Page 21 of 47 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 466

Thread: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

  1. #201
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    even if all the kennedys got all their cash from daddy, joseph p still had to "earn" it

    (well, actually, the nazi symp ambassador to the court of st james, back here in the states, made most of his fortune illegally)

    either way, someone had to earn all that money to give to john f kerry's wife

    and whoever earned it should have the right to determine whichever lazy ingrate he or she wants to give it to

    ie, it's not yours

    even if the lazy deadbeat turns out to be jay rockefeller
    Last edited by The Prof; 02-16-11 at 01:19 AM.

  2. #202
    Sleeper Agent
    iamitter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NY, NY
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    1,836

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    Quote Originally Posted by diablo45 View Post
    "earned"?....either sat on their asses figuring oil futures or got it from daddy
    What you're saying is incredibly ignorant. I got to where I am today through hard work. The only things my parents ever gave me was encouragement.
    Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.

  3. #203
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    If I thought you had no sense j, I wouldn't ride you about the American non-Thinker. it is because you're capable that I mess with you.
    Thanks, but man, the American Thinker, for being an opinion web site, they really get under your skin.

    Not sure anyone could get any simplier. If you are really concerned with the deficit, and I'm not convinced anyone in government is, you have to tackle the big three: medicare, SS and the military, which would include but not be limited to fighting needless wars. And you would have to address revenue, taxes.

    Let's address these simply, and one at a time.

    1. Address the big three - I couldn't agree more with you on this. The cutting around the edges with earmarks, and discretionary spending is laughable, and an insult to America's intelligence. What would you do with these?

    2. Fighting in Afghanistan, and Support roles in Iraq - It is easy, and makes for a nice talking point to just throw that out there as if there are no repercussions for just packing up and leaving these places. If it were that easy, would not Obama have done that? Instead he adopted almost to the letter the Bush strategy in the region. You can say that as the founders would have said that our involvement in foreign entanglement is at the heart of some of our problems today that they did foresee, however we are in the here and now, and with bases in I think its something like 172 countries, and those places in some instances counting on us for their very survival, not to mention that whatever the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost over the past 10 years, it is peanuts compared to Obama spending over the past two.

    3. My taxes rose by an effective rate of 2% this year, and I made $5000.00 less than last year. Now I am middle class. Tell me why? and tell me what you would do to increase revenue. My suggestion would be the fair tax.

    With that in mind, I noted, as it is important, everyone always points to someone else needing to cut their programs, their spending, while maintaining their piece of the pie. Pick your group that benefits from government dollars, and this would include everyone from the very poor to the very wealthy, and each will say the other needs to cut. I don't think this is shocking, but once we start with this acknowledgement, we can agree that it is expected that everyone will fight to hold on to what they have now, if not more.
    I think that the generation of Americans that are now taking the center stage as far as the country goes, are shedding this NIMBY attitude concerning the hard choices. It is the Baby Boomers that are holding on with both hands. I forget who said it but the quote goes something like 'Once the population learns that they can vote themselves riches from the treasury, the republic dies." We ALL have to sacrifice, and it ain't gonna be pretty. So let's get on with it.


    I hope I have started a good dialogue.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #204
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Thanks, but man, the American Thinker, for being an opinion web site, they really get under your skin.
    Supidity always does. Wild, inaccurate, silly opinions should jot be worth anyone's time to read. That some not only read them, but take them seriously is a large part of what is wrong with us as a people.

    Let's address these simply, and one at a time.

    1. Address the big three - I couldn't agree more with you on this. The cutting around the edges with earmarks, and discretionary spending is laughable, and an insult to America's intelligence. What would you do with these?
    The Big three? I would also argue a more efficient system, like a single payer system woudl do away with Medicare and increase the base, premiums. I think that would be the best solution. We won't see it, so like always we have to go with less effective measures. Rasing the age of being elegiable would be one such method, and we could means test those who don't need it (myth about it being a trust fund needs to be put to rest).

    The military is easier. Make it fit what we face as a threat now and in the future, which is largely smaller forces, which a large bulky military is less effective at fighting. Stop needlessly invading countries. Stop nation building.

    2. Fighting in Afghanistan, and Support roles in Iraq - It is easy, and makes for a nice talking point to just throw that out there as if there are no repercussions for just packing up and leaving these places. If it were that easy, would not Obama have done that? Instead he adopted almost to the letter the Bush strategy in the region. You can say that as the founders would have said that our involvement in foreign entanglement is at the heart of some of our problems today that they did foresee, however we are in the here and now, and with bases in I think its something like 172 countries, and those places in some instances counting on us for their very survival, not to mention that whatever the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost over the past 10 years, it is peanuts compared to Obama spending over the past two.
    Leaving is not easy. No one suggests it would be. If you can remember back, long before Bush left office, I said the only easy fix to those countries was to not have invaded in the first place. That was true for Bush and it is true for Obama. The situation created by invading makes leaving much more difficult than having not gone in in the first place. It will be painful and risky for everyone.

    So, that being said, and with the understanding that it has to be slowly as to endanger fewer (none) people, we still need to procede toward ending the wars. And stop nation building. This is important ot our fiscal well being. We have hurt ourselves much more than helped by being imperialistic and reckless.

    3. My taxes rose by an effective rate of 2% this year, and I made $5000.00 less than last year. Now I am middle class. Tell me why? and tell me what you would do to increase revenue. My suggestion would be the fair tax.
    I think a progressive tax is a fair tax. I make more than many, and I don't mind at all paying more than those who make less. I benefit more as well, and having been poor (even homeless), I know the difference.

    As for increasing your revenue? I do it by working more. Advancing in my profession. But much of America could learn to live within their means (including myself).

    I think that the generation of Americans that are now taking the center stage as far as the country goes, are shedding this NIMBY attitude concerning the hard choices. It is the Baby Boomers that are holding on with both hands. I forget who said it but the quote goes something like 'Once the population learns that they can vote themselves riches from the treasury, the republic dies." We ALL have to sacrifice, and it ain't gonna be pretty. So let's get on with it.


    I hope I have started a good dialogue.


    j-mac
    I hope you're right, but I don't believe you are. All the polls and opinions I read and find seem to indicate that the same disconnects are present. They want services, but don't want to pay for them. Thsi disconnect has been around as long as I can remember.

    As for discourse, I always try to talk reasonable with you j. We've been around awhile, you and me. Perhaps one day we can even sit down to a cup of coffee and talk face to face.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #205
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Supidity always does. Wild, inaccurate, silly opinions should jot be worth anyone's time to read. That some not only read them, but take them seriously is a large part of what is wrong with us as a people.



    The Big three? I would also argue a more efficient system, like a single payer system woudl do away with Medicare and increase the base, premiums. I think that would be the best solution. We won't see it, so like always we have to go with less effective measures. Rasing the age of being elegiable would be one such method, and we could means test those who don't need it (myth about it being a trust fund needs to be put to rest).

    The military is easier. Make it fit what we face as a threat now and in the future, which is largely smaller forces, which a large bulky military is less effective at fighting. Stop needlessly invading countries. Stop nation building.



    Leaving is not easy. No one suggests it would be. If you can remember back, long before Bush left office, I said the only easy fix to those countries was to not have invaded in the first place. That was true for Bush and it is true for Obama. The situation created by invading makes leaving much more difficult than having not gone in in the first place. It will be painful and risky for everyone.

    So, that being said, and with the understanding that it has to be slowly as to endanger fewer (none) people, we still need to procede toward ending the wars. And stop nation building. This is important ot our fiscal well being. We have hurt ourselves much more than helped by being imperialistic and reckless.



    I think a progressive tax is a fair tax. I make more than many, and I don't mind at all paying more than those who make less. I benefit more as well, and having been poor (even homeless), I know the difference.

    As for increasing your revenue? I do it by working more. Advancing in my profession. But much of America could learn to live within their means (including myself).



    I hope you're right, but I don't believe you are. All the polls and opinions I read and find seem to indicate that the same disconnects are present. They want services, but don't want to pay for them. Thsi disconnect has been around as long as I can remember.

    As for discourse, I always try to talk reasonable with you j. We've been around awhile, you and me. Perhaps one day we can even sit down to a cup of coffee and talk face to face.
    You seem to have great passion for a single payer system and the question is why? Please name for me one govt. program that has ever saved money on any issue?

  6. #206
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Supidity always does. Wild, inaccurate, silly opinions should jot be worth anyone's time to read. That some not only read them, but take them seriously is a large part of what is wrong with us as a people.
    Uh huh. And your opinions fall into this same category. The irony is strong with this one.

    The difference between AT and your posts Boo, is that AT actually links their claims to media, government and informational sites. For example, in this article from today, (American Thinker: Cooking the Intelligence Books) there are no less than 14 or so links to provide reference within the article which isn't very long at all. Yet you provide very little reference backup to your opinions, yet you want people reading your posts to believe AT is some radical propoganda forum and your posts aren't?

    I'll take over referenced materials which I can read and review for myself (ie. AT) over someone who very rarely references their opinion with referenced evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    The Big three?
    Yes, often called the "Three rails of politics" or "sacred cows of politics".

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I would also argue a more efficient system, like a single payer system woudl do away with Medicare and increase the base, premiums. I think that would be the best solution. We won't see it, so like always we have to go with less effective measures. Rasing the age of being elegiable would be one such method, and we could means test those who don't need it (myth about it being a trust fund needs to be put to rest).
    We don't see it because it goes against the tenets of which this nation is built - competition, free market and liberty. Efficiency at the price of everything else isn't efficient, it's detrimental and ultimately destructive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    The military is easier. Make it fit what we face as a threat now and in the future, which is largely smaller forces, which a large bulky military is less effective at fighting. Stop needlessly invading countries. Stop nation building.
    Certainly a smaller military is needed, but "less effective at fighting"? Only if we can also have a less effective government at adjudicating and legislating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Leaving is not easy. No one suggests it would be. If you can remember back, long before Bush left office, I said the only easy fix to those countries was to not have invaded in the first place. That was true for Bush and it is true for Obama. The situation created by invading makes leaving much more difficult than having not gone in in the first place. It will be painful and risky for everyone.
    Leaving isn't easy politically... it may not be easy militarily, but it certainly is economically especially when a country can no longer afford that occupation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    So, that being said, and with the understanding that it has to be slowly as to endanger fewer (none) people, we still need to procede toward ending the wars. And stop nation building. This is important ot our fiscal well being. We have hurt ourselves much more than helped by being imperialistic and reckless.
    Certainly that's an option ... however, we tried that in the 20th century and the result was 2 world wars, a cold war and the positioning of the U.S. as the police force of the world, in order to AVOID another all encompassing war. The risk assessment that comes with your view is what increases the likelihood of another all encompassing war in the future, or, some other country or countries have to take over the policing activities when the U.S. stops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I think a progressive tax is a fair tax. I make more than many, and I don't mind at all paying more than those who make less. I benefit more as well, and having been poor (even homeless), I know the difference.

    As for increasing your revenue? I do it by working more. Advancing in my profession. But much of America could learn to live within their means (including myself).
    You don't need the government to force you to pay more taxes via a Progressive Tax. If you feel you make more money than many and don't mind paying more to those who make less, you can provide on this years tax forms a gift to the U.S. Government as part of your taxes, the higher % a progressive tax would require. The fact is, if you believed in it, you would have done that already, but I suspect you haven't.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #207
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    [QUOTE=Ockham;1059288572]
    Uh huh. And your opinions fall into this same category. The irony is strong with this one.

    The difference between AT and your posts Boo, is that AT actually links their claims to media, government and informational sites. For example, in this article from today, (American Thinker: Cooking the Intelligence Books) there are no less than 14 or so links to provide reference within the article which isn't very long at all. Yet you provide very little reference backup to your opinions, yet you want people reading your posts to believe AT is some radical propoganda forum and your posts aren't?

    I'll take over referenced materials which I can read and review for myself (ie. AT) over someone who very rarely references their opinion with referenced evidence.
    I'm sorry, but you can't link silliness. Seriously. There is no link for evil liberals are destorying the world and kicking puppies.

    Yes, often called the "Three rails of politics" or "sacred cows of politics".
    Yep.

    We don't see it because it goes against the tenets of which this nation is built - competition, free market and liberty. Efficiency at the price of everything else isn't efficient, it's detrimental and ultimately destructive.
    I quite disagree. Care to go back and find when last the market was completely free? Or how about showing how comeptition has helped make medicine accessable, ever. And nothing about this hinders liberty.

    Certainly a smaller military is needed, but "less effective at fighting"? Only if we can also have a less effective government at adjudicating and legislating.
    Yes, less effective. It can subdue a country, but can't end the endless struggle terrorism presents us with.

    Leaving isn't easy politically... it may not be easy militarily, but it certainly is economically especially when a country can no longer afford that occupation.
    I think that is what I said. Yes.


    Certainly that's an option ... however, we tried that in the 20th century and the result was 2 world wars, a cold war and the positioning of the U.S. as the police force of the world, in order to AVOID another all encompassing war. The risk assessment that comes with your view is what increases the likelihood of another all encompassing war in the future, or, some other country or countries have to take over the policing activities when the U.S. stops.
    I think you're misreading history. No one is talking about isolationsim. Simply not being the police, not building nations, pumping in our money to remake any nation. Not being imperialistic. The choice is not between either being imperialistic or being isolationistic. We can trade, work with, participate, and still nto invade or nation build.

    You don't need the government to force you to pay more taxes via a Progressive Tax. If you feel you make more money than many and don't mind paying more to those who make less, you can provide on this years tax forms a gift to the U.S. Government as part of your taxes, the higher % a progressive tax would require. The fact is, if you believed in it, you would have done that already, but I suspect you haven't.
    I don't think I used the word need. However, you can do that with a progressive tax as well. But as I have said, I don't mind paying my fair share, in a progressive manner, and don't begrudge those make less, benefit less, paying less.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #208
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Supidity always does. Wild, inaccurate, silly opinions should jot be worth anyone's time to read. That some not only read them, but take them seriously is a large part of what is wrong with us as a people.

    Oh come on...There are opinion sites on both sides of the isle, and it could easily be pointed out that many on the liberal side of many issues rely much more on sites like DailyKOS, MediaMatters, and MoveOn.org for their information, not to mention getting their news from Jon Stewart than that of the right. It shows that something must be correct with AT when thou doth protest too much.

    The Big three? I would also argue a more efficient system, like a single payer system woudl do away with Medicare and increase the base, premiums. I think that would be the best solution. We won't see it, so like always we have to go with less effective measures. Rasing the age of being elegiable would be one such method, and we could means test those who don't need it (myth about it being a trust fund needs to be put to rest).
    Medicare has an unfunded liability somewhere in the hundreds of Trillions of dollars now, how would essentially expanding that model to cover everyone result in anything but failure of the system in true Cloward and Piven fashion, and bankruptcy?

    The military is easier. Make it fit what we face as a threat now and in the future, which is largely smaller forces, which a large bulky military is less effective at fighting. Stop needlessly invading countries. Stop nation building.
    Stop Nation Building, I agree, although in the past I defended strongly what we did in Iraq, it is clearly now a losing situation, and a money pit.

    Leaving is not easy. No one suggests it would be. If you can remember back, long before Bush left office, I said the only easy fix to those countries was to not have invaded in the first place. That was true for Bush and it is true for Obama. The situation created by invading makes leaving much more difficult than having not gone in in the first place. It will be painful and risky for everyone.
    You can't turn back the clock, so can we talk about the here and now please?

    So, that being said, and with the understanding that it has to be slowly as to endanger fewer (none) people, we still need to procede toward ending the wars. And stop nation building. This is important ot our fiscal well being. We have hurt ourselves much more than helped by being imperialistic and reckless.
    Ok, and as we do that, who fills the vacuum? And with downsizing the military, are you suggesting only an isolationist stance toward our security?

    I think a progressive tax is a fair tax. I make more than many, and I don't mind at all paying more than those who make less. I benefit more as well, and having been poor (even homeless), I know the difference.
    I've been there too friend, so let's not think for a minute that I don't understand what it is to worry how to keep a roof over my head, or food on the table. With that said all I can see that the "progressive tax" has done is create the zero liability voter, and caused one side to ruin this country for that voter.

    As for increasing your revenue? I do it by working more. Advancing in my profession. But much of America could learn to live within their means (including myself).
    I have worked 70 to 90 per week for the past 30 years, and taken three actual vacations. Shall we compare balance sheets?

    I hope you're right, but I don't believe you are. All the polls and opinions I read and find seem to indicate that the same disconnects are present. They want services, but don't want to pay for them. Thsi disconnect has been around as long as I can remember.
    Well, then rather than outlets like MSNBC devoting much of their time looking for the next way to bash Sarah Palin, they should start getting the facts out there so people can make an educated opinion.

    As for discourse, I always try to talk reasonable with you j. We've been around awhile, you and me. Perhaps one day we can even sit down to a cup of coffee and talk face to face.
    I'd like that if it could ever happen. In fact should you find yourself ever near the Greenville SC area, let me know, and my home is open.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #209
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    [QUOTE=Boo Radley;1059288805]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post

    I'm sorry, but you can't link silliness. Seriously. There is no link for evil liberals are destorying the world and kicking puppies.
    So you're retracting that AT is wild and inaccurate. Good. You're view of what is silly or not is assigned to you only - and you've got a right to that opinion. It's MY opinion that I'll take AT's accuracy and wild views over yours, because they at least link to resources and evidence, whereas you rarely do.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I quite disagree. Care to go back and find when last the market was completely free?
    Where is it written that the market must be "completely free" - if that's what you base your disagreement on, it's flawed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Or how about showing how competition has helped make medicine accessible, ever. And nothing about this hinders liberty.
    No one is claiming a connection between competition and availability of medicine - that's a very nice Strawman. Regarding liberty: A single payer system provides yet more government control and bureaucracy which as history teaches us, is NEVER more efficient than the private sector. As well, making physicians salaried government employees will restrict the freedom and liberty of doctors making more money and specializing. What we also see in the Canadian and UK models are very long waiting times for procedures - years at times. Since a single payer systems is government controlled health care, the government directs and controls health care, instead of the market. Such things lead to favoritism and the bureaucrats running things - and yes is a loss of liberty as I cannot leave such a system once put in place. Now, I can choose other insurance, other providers, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Yes, less effective. It can subdue a country, but can't end the endless struggle terrorism presents us with.
    You wish to be subjugated apparently. I however wish for a smaller military with a much greater ability to fight and win. You were talking about efficiency needs in health-care, but then turn around and want IN-efficiency in the military that will defend the sovereignty of your own country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I think you're misreading history.
    And I think you're reality is one you've made up to suit your political beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No one is talking about isolationsim.
    Right. No one is talking about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Simply not being the police, not building nations, pumping in our money to remake any nation. Not being imperialistic. The choice is not between either being imperialistic or being isolationistic. We can trade, work with, participate, and still nto invade or nation build.
    And that is what our country did in the 20th century - so everything I previously posted still applies. Your view risks another world war in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I don't think I used the word need. However, you can do that with a progressive tax as well.
    The question isn't "can you" the question is "why don't you"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    But as I have said, I don't mind paying my fair share, in a progressive manner, and don't begrudge those make less, benefit less, paying less.
    So why aren't you paying more voluntarily?
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  10. #210
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    [QUOTE=Ockham;1059288840]
    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    So you're retracting that AT is wild and inaccurate. Good. You're view of what is silly or not is assigned to you only - and you've got a right to that opinion. It's MY opinion that I'll take AT's accuracy and wild views over yours, because they at least link to resources and evidence, whereas you rarely do.
    I'm retracting nothing. At, like NRO, often link valid sources, but are inaccurate in their conclusions. We have an example of the Weekly Standard doing that on another thread.

    Where is it written that the market must be "completely free" - if that's what you base your disagreement on, it's flawed.
    No where I know of, which makes your market comment questionable, not mine. The fact is we have always regulated and bent, and adjusted to the changing times, from day one. Nothing with a single payer goes against this.

    No one is claiming a connection between competition and availability of medicine - that's a very nice Strawman. Regarding liberty: A single payer system provides yet more government control and bureaucracy which as history teaches us, is NEVER more efficient than the private sector. As well, making physicians salaried government employees will restrict the freedom and liberty of doctors making more money and specializing. What we also see in the Canadian and UK models are very long waiting times for procedures - years at times. Since a single payer systems is government controlled health care, the government directs and controls health care, instead of the market. Such things lead to favoritism and the bureaucrats running things - and yes is a loss of liberty as I cannot leave such a system once put in place. Now, I can choose other insurance, other providers, etc.
    To be honest, based on this response by you, I'm not sure what you are claiming or what you think I'm claiming. To claim that competition makes things better, we must look and see things better. Being accessable, be it medicine or access to care, is something that is better than not having those things. Competition here has not improved access. If you don't have access, you don't have quality care. So, the amrket, and compeititon have failed those who cannot access it.

    You wish to be subjugated apparently. I however wish for a smaller military with a much greater ability to fight and win. You were talking about efficiency needs in health-care, but then turn around and want IN-efficiency in the military that will defend the sovereignty of your own country.
    You make another leap. I have no such wish and nothing I speak of subjugates me in any way. And no where have I asked for in efficient military. I've actually asked for the opposite. Using a hammer when a scalpel is needed is ineffecient.

    And I think you're reality is one you've made up to suit your political beliefs.
    What you think is meaning less to history. I stand by what I said.

    Right. No one is talking about it.
    Right. we agree then.

    And that is what our country did in the 20th century - so everything I previously posted still applies. Your view risks another world war in the future.
    No, you misread it. that is not what happened. We intered into things like VN that we did not have to enter into.

    The question isn't "can you" the question is "why don't you"?
    I do pay a progressive tax and I'm fine with it.

    So why aren't you paying more voluntarily?


    How do you know I don't? we can say anything on the internet, but how would you ever know?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 21 of 47 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •