wish I had the time for the cites, if you REALLY want, you can research it, or I can get back to you later. btw, I'm not rich, my family actually fits into the lowest tax bracket.
Ill point out a few ordeals,
The stimulus ended up being largely tax cuts to they so called job creators, in fact I believe it was near half of the funds. So yea, most of those funds were wasted then since tax cuts don't necessarily create jobs. I don't feel like beating the supply side economics bit again, lets just say who cares if businesses can hire more people if there wasn't any demand to be met by bring on more workers.
It's also important to note that small business owners are terrible for hiring. Much of the wealth/jobs comes from small businesses rhetoric comes with how badly those numbers are gathered. Basically anyone who reports any sort of hobby income are reclassified as small business because they filled out the same schedule on their income tax sheet that an actual small business owner would (say your wife sold a bunch of arts and crafts for 200$ last year and youre the ceo for haliburton, you and your wife are now considered small business owners according to how those numbers are generated)
The health care act in all its failings is expected to actually reduce the deficit so theres that.
I work in the insurance business and yes selling across state lines would help, tort reform would not however, as I said earlier in thread I'm from Texas we passed tort reform and rates went up, go figure. ( Ok well since some one will ask, it basically boils down to if the punishment for being detrimental to the health of a person gets lessened theres less incentive not to malpractice and therefore quality of care goes down increasing return visits and ultimately driving the cost of healthcare back up)
In many cases a rather sickening portion of your premiums do not go towards your actual healthcare, they pay for me selling it to you and to the actual company, one of the big problems is that since companies all derive the actual cost of servicing you from similar actuarial tables it's really easy to peg what everyone in your market class is charging in a sort of informal collusion sort of way, in such that the easiest way to drive your profitability up is going out of your way to deny coverage and beat what the actuaries said the expense would be.
Single payer is cheaper because less people need to get paid in this equation, thats before we even get into the concept of risk pooling.
Rich people pay most of the INCOME TAX its a little more like the top 2-3% pay about 90% of it IIRC. However, comparative to other nation they get off really freakign easy, you know its bad when such a dirty socialist commie like Warren Buffett publicly tells congress its time to stop coddling billionaires like his friends and himself. Furthermore, you're forgetting that payroll taxes are payed for even those in the lowest of income brackets as well as all the various other taxes being poor won't let you escape, the total tax burden tends to lean more on the middle class especially in a consideration of % of income.
Obama spent more in his first year than Bush did in 4 (it might have even been all eight). His spending is what is killing him the most right now. For instance, we CAN'T AFFORD the healthcare plan.
if it's still Bush's fault after four years, then maybe it could be blamed on Clinton? I suppose Carter also was simply "unlucky". Be consistent.
This cannot be accurate.
Source or I call bullshit; the BUSH TAX CUTS, prescription drug plan and the UN- ENDING WARS bush got the country into HAVE to have cost your country more than any NEEDED stimulus plan or healthcare.
Bush not spending ENOUGH is not a bragging point, especially when the real solution is to tax the rich/corporations and invest it into stabilizing the plummeting wealth of the middle class.
Corporations WONT hire people when there is no one purchasing their goods; the situation you get when you cripple your middle class.
Corporations WILL hire people when there are people purchasing their goods despite minuscule increases in their taxes. Profit is still profit.
At the end of the day though; fellow TL poster, can you really stand by the idea that national healthcare, done correctly, is a BAD thing? I man it just seems so disgustingly un-civilized to think that MEDICINE or EDUCATION is being denied to fellow citizens but it's alright because the wealthy are staying wealthy.
I'm Canadian and we have national healthcare and I pay for it in my taxes. I pay for it proudly; I would rather trust my government to be overly kind to my countries peoples, one of which being myself, than to trust a corporation, who's ends can only ever be profit, with a service as vital as the maintenance of human life.
I'm about to leave unfortunately, but I can say this, if you are Canadian, I'm not surprised you haven't heard of this... nothing against you, but I can't imagine you are as in tune with what happens and our budget as we are But if you would like, you can even google for comparisons. And the Stimulus ended up being almost a trillion dollars, if I recall, and the one that Bush signed was supported by Obama. The government can't say "the tax cuts will LOSE us money" because, guess what? The money isn't THEIRS until we pay it. it belongs to the people, FIRST. So that argument has been BS since the beginning. And healthcare is going to cost us a truckload, social security as well, AND Medicare and Medicaid. It's absurd. And the stimulus was crap, it didn't help (look at the numbers, and some of the places the money went. Like a project to find out the effect of Cocaine on monkeys, though I'm sure that's justified by the fact that it will "help them help people")
Healthcare here would so much better if it could be sold privately in a competitive market ACROSS STATE LINES. that is one of the biggest problems. I can't believe that a "human right" includes something that other people have to participate in.... there is a right to life, speech, etc, but those don't relay on others. that's a fundamental difference. And what good is providing healthcare if you destroy the county it's in later? Also, I don't trust the government to do better than private firms and companies. Ever heard the phrase "it's good enough for government work?"
Also, the top 1% (in terms of wealth)... If i recall correctly, contribute at least 90% of all dollars collected from income taxes. Yes, tax them some more. Almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax.
I wish I had the time for the cites, if you REALLY want, you can research it, or I can get back to you later. btw, I'm not rich, my family actually fits into the lowest tax bracket.
What world do you live in that completely free-market health care is successful for anyone but the greedy amoral corporations selling it? Ditto for the lie about 50% of americans not paying taxes....
Obama has been in office for two and a half years, quite a difference from four.
Um, approx. 47% don't pay federal income tax, which is what I was referring to. And yes, the companies are in it for profit, if you let them sell more places, competition increases the quality. They make more money by getting more customers by finding the best balance of price and quality. The government does everything badly, and has no reason to do it well. Besides the fact that I would argue that it (especially the individual mandate in the bill) is unconstitutional. Obama's spending is worse than Bush's. I am now walking out the door, but do some research, on all sides.
Well FYI they pay no income tax because THEY'RE TOO POOR. A large percentage of americans don't pay capital gains tax either, does that make them deadbeats? I'm really not sure what the point is that you're getting at here.
Re: healthcare. What would really happen is a race to the bottom, as corporations do not care about the quality of care they provide or anything other than their bottom line. It is a little bit disingenuous to argue that the government does everything badly when it are responsible for building all the roads, schools, bridges, power grid, etc. that allow you to even come onto this board and make these dimwitted assertions.
The reality is that the solution to the healthcare cost problem is a single payer system, or at least allowing the government to negotiate lower prices for its medicare services. No free market system will cover everyone while keeping costs as low or lower than a single-payer system. Unless you don't think that everyone has the right to healthcare, in which case you're so ridiculously extreme and misguided that it's not worth discussing.
On August 17 2011 01:07 TwilightStar wrote: I'd participate in the poll, but I don't know enough about each candidate to make an informed decision... Which of these candidates are the least 'evil'? (from what I'm hearing Bachmann is insane)
And this is where the problem is. It's your country, your future man. Take some pride and vote. Learn about these people who may be deciding very important steps in your life. Don't ask others for opinions to choose from, make an honest choice after deciding for yourself. Hell, if you end up liking Bachmann...well, I respect your right to do so even.
Of course I wouldn't vote just because one person says "Oh candidate one likes this, or hates that", I just want to know a bit about them, then decide who i'd vote for. The thing is I don't know where I could learn about any of the candidates without it being completely biased.
On August 17 2011 01:07 TwilightStar wrote: I'd participate in the poll, but I don't know enough about each candidate to make an informed decision... Which of these candidates are the least 'evil'? (from what I'm hearing Bachmann is insane)
And this is where the problem is. It's your country, your future man. Take some pride and vote. Learn about these people who may be deciding very important steps in your life. Don't ask others for opinions to choose from, make an honest choice after deciding for yourself. Hell, if you end up liking Bachmann...well, I respect your right to do so even.
Of course I wouldn't vote just because one person says "Oh candidate one likes this, or hates that", I just want to know a bit about them, then decide who i'd vote for. The thing is I don't know where I could learn about any of the candidates without it being completely biased.
I can't vouch for the other candidates, but I like Dr. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
If you want to learn about Ron Paul, I'd suggest Liberty Defined, by: Ron Paul . He lays out his beliefs, and explains his reasoning for his positions. It's not like the normal, self-adulating autobiography of many politicians, so you'll be a big disappointed that he doesn't talk about how great of a human being he is.
From that book and in general, there are personal views of his I don't agree with. Like he's pro-life, but at least he explains thought process, and overall he holds consistent that it's not the role of the Federal gov't to implement pro-life policies. Even when it's not the traditional GOP view, he'll say that it's not the Federal gov't's role to say that gays can't marry or gays have to be held silent in the military.
Another book he's written of a view of his that's gotten mainstream backing is End the Fed.
Here's an example of him explaining his view of pro-life. For example, I may not fully agree with him, but listen to his reasoning.
On August 17 2011 06:02 jcarlson08 wrote: Here you are betrayed by your ignorance of the education system, as you completely ignore the overwhelming number one reason people pursue PhDs: research. (Also, do you even know what Social Services means? I'm not convinced you do...) You're correct that you don't need a PhD in Computer Science to get a job in computer science. Hell, you don't even really need a bachelor's to be a code monkey. But you are completely wrong in assuming that these people are creating jobs or that people with PhDs do not.
There are many small businesses engaged in software engineering across this country, and they provide jobs, as small businesses tend to do.
Yet they wouldn't have any languages to program with or computers to program on without the research and innovation from people with PhDs.
Bill Gates is a one in a million success story; the reality is that the vast majority of people with no more than a bachelor's degree do not employ anyone and are responsible for exactly 0 jobs created, ever. On the other hand, PhD powered research, whether conducted publicly at a research university or privately at a place like Bell Labs is responsible for spawning entire INDUSTRIES and creating MILLIONS of jobs in this country alone. Among other things, research at Bell Labs has resulted in the creation of the transistor (without which modern computers would not exist), the laser, the C programming language and it's derivative, C++ (The two languages that power most of the world's computer programs), and the CCD sensor (the type of circuit that detects the image in nearly every digital camera in the world). By their nature, PhD research results in the creation of NEW knowledge in a field, the practical applications of which very often result in industry growth and job creation. The PhDs may not in every case be directly employing the people working in their field, but make no mistake, if it wasn't for them, there wouldn't be a field at all.
You refer to Bell Labs R&D to prove that people pursuing PhD's generate jobs ? Those jobs are created by Bell Labs.
A new small business creates a dozen jobs. A new research breakthrough expands, or creates, entire fields, and thousands or potentially millions of jobs. I'm not saying small businesses are bad. I recognize that they employ slightly over half the people in this country. But most bachelor degree holders and below are NOT small business owners, and most small business owners (especially the most SUCCESSFUL small business owners; see HERE) have a graduate degree or better. Your implication that PhDs (and the post-baccalaureate educated in general) just sit in front of a chalkboard and don't create jobs is asinine.
Innovation is a cornerstone of healthy economic growth. New ideas need a solid foundation of knowledge to rest upon; they don't just appear out of nowhere in someone's head (at least not in the vast majority of cases). That solid foundation is fostered and grown almost exclusively by the so called "liberal" academia; PhD researchers and their assistants who continually push the limits of human discovery.
On August 17 2011 06:27 Fleebenworth wrote: Ditto for the lie about 50% of americans not paying taxes....
You can't just pull your head out of the sand to make this comment then return without backing it up. It's true, about 50% of the country does not pay federal income tax and the top 1% pays about as much (more in 2008) as 95% of the population in federal income taxes. So, how much is enough ?
As a big democrat I actually wouldn't feel bad about voting for Ron Paul. I actually like the guy and think I would trust him to do whats right. Don't know if I would vote him over Obama yet though, I wanna see if Obama will actually get tough.
EPT
But if you would like, you can even google for comparisons. And the Stimulus ended up being almost a trillion dollars, if I recall, and the one that Bush signed was supported by Obama. The government can't say "the tax cuts will LOSE us money" because, guess what? The money isn't THEIRS until we pay it. it belongs to the people, FIRST. So that argument has been BS since the beginning. And healthcare is going to cost us a truckload, social security as well, AND Medicare and Medicaid. It's absurd. And the stimulus was crap, it didn't help (look at the numbers, and some of the places the money went. Like a project to find out the effect of Cocaine on monkeys, though I'm sure that's justified by the fact that it will "help them help people")
