Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

[johnnyrodgers20]

But you would have to waterboard me to get me to say that there could be any worse of a choice for President than Obama and I would just as soon die as utter that to save my life.

You sound rational and sane.

 

Rest easy knowing that America disagrees with you.

 

Rest easy knowing that the left wing, whacko, liberal fringe of America disagrees with you.

 

I fixed your sentence for you Carl.

[carlfense]

But you would have to waterboard me to get me to say that there could be any worse of a choice for President than Obama and I would just as soon die as utter that to save my life.

You sound rational and sane.

 

Rest easy knowing that America disagrees with you.

 

Rest easy knowing that the left wing, whacko, liberal fringe of America disagrees with you.

 

I fixed your sentence for you Carl.

Half of the country is left wing, wacko, liberal fringe? I think you might want to look at the definition of "fringe."

 

sigh.

[johnnyrodgers20]

I will look at that right after you look at all of America that disagrees with JJhusker1, DEAL?!?!?

[carlfense]

I will look at that right after you look at all of America that disagrees with JJhusker1, DEAL?!?!?

Where did I say all of America?

[johnnyrodgers20]

I will look at that right after you look at all of America that disagrees with JJhusker1, DEAL?!?!?

Where did I say all of America?

 

Here is your sentence

 

Rest easy knowing that America disagrees with you.

 

When you said America in the sentence that means the United States of America,correct? You didn't say the majority of Americans did you? So it sounds like you mean all of America.

[JJ Husker]

BTW I hate quote tags. Tried responding in topic to these but would not let me post due to an uneven number of tags.

So, here are my responses to Malth.

 

Are you being serious? Where are the left wing wackos, exactly? And what opinions and policies do you consider to be far left?

I am being serious. Left Wing Wacko is a bit of rhetoric but it has been my experience that most of the people who voted for Obama and are now not happy with him, are unhappy because he has failed to go as far left (anti-Bush if you will) as they had hoped. I simply find it amusing that I am unhappy with his leadership because I feel it has been ineffective and too far to the left and those on the left that are not pleased is because it is not far enough left for them. I do not have the inclination to go into the list of things I consider far left so not gonna do it at this time.

 

Class warfare? Like the what rich have been doing over the last 30 years? No not like that. Many of the rich have gotten that way at the expense of the little guy but most of them have done it legally within the framework of a free enterprise society. I don't blame a person for making as much as they possibly can as long as they do it legally. Most of our serious problems have been aided and abetted by congress from both sides of the aisle. I simply blame those who create the environment, not the ones who take advantage of it. And I like tracing things back to their roots. example-The housing bubble was caused by democratic social engineering so I blame the democrats for it even though I am sure many republicans contributed as well. I'm sorry that our constitution only guarantees the opportunity and not equal outcomes but that's the way it has to be in a free society.

I know I'm going to sound like a dick here, (just a little like a condescending dick but that's ok) but you don't seem to fully understand how the economy works. The proposals that the Democrats are putting out are based on actual and mainstream theories. Read up on Keynesian economics, it's all there. If we invested in rebuilding our infrastructure, it would put people to work doing something useful, and a paycheck in their pocket. This money gets spent, which helps out other businesses

Deficit spending during recessions has historically been pretty effective, because spurs economic growth when the private sector can not. It stimulates it. Drastically cutting spending in a recession achieves the opposite, since all it's doing is taking money out of the economy. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings. Deficit spending counts towards GDP growth, so spending cuts depress it and perpetuates the issue. Austerity begets austerity. Why would you want to deliberately slow growth when more growth is what we actually need? Correct me if I am wrong but I'm pretty sure these actual and mainstream theories have done squat to alleviate our problems. I don't disagree that some infrastructure spending helps but I believe only to the extent we really need the items we are spending money on. Spending on wasteful items may put money into the economy but it is still wasting money that could be put to better use or left in the hands of the people to spend as they see fit which also helps the economy. Growth has to be real, not fictional, for it to not do further damage to our economy. Throwing money into the economy also causes inflation. It may create a paycheck but how much will that paycheck now be able to purchase? The federal government does not create anything. They take money from one group and give it to another. This allows for widespread corruption and inefficiency. Let's assume a Solyndra type deal was really needed (which it wasn't) absolute best case is it creates some jobs and some trickle down effect. But what about where that money came from? Did that money not come out of the economy? It is so brutally simple. I cannot understand how so many people don't get it. I am fully convinced that I understand the economy better than most. I own a business and have employees. I believe you can apply the same principles to our country as the typical family of 4 applies to their home finances. When things are tough, and even when they are not, the last thing you want to do is go further in debt and spend money you don't have. Debt in all forms is simply borrowing from future generations. It's easy because they aren't around to object to it and the can gets kicked further down the road. Deficit spending an wasteful spending is always bad no matter if we're in recession or growth. Sometimes a little is necessary to prevent very dire consequences but it can't be the constant go to solution. We are living beyond our natural means and it has to change.

The analogy I like to use is that the whole economy is like a swimming pool full of water (the water is like money in case you don't see where I'm headed). Because the government does not create anything, the only way they have to get money is by taxes or fees. So, in essence, they acquire money from the economy by dipping bucketfuls out of the pool. They don't create anything so they take it from people and businesses that do. Then they determine where they think it could be put to better use and dump it back into a different area of the pool. Has it really changed or helped anything economically? Has the pool gotten bigger? More water than it had before? No. But while they were dipping it out, they did slosh a little bit on the deck and some did evaporate (government inefficiency). So, if anything has changed, it is the fact that there is less water (money) in the pool (economy).

You also don't seem to understand what they mean when they're talking about "redistributing" wealth. They're not stealing rich people's money and then immediately giving it away. Read up on the French Revolution. It occurred because a few people had it all while the minority continued to suffer. it to poor people. Wealth redistribution refers to not letting such a gap between the rich and not rich become too great, because it negatively effects the economy, and it's basically putting a few non-elected people in full charge. Read up on plutocracy and oligarchy. I understand the problems associated with the wealth gap. But we apparently disagree on how to remedy it. We need to make sure the playing field is fair but we don't need to take from Peter to pay Paul. Let the free market "redistribute" the money and not politicians who like getting their back scratched. The system is what is broke. It is not as simple as blaming greed. If it were just greed, consumers could solve it all on their own.

And what the hell? Socialism? I would like to know what you consider to be socialism. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, Obamacare, food stamps, housing assistance, unemployment, government meddling in free enterprise such as GM, green industries, etc. That's what the hell I consider Socialism. Don't you? I won't argue that many of the rich avoid paying enough taxes but I will argue that there is something really wrong with the top 5% paying over 50% of all tax collections. I will never be convinced that there are that many people totally incapable of supporting themselves. If it really is that bad then we're screwed no matter what.

Flat tax policies are regressive. Why, because you read that somewhere? Good argument. I don't care what you call it but a system where basically the top 10% pay the bill for everyone else is not fair. Everyone that is physically able needs to contribute. Calling it regressive makes complete sense though for people who think progressive means demonizing people who actually got off their ass and earned a living. I save my compassion and charitable giving for people who are unable to care for themselves. I have no compassion for people that simply don't want to put forth the effort or who feel they can just take what they want.

No. Free trade is beneficial. Different countries are able to do and make certain things cheaper and more efficiently, which helps keep prices low. Read up on comparative advantage. You should be able to see why free trade is a good thing. I agree with the theory but the fact is it is not "free" trade when the rules are not consistent. It is not a "comparative" advantage to be able to purchase a $9 waffle iron made in Taiwan when regulations in this country prevent us from being able to make one for less than $30 (not an actual case but a sufficient example of what I mean) . If you would read up on it, you would begin to understand that comparative advantage as a theory applies to raw material and skill advantages and not to labor rates and sweatshop type working conditions. Monetary tricks and government subsidies come into play too but I don't want you getting confused. Probably best to stick to the things they teach you in college and leave the actual thinking to others.

A single payer system is all but inevitable. You end up with a far larger pool of people, which helps diffuse the high costs of care that certain groups need, like the elderly. It also gives the government clout it needs to negotiate for lower medication costs and whatnot. Also, no one is advocating government run healthcare. Hospitals are privately owned. This is strictly about insurance coverage. So less choice and fewer options is your solution for a free market society? Nice. It gives the govt clout? "Gives" being the keyword because they have not earned any clout and have made a complete shambles of every other program like this they have touched. But since you say it is inevitable, I guess we should just sit back wait for big brother to tell us what to do next. Oh well, we had a good run-about 237 years. Nice little experiment.

Obamacare is doing what it's supposed to. Sort of agree that it is doing what I expected it to but would disagree that it is doing anything to help the underlying issues of runaway costs. Insurance companies may have jacked up prices when some of the legislation passed, but there are further provisions coming into effect in the next few years to lower prices. It's not meant to be immediately implemented As of like a week ago, insurance companies are required to spend no less than 80% of their revenues on actual coverage. Trust me on this one, I completely understand Obamacare. Completely. I read the bill (yes the whole frikken thing) and I make the decisions for my companies health plan. I know when what provisions get implemented and everything and I see what is coming. Maybe that is what spurred your single payer is inevitable comment because with this legislation it is. Within 2 years we will no longer be providing health insurance for our employees. They will be dumped into their only remaining option and our company expense for health insurance will be reduced because the amount we will be assessed by the government will be less than what we currently pay by choice. I recall seeing this type of thing in other countries. I don't recall any cases of it ever working though. I do recall hearing about breadlines, rationed care, and better benefits for the well connected party members in some of these other countries though. I must just be being silly to look at what has historically not worked ever, anywhere.

I'd also say 1.6 million people is a little more than "some". I'll concede that one. 1.6M people is fairly significant but, out of 330M it could be called "some". Less than half a person out of a hundred is actually only significant if you are one of those people.

What? Why do you want to eliminate EARNED entitlement programs? Do you seriously want to make old people rely solely on private investments? Maybe you noticed, but the economy has gone to sh#t. A lot of people have lost significant amounts of money. SS on the other hand, is guaranteed. I'd like to live in a country where the elderly can live out their final years with dignity. They've paid their dues, so I think it's the least we could do. Assuming that all seniors who need aid are lazy leeches is just no. sh#t happens. Please try to keep up. I said "phase" out not flat out eliminate. People who have contributed and have an EARNED interest need to be made whole. I am 48ish and I would gladly forfeit any benefits from social security as long as I could quit contributing right now. I'm pretty damn sure I could save MY money more effectively than what the government has done with it. I am also sure that it would not get used for things other than my retirement. Try to avoid putting words into peoples mouths. We have to quit relying on some mythical money fairy. There is an amount this country can afford and sustain to assure that the elderly can live out their final years with dignity. And then there is the amount we are short of doing that right now. The gap in between would be called government waste, inefficiency, and criminally negligent behavior.

 

But it is a bottomless pit. We can afford pretty much whatever we want. Seriously. And it doesn't have to be "paid for", because it's meaningless in a system where money is simply being created, and that taxes don't pay for anything, that money is just removed from circulation. Epic FAIL. Here is an assignment for you. Read up on the Weimar Republic and try to keep up with the goings on in Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. Reckoning day cometh no matter how long it gets put off. We are on an unsustainable path. Printing money, deficit spending, and purchasing cheaper labor from other countries will not solve our problems and will definitely make them worse. You don't have to agree with me. Remaining wrong is totally your choice.

[carlfense]

I will look at that right after you look at all of America that disagrees with JJhusker1, DEAL?!?!?

Where did I say all of America?

 

Here is your sentence

 

Rest easy knowing that America disagrees with you.

 

When you said America in the sentence that means the United States of America,correct? You didn't say the majority of Americans did you? So it sounds like you mean all of America.

I didn't say the "majority of Americans." You are correct. 1 point!

 

If you look closely you might note that I also did not say "all Americans." Minus 1 point!

 

If you're reading something into it that isn't on the page that is your business.

 

The percentage of Americans who "strongly disapprove" of Obama is about 28%. So let's assume that every single one of those people think that literally anyone would be a better president than Obama. Even given that ridiculous hypothetical . . . an overwhelming proportion of America disagree with jjhusker.

 

Sub-Husker might be right about you.

[JJ Husker]

I will look at that right after you look at all of America that disagrees with JJhusker1, DEAL?!?!?

Where did I say all of America?

 

Here is your sentence

 

Rest easy knowing that America disagrees with you.

 

When you said America in the sentence that means the United States of America,correct? You didn't say the majority of Americans did you? So it sounds like you mean all of America.

I didn't say the "majority of Americans." You are correct. 1 point!

 

If you look closely you might note that I also did not say "all Americans." Minus 1 point!

 

If you're reading something into it that isn't on the page that is your business.

 

The percentage of Americans who "strongly disapprove" of Obama is about 28%. So let's assume that every single one of those people think that literally anyone would be a better president than Obama. Even given that ridiculous hypothetical . . . an overwhelming proportion of America disagree with jjhusker.

 

Sub-Husker might be right about you.

Considering the state of our country right now, I am quite pleased that I have a different view than what you consider an overwhelming majority. Gallup Poll as of 12-12-11; 42%Approve, 50% Disapprove, 8% No Opinion. (Note-it helps to read these polls for what they actually say and not what you want them to say) I would have to repeatedly bash my head into a wall until I had lost all capability of reasoning to be able to call 42% over 50% an overwhelming majority like you do. If I was in your "majority", somebody could actually make a point of blaming me for the way things are. The "majority" that elected Obama and that agree with democrat policies are clearly in the drivers seat of this race to the cliff's edge. Or are you still blaming Bush? It doesn't seem to matter if democrats control 1, 2, or all 3 of the branches of government, they always manage to pin the blame on others. To summarize; when dems are not in control, the majority and controlling party is wrong. When dems are in control, the minority is to blame. It is consistent in a way as you never accept any responsibility for anything. I will say you have been rather successful with this strategy though. Maybe you should try it without the media in your corner.

 

edit- If you want to fall back on your "strongly disapprove" wording then we also need to look at "strongly approve". Currently Rasmussen has an 18 point gap between those who feel strongly. And no it is not an 18 point gap in your favor. 18% more strongly disapprove than strongly approve. What kind of math do use to massage that into any kind of overwhelming majority? I know I know, if you just keep spouting the same illogical, unsupported crap, the weak minded will begin to buy into it. You might as well stick to that cuz I know from past experience with liberals that no amount of factually supported logic will cause any further exploration.

[redblooded]

This "firebagger" believes that Obama was wrong not to veto this.

 

he actually said he was going to veto it and then didn't, that's why the ACLU and others didn't have a huge stink raised.

 

Edit: and lol at you people being sidetracked by left wing wackos and right wing nutjobs. Just purely using common sense, how can you make this into a partisan issue? It pisses on the bill of rights. American citizens shouldn't ever be allowed to be held indefinitely without trial.

[Sub-Husker]

Edit: and lol at you people being sidetracked by left wing wackos and right wing nutjobs. Just purely using common sense, how can you make this into a partisan issue? It pisses on the bill of rights. American citizens shouldn't ever be allowed to be held indefinitely without trial.

 

That "purely common sense" would be the progressive (aka far "left wing wacko") position on the issue.

[carlfense]

I will look at that right after you look at all of America that disagrees with JJhusker1, DEAL?!?!?

Where did I say all of America?

 

Here is your sentence

 

Rest easy knowing that America disagrees with you.

 

When you said America in the sentence that means the United States of America,correct? You didn't say the majority of Americans did you? So it sounds like you mean all of America.

I didn't say the "majority of Americans." You are correct. 1 point!

 

If you look closely you might note that I also did not say "all Americans." Minus 1 point!

 

If you're reading something into it that isn't on the page that is your business.

 

The percentage of Americans who "strongly disapprove" of Obama is about 28%. So let's assume that every single one of those people think that literally anyone would be a better president than Obama. Even given that ridiculous hypothetical . . . an overwhelming proportion of America disagree with jjhusker.

 

Sub-Husker might be right about you.

Considering the state of our country right now, I am quite pleased that I have a different view than what you consider an overwhelming majority. Gallup Poll as of 12-12-11; 42%Approve, 50% Disapprove, 8% No Opinion. (Note-it helps to read these polls for what they actually say and not what you want them to say) I would have to repeatedly bash my head into a wall until I had lost all capability of reasoning to be able to call 42% over 50% an overwhelming majority like you do. If I was in your "majority", somebody could actually make a point of blaming me for the way things are. The "majority" that elected Obama and that agree with democrat policies are clearly in the drivers seat of this race to the cliff's edge. Or are you still blaming Bush? It doesn't seem to matter if democrats control 1, 2, or all 3 of the branches of government, they always manage to pin the blame on others. To summarize; when dems are not in control, the majority and controlling party is wrong. When dems are in control, the minority is to blame. It is consistent in a way as you never accept any responsibility for anything. I will say you have been rather successful with this strategy though. Maybe you should try it without the media in your corner.

 

edit- If you want to fall back on your "strongly disapprove" wording then we also need to look at "strongly approve". Currently Rasmussen has an 18 point gap between those who feel strongly. And no it is not an 18 point gap in your favor. 18% more strongly disapprove than strongly approve. What kind of math do use to massage that into any kind of overwhelming majority? I know I know, if you just keep spouting the same illogical, unsupported crap, the weak minded will begin to buy into it. You might as well stick to that cuz I know from past experience with liberals that no amount of factually supported logic will cause any further exploration.

Did you notice the "strongly disapprove" in quotes in my earlier post? I put that in quote because it was . . . well . . . not to talk down to you . . . but it was quote. I'm glad that you noticed your mistake and edited your post. (Excellent attempt at spinning your mistake as my own.) Here is the poll I was referring to:

http://i2.cdn.turner.../obama.poll.pdf

 

And, yes. Before the question is asked I would consider 67% an overwhelming result. (Or 72% in the earlier 2011 numbers.)

 

Next time work harder at "factually supporting" your logic the first time so that you don't have to have a second go at it.

[carlfense]

This "firebagger" believes that Obama was wrong not to veto this.

 

he actually said he was going to veto it and then didn't, that's why the ACLU and others didn't have a huge stink raised.

 

Edit: and lol at you people being sidetracked by left wing wackos and right wing nutjobs. Just purely using common sense, how can you make this into a partisan issue? It pisses on the bill of rights. American citizens shouldn't ever be allowed to be held indefinitely without trial.

I agree.

[Malth]

BTW I hate quote tags. Tried responding in topic to these but would not let me post due to an uneven number of tags.

So, here are my responses to Malth.

 

Are you being serious? Where are the left wing wackos, exactly? And what opinions and policies do you consider to be far left?

I am being serious. Left Wing Wacko is a bit of rhetoric but it has been my experience that most of the people who voted for Obama and are now not happy with him, are unhappy because he has failed to go as far left (anti-Bush if you will) as they had hoped. I simply find it amusing that I am unhappy with his leadership because I feel it has been ineffective and too far to the left and those on the left that are not pleased is because it is not far enough left for them. I do not have the inclination to go into the list of things I consider far left so not gonna do it at this time.

 

Dude, you need some perspective. Obama is a freaking moderate.

 

Class warfare? Like the what rich have been doing over the last 30 years? No not like that. Many of the rich have gotten that way at the expense of the little guy but most of them have done it legally within the framework of a free enterprise society. I don't blame a person for making as much as they possibly can as long as they do it legally. Most of our serious problems have been aided and abetted by congress from both sides of the aisle. I simply blame those who create the environment, not the ones who take advantage of it. And I like tracing things back to their roots. example-The housing bubble was caused by democratic social engineering so I blame the democrats for it even though I am sure many republicans contributed as well. I'm sorry that our constitution only guarantees the opportunity and not equal outcomes but that's the way it has to be in a free society.

 

I know I'm going to sound like a dick here, (just a little like a condescending dick but that's ok) but you don't seem to fully understand how the economy works. The proposals that the Democrats are putting out are based on actual and mainstream theories. Read up on Keynesian economics, it's all there. If we invested in rebuilding our infrastructure, it would put people to work doing something useful, and a paycheck in their pocket. This money gets spent, which helps out other businesses

Deficit spending during recessions has historically been pretty effective, because spurs economic growth when the private sector can not. It stimulates it. Drastically cutting spending in a recession achieves the opposite, since all it's doing is taking money out of the economy. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings. Deficit spending counts towards GDP growth, so spending cuts depress it and perpetuates the issue. Austerity begets austerity. Why would you want to deliberately slow growth when more growth is what we actually need? Correct me if I am wrong but I'm pretty sure these actual and mainstream theories have done squat to alleviate our problems. I don't disagree that some infrastructure spending helps but I believe only to the extent we really need the items we are spending money on. Spending on wasteful items may put money into the economy but it is still wasting money that could be put to better use or left in the hands of the people to spend as they see fit which also helps the economy. Growth has to be real, not fictional, for it to not do further damage to our economy. Throwing money into the economy also causes inflation. It may create a paycheck but how much will that paycheck now be able to purchase? The federal government does not create anything. They take money from one group and give it to another. This allows for widespread corruption and inefficiency. Let's assume a Solyndra type deal was really needed (which it wasn't) absolute best case is it creates some jobs and some trickle down effect. But what about where that money came from? Did that money not come out of the economy? It is so brutally simple. I cannot understand how so many people don't get it. I am fully convinced that I understand the economy better than most. I own a business and have employees. I believe you can apply the same principles to our country as the typical family of 4 applies to their home finances. When things are tough, and even when they are not, the last thing you want to do is go further in debt and spend money you don't have. Debt in all forms is simply borrowing from future generations. It's easy because they aren't around to object to it and the can gets kicked further down the road. Deficit spending an wasteful spending is always bad no matter if we're in recession or growth. Sometimes a little is necessary to prevent very dire consequences but it can't be the constant go to solution. We are living beyond our natural means and it has to change.

 

The analogy I like to use is that the whole economy is like a swimming pool full of water (the water is like money in case you don't see where I'm headed). Because the government does not create anything, the only way they have to get money is by taxes or fees. So, in essence, they acquire money from the economy by dipping bucketfuls out of the pool. They don't create anything so they take it from people and businesses that do. Then they determine where they think it could be put to better use and dump it back into a different area of the pool. Has it really changed or helped anything economically? Has the pool gotten bigger? More water than it had before? No. But while they were dipping it out, they did slosh a little bit on the deck and some did evaporate (government inefficiency). So, if anything has changed, it is the fact that there is less water (money) in the pool (economy).

 

I will correct you in saying they haven't done squat. Do you really think all those hundreds of billions of dollars didn't have an impact? It put people to work or kept people working. The issue if anything, was that it wasn't big enough. Plus, while the numbers they had to work with while they were writing the stimulus bill were pretty bad, they weren't totally accurate. The crash turned out be much worse than expected. So while it *did* help, it just simply wasn't possible for it to completely stem the bleeding. I would also refer you to the many recessions we've had over the past 80 or so years, and take a look at deficit spending in relation to them.

 

Deficit spending does not increase inflation. If you would like to insist that it does, then you need to provide proof. Here's a quick graph showing no correlation between the two. If you did somethign ridiculous, like writing a check to everyone for a million dollars, you might be able to make a case that deficits increase inflation, but not for the amount we are currently spending. We do not have an issue with inflation, despite massive growth in the deficit.

 

http://research.stlo...vg&fgst=lin,lin

 

It is also inappropriate to try and compare personal finances to the federal government. A loan that you take out from a bank is not comparable to the "debt" that is accrued through federal spending. The Fed has the ability to create unlimited funds, and is not predecated on any sort of revenue whatsoever. An entity that can literally pull money out of thin air has no need for revenue, and doesn't need to be paid back. I cannot stress enough how completely different the two systems are from each other. This is 90% of the reason why I say that you don't fully understand the way the economy works. The deficit is not a "debt" in the classic sense, it's a reflection of the money supply. Reducing the debt reduces private savings.

 

 

You also don't seem to understand what they mean when they're talking about "redistributing" wealth. They're not stealing rich people's money and then immediately giving it away. Read up on the French Revolution. It occurred because a few people had it all while the minority continued to suffer. it to poor people. Wealth redistribution refers to not letting such a gap between the rich and not rich become too great, because it negatively effects the economy, and it's basically putting a few non-elected people in full charge. Read up on plutocracy and oligarchy. I understand the problems associated with the wealth gap. But we apparently disagree on how to remedy it. We need to make sure the playing field is fair but we don't need to take from Peter to pay Paul. Let the free market "redistribute" the money and not politicians who like getting their back scratched. The system is what is broke. It is not as simple as blaming greed. If it were just greed, consumers could solve it all on their own.

 

The "free market" that we have distributes all the money to the top. The "free market" doesn't magically fix everything. I thought the invisible hand theory had already been debunked.

 

And what the hell? Socialism? I would like to know what you consider to be socialism. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, Obamacare, food stamps, housing assistance, unemployment, government meddling in free enterprise such as GM, green industries, etc. That's what the hell I consider Socialism. Don't you? I won't argue that many of the rich avoid paying enough taxes but I will argue that there is something really wrong with the top 5% paying over 50% of all tax collections. I will never be convinced that there are that many people totally incapable of supporting themselves. If it really is that bad then we're screwed no matter what.

 

How is Obamacare socialism? And you might want to take a look at the median wage for Americans. It's pretty f'ing sad. But the reason so many people aren't paying federal taxes (they are still paying taxes though) is because of the Bush tax cuts and the recession. Do you really think increasing taxes on people making like $25,000 a year is going to boost the economy?

 

Flat tax policies are regressive. Why, because you read that somewhere? Good argument. I don't care what you call it but a system where basically the top 10% pay the bill for everyone else is not fair. Everyone that is physically able needs to contribute. Calling it regressive makes complete sense though for people who think progressive means demonizing people who actually got off their ass and earned a living. I save my compassion and charitable giving for people who are unable to care for themselves. I have no compassion for people that simply don't want to put forth the effort or who feel they can just take what they want.

 

Do you know what regressive means? A 10% tax to someone making 100 bucks a week is much different than a 10% tax to someone making a million bucks a week. Yes, I know it's an extreme example, but the underlying logic should not be difficult to understand. Progressive tax policies are a good idea because it leaves more money in the hands of the people who actually spend a good portion of their disposable income. Spending from the middle and lower class drives the economy, not a few people making a bajillion bucks a year. It's just good economic sense.

 

No. Free trade is beneficial. Different countries are able to do and make certain things cheaper and more efficiently, which helps keep prices low. Read up on comparative advantage. You should be able to see why free trade is a good thing. I agree with the theory but the fact is it is not "free" trade when the rules are not consistent. It is not a "comparative" advantage to be able to purchase a $9 waffle iron made in Taiwan when regulations in this country prevent us from being able to make one for less than $30 (not an actual case but a sufficient example of what I mean) . If you would read up on it, you would begin to understand that comparative advantage as a theory applies to raw material and skill advantages and not to labor rates and sweatshop type working conditions. Monetary tricks and government subsidies come into play too but I don't want you getting confused. Probably best to stick to the things they teach you in college and leave the actual thinking to others.

 

And best to leave the libetarian sh#t to the clueless. I fully understand that we are unable to manufacture certain things as cheaply as other countries that are paying their employees crumbs and have little regard to environmental impacts. This whole "shut down imports and make everything ourselves" is a nice sentiment, but wholly unrealistic. How about subsidizing green research and development, and lead the coming movement? It's not like we've ever done anything like that before, right?

 

A single payer system is all but inevitable. You end up with a far larger pool of people, which helps diffuse the high costs of care that certain groups need, like the elderly. It also gives the government clout it needs to negotiate for lower medication costs and whatnot. Also, no one is advocating government run healthcare. Hospitals are privately owned. This is strictly about insurance coverage. So less choice and fewer options is your solution for a free market society? Nice. It gives the govt clout? "Gives" being the keyword because they have not earned any clout and have made a complete shambles of every other program like this they have touched. But since you say it is inevitable, I guess we should just sit back wait for big brother to tell us what to do next. Oh well, we had a good run-about 237 years. Nice little experiment.

 

It seems to be inevitable because the "free market" doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of extending affordable health care to the vast majority of Americans. Free market is all well and good, but let's not pretend that it's better at everything. If the trade off for decreased costs and coverage for everyone, then yea, I'll happily take "fewer options" as you put it.

 

Do me a favor and read up on the VHA. It's a terrible system that the government controls. Not only does it cost way too much, they also provide poor care.

 

Actually, wait. No it isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Administration

 

 

Obamacare is doing what it's supposed to. Sort of agree that it is doing what I expected it to but would disagree that it is doing anything to help the underlying issues of runaway costs.  Insurance companies may have jacked up prices when some of the legislation passed, but there are further provisions coming into effect in the next few years to lower prices. It's not meant to be immediately implemented As of like a week ago, insurance companies are required to spend no less than 80% of their revenues on actual coverage. Trust me on this one, I completely understand Obamacare. Completely. I read the bill (yes the whole frikken thing) and I make the decisions for my companies health plan. I know when what provisions get implemented and everything and I see what is coming. Maybe that is what spurred your single payer is inevitable comment because with this legislation it is. Within 2 years we will no longer be providing health insurance for our employees. They will be dumped into their only remaining option and our company expense for health insurance will be reduced because the amount we will be assessed by the government will be less than what we currently pay by choice. I recall seeing this type of thing in other countries. I don't recall any cases of it ever working though. I do recall hearing about breadlines, rationed care, and better benefits for the well connected party members in some of these other countries though. I must just be being silly to look at what has historically not worked ever, anywhere.

I'd also say 1.6 million people is a little more than "some". I'll concede that one. 1.6M people is fairly significant but, out of 330M it could be called "some". Less than half a person out of a hundred is actually only significant if you are one of those people.

 

And once again, it's only been in effect for how long? And how many other things are going to come into effect over the next several years? This is the beginning of getting more people covered. Using only the stats so far to discredit the entire bill is disingenous.

 

 

What? Why do you want to eliminate EARNED entitlement programs? Do you seriously want to make old people rely solely on private investments? Maybe you noticed, but the economy has gone to sh#t. A lot of people have lost significant amounts of money. SS on the other hand, is guaranteed. I'd like to live in a country where the elderly can live out their final years with dignity. They've paid their dues, so I think it's the least we could do. Assuming that all seniors who need aid are lazy leeches is just no. sh#t happens. Please try to keep up. I said "phase" out not flat out eliminate. People who have contributed and have an EARNED interest need to be made whole. I am 48ish and I would gladly forfeit any benefits from social security as long as I could quit contributing right now. I'm pretty damn sure I could save MY money more effectively than what the government has done with it. I am also sure that it would not get used for things other than my retirement. Try to avoid putting words into peoples mouths. We have to quit relying on some mythical money fairy. There is an amount this country can afford and sustain to assure that the elderly can live out their final years with dignity. And then there is the amount we are short of doing that right now. The gap in between would be called government waste, inefficiency, and criminally negligent behavior.

 

See my next response in regards to what we can "afford".

 

But it is a bottomless pit. We can afford pretty much whatever we want. Seriously. And it doesn't have to be "paid for", because it's meaningless in a system where money is simply being created, and that taxes don't pay for anything, that money is just removed from circulation. Epic FAIL. Here is an assignment for you. Read up on the Weimar Republic and try to keep up with the goings on in Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. Reckoning day cometh no matter how long it gets put off. We are on an unsustainable path. Printing money, deficit spending, and purchasing cheaper labor from other countries will not solve our problems and will definitely make them worse. You don't have to agree with me. Remaining wrong is totally your choie.

 

Thank you for repeating the same rebuttal that everyone uses. The Weimar Republic is not comparable to the United States, and their hyperinflation was driven by foreign speculators, not deficit spending. Furthermore, countries like Greece can NOT be directly compared to the United States. Greece, like many other countries in Europe and around the world, do not have the ability to create their own currency. Think of it like states here in the U.S. Individual states do not create money, so they are funded by tax revenue. The Fed has the power to create unlimited money, and thus has no use for or reliance on revenue. You don't have to agree with me. Remaining wrong is totally your choice.

[JJ Husker]

If there are more people with the same economic views as Malth, we are screwed. Thinking that the ability to print your own money and then proposing that we do that very thing is so stupid that it's frightening. I see absolutely no validity in any of the points you are trying to make. It's as if I have brought a gun to a knife fight and you showed up with a fluffy pillow as your offensive weapon. Sorry but I can waste my time much more efficiently. I appreciate some resistance but I am getting none.

[redblooded]

If there are more people with the same economic views as Malth, we are screwed. Thinking that the ability to print your own money and then proposing that we do that very thing is so stupid that it's frightening. I see absolutely no validity in any of the points you are trying to make. It's as if I have brought a gun to a knife fight and you showed up with a fluffy pillow as your offensive weapon. Sorry but I can waste my time much more efficiently. I appreciate some resistance but I am getting none.

 

This isn't an argument, it's simply a way to try and marginalize another argument. Saying "I see absolutely no validity, and we're screwed if anyone else agrees with you" doesn't prove anything one way or another. That is, other then you not being able to actually explain why the economy doesn't work the way he argued it does. He went point for point with your wall of text, even with your hatred of quotes (that would've make it actually readable), and you come back with "I don't believe you. So you're wrong and I am wasting my time" Weak, super freaking weak. We know you got time, not time to quote, but apparently time to type out just as much or more then the post you originally replied to resulting in the wall of text you got there.

 

Simply not believing something doesn't mean it's not right. Ask the anti-evolutionists.

 

Edit: And way to hijack a thread about a much more important subject then bail on the argument you started.