Duke4.net Forums: Political Shitshooting - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

Hide message Show message
Welcome to the Duke4.net Forums!

Register an account now to get access to all board features. After you've registered and logged in, you'll be able to create topics, post replies, send and receive private messages, disable the viewing of ads and more!

  • 12 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Political Shitshooting  "previously: YEAH! WOOHOO! Liberals got the same healthcare pla"

User is offline   Person of Color 

  • Senior Unpaid Intern at Viceland
  • 2,889

#61

View PostAchenar, on 01 July 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

There isn't. Everyone in this thread is full of shit, really, even me, because we're all arguing without knowing all the facts.


Not at all. There's a huge difference between being full of shit and having some stuck under a fingernail.

View PostMad Max RW, on 01 July 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

I'd be interested in what he says after ten years in the real world.


That's kind of the point I was driving home...the fact that an econ student knows more than Mikko does on many subjects.

Posted Image
There is no race, only racists.
Proud trigendered babysexual pan-Korean anarcho-transhumanist
Muslims are peaceful people oppressed by cis white males! Hillary for presidynt!
WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED BY DONALD TRUMP'S VIOLENCE!
0

User is offline   Mikko 

  • Honored Donor
  • 710

#62

View PostDescent, on 01 July 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

How is $7.25/hr comfortable? That's poverty level. You can't live on that in any part of New York State, nor can you live on minimum wage almost anywhere now. Rent is too high, car insurance, gas prices, etc.


I said "many", not all, specifically to prevent you from trying to use McDonalds as some kind of an example. Waste collectors, for example, make around $40 000 a year. Butchers are those who clean up CA's septic tanks make close to $30 000 a year.

Btw, even the current minimum wage is probably too high as there's still lots of involuntary unemployment among the low-skilled. Ask your econ friend to explain the concept of market clearing to you.

There are 50 states in America and New York is probably one of the most expensive ones. If you choose to stick around you've only got yourself to blame. If many people choose to stick around, they're the ones responsible for the upward pressure on prices. Ask your econ friend to explain how demand can cause upward pressure on prices.

Quote

You're argument is idealistic, not pragmatic. Upper class people must pay more to keep services running, and poor people must pay less because, naturally, they make less.


Why should the rich pay for services used by the poor? You might as well argue that I should pay for your internet bill.

Quote

Demand generates jobs. How can you create demand if you expand taxes on the poor and middle class?


Ask your econ friend to explain how such demand-side arguments have been out of fashion since the '70s.

Quote

Yes, they are. It's globalization run rampant.


Explain how jobs that are being moved to Mexico "belong" to Americans. The money you could use to purchase goods: does it belong to the retailer?

Quote

P.S. My brother's friend is center right and goes Villanova University, which is a damn fine college. He is an economics major, and he'll be graduating in half a year.

He thinks your posts are hilarious. He also said, quote on quote, "This guy is so full of shit."


(To the tune of "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean")

The Lurkers support me in e-mail
They all think I'm great don't you know.
You posters just don't understand me
But soon you will reap what you sow.

Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.

The lurkers support me in e-mail
"So why don't they post?" you all cry
They're scared of your hostile intentions
They just can't be as brave as I.

Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.

One day I'll round up all my lurkers
We'll have a newsgroup of our own
Without all this flak from you morons
My lurkers will post round my throne.

Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.


http://barb.velvet.c...or/lurkers.html

Quote

P.P.S. The fact that you called CA a "fascist" and resorted to unsubstantiated reactionary talking points is proof of your ignorance.


CA described involuntary taxation - the seizure of millions of dollars from rich people - as "asking someone to contribute". This is a textbook example of fascist rhetoric. Similarly the Soviet Union had free elections, concentration camps were just labor camps, North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Soviets were dropping "bread baskets" over Finland.

| MSDN: The best Duke3D usermap review site | | BLOG | | Fate Reversal ModDB |
Posted Image

This post has been edited by Mikko_Sandt: 02 July 2012 - 06:08 AM

0

User is offline   Jimmy 100MPH 

  • Trooper
  • 4,371

#63

Your argument about it making me a fascist is bullshit, because motherfucking news flash, the taxes they're paying now are involuntary. The higher taxes poor people pay are involuntary. Your argument is only valid if you are supporting the abolition of all taxes. Jack should be paying the same tax rate as Jim. If he wants to pay less, that's what tax write-offs are for.

Coke costs a lot of money you know. - oasiz

This post has been edited by Captain Awesome: 02 July 2012 - 11:24 AM

0

User is offline   Inspector Lagomorf 

  • Glory To Motherland!
  • -4,939

#64

View PostCaptain Awesome, on 02 July 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

If he wants to pay less, that's what tax write-offs are for.


NO!!!
Get rid of the god damn tax deductions. If we're going to clean up any of the mess with taxes not being paid, the way we should be doing it is by overhauling and consolidating our tax system, not by subsidizing or penalizing parties. Close the loopholes, and stop people from cheating the tax system.

Cobrastan is not a real country.
Keep Radar away!

This post has been edited by Achenar: 02 July 2012 - 11:50 AM

0

User is offline   Sangman 

  • 490

#65

All I know is Mikko should be the president of a country that I would move to

traB pu kciP
1

User is offline   wayskobfssae 

  • 71

#66

So, all things considered, I'm OK with the healthcare plan. It's got problems, but it's a good idea, and sadly, something like this is needed.

But whether or not free healthcare exists, it all boils down to one thing, NOBODY should be unable to afford healthcare. And if the Republicans don't like it, then they can come up with an alternative way to make healthcare affordable to everyone, such as...

... saying FU to the lobbyists, taxing the hell out of outsourcing, removing the tax break for overseas businesses, and BRINGING THE JOBS BACK TO THE USA.

But we know that will never happen. Republicans have already demonstrated that they would sooner see America's credit rating drop, than put the rich through the awkward situation of only being able to afford a 9 bathroom mansion instead of a 10 bathroom one.

Posted Image
0

User is offline   Inspector Lagomorf 

  • Glory To Motherland!
  • -4,939

#67

View Postwayskobfssae, on 23 July 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

So, all things considered, I'm OK with the healthcare plan. It's got problems, but it's a good idea, and sadly, something like this is needed.

But whether or not free healthcare exists, it all boils down to one thing, NOBODY should be unable to afford healthcare. And if the Republicans don't like it, then they can come up with an alternative way to make healthcare affordable to everyone, such as...

... saying FU to the lobbyists, taxing the hell out of outsourcing, removing the tax break for overseas businesses, and BRINGING THE JOBS BACK TO THE USA.

But we know that will never happen. Republicans have already demonstrated that they would sooner see America's credit rating drop, than put the rich through the awkward situation of only being able to afford a 9 bathroom mansion instead of a 10 bathroom one.


The idea of "free healthcare" is an impossibility, a buzzword, a pipedream, because it has to be paid for, and it's going to hit businesses hard when they are required to comply with new regulations and taxes (yes, taxes) come 2013.

You can't bring businesses back to the United States as long as we still have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Also, the people you call "the rich" - those who make over $250,000 a year - include small businesses that report as individuals on their tax forms. They don't have the money to afford those 9-bathroom mansions you speak of, but you will never hear that from the political class. If you raise taxes for those businesses, that will do nothing to jumpstart the economy, yet that is exactly what the Democrats plan to do. Further, the Republicans have sent well over 30 bills to the Senate for the express purposes of creating jobs and stimulating economic growth - all of them not even brought to the floor by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And you say that the Republicans are the problem?

You should be less concerned about jobs being outsourced and more about these two particular words: FISCAL CLIFF

Cobrastan is not a real country.
Keep Radar away!

This post has been edited by Achenar: 24 July 2012 - 06:23 AM

0

User is offline   Mad Max RW 

  • 214

#68

Quiet Achenar. Never let facts get in the way of liberal talking points.

People (liberals) conveniently ignore how "rich" varies from state to state. Here in Connecticut a 250k income can't sustain a family who wants to own a house. In NYC it's barely enough for one person to afford a small apartment. So what do they do? They leave and go to a state that is more affordable, taking businesses (and taxpayer money) with them. What will happen if there is nowhere else to go? Leave the country.

This post has been edited by Mad Max RW: 24 July 2012 - 07:17 AM

1

User is offline   Mikko 

  • Honored Donor
  • 710

#69

View Postwayskobfssae, on 23 July 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

But whether or not free healthcare exists, it all boils down to one thing, NOBODY should be unable to afford healthcare. And if the Republicans don't like it, then they can come up with an alternative way to make healthcare affordable to everyone, such as...


The Republicans have many sound propositions, some of which I mentioned earlier: "There are simple, clear cut ways to decrease costs such as by allowing competition across state lines, abolishing the FDA, capping damages for medical negligence (the lawyer-infested Democrats would probably never allow it) and allowing non-doctor medical personnel to perform simple procedures that are now the monopoly of doctors."

Quote

... saying FU to the lobbyists, taxing the hell out of outsourcing, removing the tax break for overseas businesses, and BRINGING THE JOBS BACK TO THE USA.


What this has got to do with affordable health care except in the sense that both national income and employment increase as a result of free trade, making health care more affordable? There's piles of data on this subject and it's one of the few uncontroversial subjects among economists. Oursourcing is good. There's no such a thing as a closed high-income economy.

| MSDN: The best Duke3D usermap review site | | BLOG | | Fate Reversal ModDB |
Posted Image
0

User is offline   wayskobfssae 

  • 71

#70

View PostMad Max RW, on 24 July 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

Quiet Achenar. Never let facts get in the way of liberal talking points.

People (liberals) conveniently ignore how "rich" varies from state to state. Here in Connecticut a 250k income can't sustain a family who wants to own a house. In NYC it's barely enough for one person to afford a small apartment. So what do they do? They leave and go to a state that is more affordable, taking businesses (and taxpayer money) with them. What will happen if there is nowhere else to go? Leave the country.


I don't ignore it. Of course taxes should take into account the ratio of "just above poverty line" living requirements to the actual income. It's equally an unlikely situation though as anything else. And sadly we've had politicians (who by the way have all taken courses in PR) saying idiotic things that certainly don't help matters any.

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=HW2VW-Z1M94

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 24 July 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

The Republicans have many sound propositions, some of which I mentioned earlier: "There are simple, clear cut ways to decrease costs such as by allowing competition across state lines, abolishing the FDA, capping damages for medical negligence (the lawyer-infested Democrats would probably never allow it) and allowing non-doctor medical personnel to perform simple procedures that are now the monopoly of doctors."

What this has got to do with affordable health care except in the sense that both national income and employment increase as a result of free trade, making health care more affordable? There's piles of data on this subject and it's one of the few uncontroversial subjects among economists. Oursourcing is good. There's no such a thing as a closed high-income economy.


That was exactly my point. If the people had the money, they wouldn't need the government to give them health care.

As for solutions to bring down some of the elements that serve to make medical care outrageously expensive, you really think only Democrats would be likely to block some of the solutions you cited?

Outsourcing is NOT good. Maybe in a different world it could be, but there is nothing 'good' about screwing over your own people to go save a buck somewhere else. A similar scenario already dragged America through a Hell and a half. One of the reasons our economy is crippled because we're facing a very similar situation that incited the Civil War. Was slavery a part of it? Yeah. But not primarily for the benevolent reason that history tells us (though that made for great motivational propaganda). The North had no ability to compete with the free labor class that the South enjoyed. How could one business that pays its employees ever have any chance of competing with another business that doesn't pay them anything? Obviously they can't.

The "plantations" aren't gone though. They just have their slaves away from U.S. shores in places where American policy has no say.

Outsourcing would be great if all the nations of the world had the same ethics and the same idea of human rights. But that isn't the case, and American workers are trying to compete with workers who can afford to live on far less money. The global economy will always be outrageously flawed, unless the playing field can be leveled and everyone has to play by the same rules.

Posted Image

This post has been edited by wayskobfssae: 24 July 2012 - 01:01 PM

0

User is offline   Inspector Lagomorf 

  • Glory To Motherland!
  • -4,939

#71

View Postwayskobfssae, on 24 July 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

Outsourcing is NOT good. Maybe in a different world it could be, but there is nothing 'good' about screwing over your own people to go save a buck somewhere else. A similar scenario already dragged America through a Hell and a half. One of the reasons our economy is crippled because we're facing a very similar situation that incited the Civil War. Was slavery a part of it? Yeah. But not primarily for the benevolent reason that history tells us (though that made for great motivational propaganda). The North had no ability to compete with the free labor class that the South enjoyed. How could one business that pays its employees ever have any chance of competing with another business that doesn't pay them anything? Obviously they can't.

The "plantations" aren't gone though. They just have their slaves away from U.S. shores in places where American policy has no say.

Outsourcing would be great if all the nations of the world had the same ethics and the same idea of human rights. But that isn't the case, and American workers are trying to compete with workers who can afford to live on far less money. The global economy will always be outrageously flawed, unless the playing field can be leveled and everyone has to play by the same rules.


I've always believed that China should be held accountable, i.e. sanctioned (i.e. forcibly halted from subjecting their workers to extremely poor human rights conditions), but because the United Nations doesn't have the guts to stand up to them (they would rather dabble in globalist policies like the so-called "law of the sea") they have a solid choke-hold on the world economy because of their flagrant disregard for basic human rights. And preventing businesses from hiring overseas isn't going to make them hire American workers; they'll just pack up and leave America full stop. We need to encourage business growth here, and using Occupy Wall Street's idea of $20/hr. minimum wage and free health insurance/benefits for all is not the way to do it, not while China dangles the temptation of low-cost labor over the heads of prospective corporations.

You know, considering how we solved the slavery problem in the South with a Civil War, one would suggest through this logic that we should invade China.

Cobrastan is not a real country.
Keep Radar away!

This post has been edited by Achenar: 24 July 2012 - 03:38 PM

0

User is offline   wayskobfssae 

  • 71

#72

View PostAchenar, on 24 July 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

You know, considering how we solved the slavery problem in the South with a Civil War, one would suggest through this logic that we should invade China.


Yes that would make sense but one must keep in mind who the biggest supporters of politicians: the tycoons who have invested everything into that cheap labor.

Posted Image
0

User is offline   Mikko 

  • Honored Donor
  • 710

#73

View Postwayskobfssae, on 24 July 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

Outsourcing is NOT good. Maybe in a different world it could be, but there is nothing 'good' about screwing over your own people to go save a buck somewhere else. A similar scenario already dragged America through a Hell and a half. One of the reasons our economy is crippled because we're facing a very similar situation that incited the Civil War. Was slavery a part of it? Yeah. But not primarily for the benevolent reason that history tells us (though that made for great motivational propaganda). The North had no ability to compete with the free labor class that the South enjoyed. How could one business that pays its employees ever have any chance of competing with another business that doesn't pay them anything? Obviously they can't.


It makes no sense whatsoever for America to manufacture products that can be manufactured more efficiently somewhere else. Familiarize yourself with the concept of comparative advantage. Imagine a simple situation: you're stranded on a deserted island with your friend. The island can be used to produce just two goods: coconuts and fish. The two of you are likely to have differences in productivity, i.e., how many units of coconuts and fish you're able to produce per unit of time. Considering this, the two of you should arrange it so that the total value (or simply amount if 1 coconut = 1 fish) of the two goods is maximized. This value is the real (measured in goods rather than monetary units) GDP of the island. Insisting on a less efficient production arrangement would be insanity, leaving you with less goods to consume. (Note that it doesn't matter if one of you is more efficient than the other in producing both goods because it's the ratio of productivities that matters; hence the "comparative" in comparative advantage.)

American firms have no more of an obligation to purchase labor from American workers than you have an obligation to purchase goods from American manufacturers. If low-tech jobs can be done more efficiently by someone else, the United States can become a higher-tech economy because it no longer has to allocate scarce resources toward the production of lower-tech goods: if you insist on manufacturing cars, the money used to manufacture cars cannot be used to produce something the US would be better off producing. This loss is the opportunity cost of manufacturing cars in the United States. If something can be produced with less money, total production can be expanded. Similarly if you purchase a game that's 50% off the initial price, you're left with more money to purchase other goods.

Quote

American workers are trying to compete with workers who can afford to live on far less money.


And all you need to understand is that this is a great thing, as explained above.

Quote

As for solutions to bring down some of the elements that serve to make medical care outrageously expensive, you really think only Democrats would be likely to block some of the solutions you cited?


Democrat opposition explains the lack of market-friendly reforms.

| MSDN: The best Duke3D usermap review site | | BLOG | | Fate Reversal ModDB |
Posted Image
0

User is offline   wayskobfssae 

  • 71

#74

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 25 July 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

American firms have no more of an obligation to purchase labor from American workers than you have an obligation to purchase goods from American manufacturers. If low-tech jobs can be done more efficiently by someone else, the United States can become a higher-tech economy because it no longer has to allocate scarce resources toward the production of lower-tech goods: if you insist on manufacturing cars, the money used to manufacture cars cannot be used to produce something the US would be better off producing. This loss is the opportunity cost of manufacturing cars in the United States. If something can be produced with less money, total production can be expanded. Similarly if you purchase a game that's 50% off the initial price, you're left with more money to purchase other goods.


That sounds wonderful.

Now, if only human American mothers can evolve to only produce children optimized for hightech jobs - pretty unlikely considering America was a nation powered by factory workers just half a century ago.

So what's your solution for the rest of those people incapable of doing high tech jobs? I guess we need more fast food restaurants to stimulate the burger flipper industry.

I understand the point you're making, but it doesn't explain how this nation is supposed to continue surviving. A nation can only specialize its industries so much, because humans don't get to pick and choose what they're naturally proficient at. What do we do with all those laborers who aren't capable of rocket science, or at the very least, administration?

Posted Image

This post has been edited by wayskobfssae: 25 July 2012 - 05:55 AM

0

User is offline   Mikko 

  • Honored Donor
  • 710

#75

View Postwayskobfssae, on 25 July 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

Now, if only human American mothers can evolve to only produce children optimized for hightech jobs - pretty unlikely considering America was a nation powered by factory workers just half a century ago.


What are you talking about? America has been at the forefront of this process since its foundation. In fact, this is pretty much exactly what you just said! Only about a century ago the American economy was heavily dependent on agriculture. Then that got sidelined by manufacturing. Now the share of manufacturing (industry) seems to have stabilized while the share of services is on the increase. America is a post-industrial society so this is only natural. America may have a relatively bad public education system but that is more than compensated by high-skill immigration, a huge boost to the American economy. Other countries such as Finland, France etc. can only dream of attracting such talent. All we get is Muslims with no intention or prospects of finding a job. American universities are the best in the world.

Quote

So what's your solution for the rest of those people incapable of doing high tech jobs?


Adapt or die, which is what they've been doing for two and a half centuries now with little trouble. There are plenty of low-skill service occupations available. So yes, they can go flip burgers rather than holding the entire country hostage for the sake of their now-obsolete jobs. If we caved in to the luddites' (that's exactly what these "they took our jobs!" people are) demands, we'd all still be working on family farms sixteen hours a day in awful conditions, dying before turning 30. Life back in the days was fucking awful and that's because productivity was so low. Reactionaries need to be crushed.

Quote

I understand the point you're making, but it doesn't explain how this nation is supposed to continue surviving. A nation can only specialize its industries so much, because humans don't get to pick and choose what they're naturally proficient at. What do we do with all those laborers who aren't capable of rocket science, or at the very least, administration?


People update their skills all the time, including the idiots. You've probably heard old people complain about how kids these days cannot operate an axe, which is a stupid point to make because such a skill is almost totally useless today. But kids these days can operate computers, for example, a skill the old people lack, resulting in them developing a sense of inferiority which makes them brag about how good they were with tools back in the days and how kids these days cannot do shit.

| MSDN: The best Duke3D usermap review site | | BLOG | | Fate Reversal ModDB |
Posted Image
0

User is offline   Martin 

  • 155

#76

National healthcare works a charm over here in the ol' United of Kingdom. There are downsides of course (such as high taxes), but nothing's perfect. At the end of the day, if I randomly break something or otherwise sustain a serious injury, I don't have to worry about where the money to fix me up is going to come from. I just get taken to the hospital, they fix it, I go home. There are often little things to moan about with the NHS, such as waiting times, etc. I think it's way better than what you have in the US, though. Over here even a tramp receives medical care if they really need it. All you have to do in the UK is walk into a hospital if you have an immediate problem, or go to your doctor if it's not so immediate. The only caveat being that you have to be a UK citizen. Apparently our healthcare system is the reason a lot of people emigrate here. There are still private practices if you're rich enough, but the point is that you don't have to be. In the UK, healthcare is for everyone, whether they can afford it or not.

<span style="color:#FF0000;">WANTED:</span> American versions of Duke Nukem: Zero Hour, Hexen, and Quake II. I live in the UK. Will pay via PayPal. Drop me a PM.
2

User is offline   Mad Max RW 

  • 214

#77

View PostMartin, on 25 July 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

National healthcare works a charm over here in the ol' United of Kingdom...


That's because it was slowly implemented over the last 50+ years. And right now it's catching up to you. What Obama and the Democrats want is to collapse the entire system at once and replace it with a government run bureaucracy in the span of a single term. It's like treating a stabbing victim with a shotgun blast to the face.
1

User is offline   Martin 

  • 155

#78

Ha, our economic crisis isn't down to the NHS. That article didn't even mention our healthcare system once.

<span style="color:#FF0000;">WANTED:</span> American versions of Duke Nukem: Zero Hour, Hexen, and Quake II. I live in the UK. Will pay via PayPal. Drop me a PM.
0

User is offline   Mikko 

  • Honored Donor
  • 710

#79

View PostMartin, on 25 July 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

Ha, our economic crisis isn't down to the NHS.


No but its future depends on your economic growth and your economic growth depends on issues such as the overall tax burden which in turn is determined by the needs of institutions such as the NHS. In case you haven't noticed, countries with overblown public sectors haven't been doing well lately. Simply because it's free doesn't mean that it's free. The NHS is a huge drag on the British welfare state and the British people will suffer accordingly in due time (in the absence of radical reforms, that is).

Quote

In the UK, healthcare is for everyone, whether they can afford it or not.


But this just isn't right. For example, obesity is a problem in Britain. Is it right that the taxpayer has to pay for the treatment of obesity-related illnesses? Such a system subsidizes immoral behavior by making it so that the individual (the obese person) doesn't face the full costs of his/her actions.

| MSDN: The best Duke3D usermap review site | | BLOG | | Fate Reversal ModDB |
Posted Image
0

User is offline   Hendricks266 

  • Weaponized Autism
  • 6,348

  #80

I would agree with Mikko's positions as they are backed with extensive rationales but they suffer from problems of putting the theoretical over the practical, difficulty in bootstrapping, and loss of the human element.

For example, take outsourcing. If a manufacturer moves manufacturing from the US to another country, there are two immediate results: more money for the company, and a lot of angry rednecks. How exactly can this help the country as a whole? I can consider that prices may drop, but if you are unemployed, good luck coming up with the cash in the first place. For sure, new jobs are not created to the same number as the ones lost, and any that are made are not immediate. The benefits only appear to apply to the few at the top. Any effects must take time to spread, and while that happens, it does hurt the people.

Any sort adaptation or upward mobility comes at an up-front cost that many people just can't advance, hence bootstrapping. Going from unskilled labor to skilled, "high-tech" jobs takes a college education, for better or worse. Especially with a generational gap, people will fall down the stairs because the elevator is broken.

On the matter of taxes, it would be best to have a simple linear ratio of wealth to tax. That way, there is no true penalty for success because the curve never accelerates. It's just an even share. Indeed, the tax system is too complicated. If you go from single, childless, and living in an apartment, to married, with kids, living in a house you own/mortgage, you go from having an additional yearly chunk killing some large fraction of a paycheck on top of tax already withdrawn, to "Here, have a procreation bonus back from the taxes we already drew!".

Getting back to healthcare, take TX's example. How could you get rid of Obamacare while still manage to fund her treatment without her getting fucked and dying? These are humans we are talking about, not economic case studies. Humans are not ants, that's why the book Freakonomics was such a hit.

View PostMad Max RW, on 01 July 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

Progressives ruined this country and they're a plague in both political parties.

Progressives kick ass. They put the people first.

View PostTerminX, on 30 June 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

Is making a political point really worth sacrificing significant federal funding that goes to improve the quality of life of the state's residents?

View PostDescent, on 30 June 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

You'll keep seeing more of this shit until we get the Baby Boomers out of office. There are a massive number of them who love that childish, teenage, reactionary response. Pragmatism be damned.

View PostCaptain Awesome, on 29 June 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Work for change on the local level. Get fundamentalist Christians off your school boards, kick the rich fucks monopolizing on town hall out, bail on racist sheriffs. Get honest people to represent you on the local level, and your representatives in Washington (this is harder, but it can be done.) We're gonna have to work from the bottom up to kick corruption, shenanigans, and corporations. We're also going to have to change ourselves. Selfish ignorant citizens elect selfish ignorant leaders. Vote locally, think globally.

Also, this.
0

User is offline   Inspector Lagomorf 

  • Glory To Motherland!
  • -4,939

#81

View PostHendricks266, on 25 July 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

Progressives kick ass. They put the people first.


And libertarians don't?

How exactly would one define a "progressive" anyway? Captain Awesome's positions don't strike me as "progressive"... more like "anarcho-syndicalism".

Quote

On the matter of taxes, it would be best to have a simple linear ratio of wealth to tax. That way, there is no true penalty for success because the curve never accelerates. It's just an even share. Indeed, the tax system is too complicated. If you go from single, childless, and living in an apartment, to married, with kids, living in a house you own/mortgage, you go from having an additional yearly chunk killing some large fraction of a paycheck on top of tax already withdrawn, to "Here, have a procreation bonus back from the taxes we already drew!".


*cough*

Cobrastan is not a real country.
Keep Radar away!

This post has been edited by Achenar: 25 July 2012 - 11:24 AM

0

User is offline   Hendricks266 

  • Weaponized Autism
  • 6,348

  #82

Ideally the intersection of progressivism and libertarianism would be the best way to go. That would filter out radical welfarists and radical governmental deconstructionists.
1

User is offline   wayskobfssae 

  • 71

#83

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 25 July 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

What are you talking about? America has been at the forefront of this process since its foundation. In fact, this is pretty much exactly what you just said! Only about a century ago the American economy was heavily dependent on agriculture. Then that got sidelined by manufacturing. Now the share of manufacturing (industry) seems to have stabilized while the share of services is on the increase. America is a post-industrial society so this is only natural. America may have a relatively bad public education system but that is more than compensated by high-skill immigration, a huge boost to the American economy. Other countries such as Finland, France etc. can only dream of attracting such talent. All we get is Muslims with no intention or prospects of finding a job. American universities are the best in the world.

Adapt or die, which is what they've been doing for two and a half centuries now with little trouble. There are plenty of low-skill service occupations available. So yes, they can go flip burgers rather than holding the entire country hostage for the sake of their now-obsolete jobs. If we caved in to the luddites' (that's exactly what these "they took our jobs!" people are) demands, we'd all still be working on family farms sixteen hours a day in awful conditions, dying before turning 30. Life back in the days was fucking awful and that's because productivity was so low. Reactionaries need to be crushed.


This almost sounds like a justification for the elimination of the middle class. So we either have to be ultra-smart PhD-toting rocket scientists, or we have to mop floors. :D

"Adapt or Die" is (this is not a jab at you) the absolute lamest slogan I've ever heard being tossed around in the past couple of years, usually just as an excuse for the haves to disregard the have-nots. Adapting from agriculture to factories is a much more logical progression than adapting from factories to.... whatever it is we're doing now that we're supposed to be proud of. From that standpoint, maybe we should've never switched from war to business. Both destroy lives equally. At least in the former everyone had a fighting chance.

A service-based economy? The state of things already shows just how ridiculous that idea is. Work ethic on both sides (from employer AND employee) has taken a rapid decline in recent years and it's not hard to see why.

We've surrendered our factories so that products can be made 100x more cheaply, and then with that knowledge, our new "purpose" in the grand master plan, is to sell those products to gullible consumers - products that we know all too well aren't even worth the sweat that went into making them.

Quote

People update their skills all the time, including the idiots. You've probably heard old people complain about how kids these days cannot operate an axe, which is a stupid point to make because such a skill is almost totally useless today. But kids these days can operate computers, for example, a skill the old people lack, resulting in them developing a sense of inferiority which makes them brag about how good they were with tools back in the days and how kids these days cannot do shit.


Computers? Big ****ing deal. Every year computing tasks get simplified to the point that any idiot can do it. Remember when even using an operating system took training and study? Now any moron can slim their legs and enlarge their breasts before posting their pictures on facebook - another thing that previously would've required knowledge in HTML and using a web server. Nobody is getting jobs anymore by knowing how to use a computer. Saying you can operate a computer and a few popular applications at a job interview is like saying "I can tie my shoes." It's a standard expectation that even toddlers now know how to do, and it's not just simple computer tasks that are no longer useful in the job market. Senior network admins with 20 years of experience are in the same spot as a highschool dropout now with no prospects for the future.

Service is largely useless in a global economy. It can't be exported and therefore is mainly useless for making America a more competitive nation. So if we have the best service in the world, So what? Are people going to fly over here just to experience how much better we are at cleaning the floor behind them with our tongues? Or will we ship nurses overseas instead of produce?

Tell me, in a desperate global situation, what sounds like a better position for making deals?

#1: "Give me money or you won't have us to manage your finance."
#2: "Give me money or your city goes dark."

Service can never have as much influence as tangible goods. It's so deep-rooted in our consciousness that it has even added to the work-related depression. Nobody can take pride in their work. It even FEELS unproductive. And if that's how it feels to us, then how do you think it feels to nations that do business with us?

How is a service-based economy an UPGRADE from a production-based one? All the evidence points to the opposite. Unless you're a CEO or an investor anyhow...

Posted Image

This post has been edited by wayskobfssae: 25 July 2012 - 12:37 PM

1

User is offline   Martin 

  • 155

#84

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 25 July 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

No but its future depends on your economic growth and your economic growth depends on issues such as the overall tax burden which in turn is determined by the needs of institutions such as the NHS. In case you haven't noticed, countries with overblown public sectors haven't been doing well lately. Simply because it's free doesn't mean that it's free. The NHS is a huge drag on the British welfare state and the British people will suffer accordingly in due time (in the absence of radical reforms, that is).


The NHS has always and will always be a huge drag. It's worth the downsides because of the considerable upsides. I like my national institutions. Privatising everything isn't the answer. Some companies are more efficient than government, true. However, their motivations are not the health or well-being of the people. Their only motivation is profit and growth.

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 25 July 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

But this just isn't right. For example, obesity is a problem in Britain. Is it right that the taxpayer has to pay for the treatment of obesity-related illnesses? Such a system subsidizes immoral behavior by making it so that the individual (the obese person) doesn't face the full costs of his/her actions.


I think you're stupid, to be honest. Not all obesity is because someone visits McDonalds every day. There are genetic factors, also. Just so you know - I'm not a fatty, so that's not my angle. Should we test people for the 'fat-gene' to see if their obesity is their own fault? Should we castrate fat people so that they do not bare fat children?

Healthcare in this country is free at the point of delivery to any UK citizen. Despite the nitpicking you want to do, it's a humane society that decides education and healthcare are necessities, and are freely provided to the public through government-funding. Why stop at healthcare? Let's make all schools private, as well. Let's also ban Christmas.

<span style="color:#FF0000;">WANTED:</span> American versions of Duke Nukem: Zero Hour, Hexen, and Quake II. I live in the UK. Will pay via PayPal. Drop me a PM.
1

User is offline   Mad Max RW 

  • 214

#85

Progressives took over the Democratic party and are the worst of the Republican party (Mccain, Bush's last few years). They are the reason everything is so fucked up and need to be isolated and removed from government.
0

User is offline   Hendricks266 

  • Weaponized Autism
  • 6,348

  #86

Progressives have little foothold in the Democrats and zero in the Republicans. Anyone who calls Bush and McCain progressive is severely misinformed.

Now we're talking progressives. You don't know what "progressive" means if you are so quick to spill the mudgravy over whatever political scapegoat you so choose.
1

User is offline   Mad Max RW 

  • 214

#87

Look at their actions and it's obvious who the progressives are. Remember TARP? That was started while Bush was still president and both Mccain and Obama supported it. Few have the balls to admit to what they are*. Hint: Anybody who cites FDR or Woodrow Wilson as inspiration. They are the fathers of the progressive movement. Libertarians are like the exact opposite and will NEVER work with them.

*Except for Hillary Clinton.

This post has been edited by Mad Max RW: 25 July 2012 - 01:58 PM

0

User is online   Trooper Dan 

  • Duke Plus Developer
  • 3,676

#88

Right now I pay for my medical expenses out of pocket. I get good medical care, when I need it, and I end up paying about $1000 a year (that includes dental). It's a far cry from being free, but it's still much cheaper than buying insurance. For me to buy insurance would cost several thousand dollars a year (especially when you factor in the deductible and copays).

So now Obamacare comes along, and says I have to buy insurance or pay a large penalty (or tax, or whatever you want to call it). But here's the good news for those of us without high incomes: if the cost of insurance is above a certain percentage of our income, then we get a federal subsidy to help pay for it. Nice! But guess what? It's going to be incredibly expensive to pay for the many millions (50 million? 100?) who will get the subsidy. And while all of these people will now be going to doctors and getting more care, the number of doctors is not increasing. In fact, it's probably going to decline. I have seen scary surveys indicating the many doctors are contemplating giving up on their practices due to all the new rules and regs. What I'm afraid of is that while I may end up saving a small amount on health care, there will be supply shortage and I won't be able to see a doctor when I need to. And at the same time, the federal debt will continue to skyrocket. And I'm one of those who, theoretically, the new law is supposed to benefit the most.

*As an aside, maybe someone can explain why it's a good idea to shovel all of that money into insurance companies by forcing everyone to buy insurance from them. Paying out of pocket for the services you actually use seems to me to be much more efficient and less vulnerable to corruption. I'm not against helping those who truly can't afford it, by the way, but there are other ways of doing that.
2

User is offline   wayskobfssae 

  • 71

#89

View PostTrooper Dan, on 25 July 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

*As an aside, maybe someone can explain why it's a good idea to shovel all of that money into insurance companies by forcing everyone to buy insurance from them. Paying out of pocket for the services you actually use seems to me to be much more efficient and less vulnerable to corruption. I'm not against helping those who truly can't afford it, by the way, but there are other ways of doing that.


We're already forced to pay for car insurance. And we're practically forced to use the credit system (put ourselves into debt just to prove we can dig our way out of it), unless we're one of those rare people who can afford to buy a house or a car in a single payment.

Posted Image
0

User is online   Trooper Dan 

  • Duke Plus Developer
  • 3,676

#90

View Postwayskobfssae, on 25 July 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

We're already forced to pay for car insurance. And we're practically forced to use the credit system (put ourselves into debt just to prove we can dig our way out of it), unless we're one of those rare people who can afford to buy a house or a car in a single payment.


If that were a good form of argument, it could justify almost any bad practice that a government engages in (i.e. the government's policy regarding X is justified because it has a similar policy regarding Y). Moreover, the differences between X and Y in this case are relevant. For example, I actually do have a choice as to whether to own a car; in fact I know some working people who do not own cars -- they use public transportation, or car pools, or simply live close enough to their jobs that they can bike. Also, driving a car puts the public at additional risk in ways that merely being alive does not.
0

Share this topic:


  • 12 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks are property of their respective owners. Instead of reading this text, you could be playing Ion Maiden! ;) © 2018 Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options