• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supply side economics

Mycroft said:
BS.

She needed a cause and she picked that one...and it is costing us $14 Billion a year...creating a mandate with federal money strings attached to it, reducing the State's ability to make their own decisions at their local level. That's $14 Billion pulled out of the private sector and spent on a political program that's not only not needed, but not wanted. (not to mention the increased bureaucracy and feathered nests for her buddies)

It's all political and there is nothing in the Constitution that says any of that is the responsibility of the federal government.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what about the health care premium saving gs over the course of their lifetimes?

Is that in your math there anywhere?

Net economic gain from adults who were better nourished as children and therefore perform better in schools.

Yall's math seems to always leave out the part of your equations that would result in an answer you wouldn't like.

Almost like there are think tanks and an entire ten billion dollar industry that exist to produce perspectives based on deliberately inaccurate information.

Oh wait...
 
What if...? said:
Yeah, but what about the health care premium saving gs over the course of their lifetimes?

Is that in your math there anywhere?

Net economic gain from adults who were better nourished as children and therefore perform better in schools.

Yall's math seems to always leave out the part of your equations that would result in an answer you wouldn't like.

Almost like there are think tanks and an entire ten billion dollar industry that exist to produce perspectives based on deliberately inaccurate information.

Oh wait...
Click to expand...

What makes you think the government has any responsibility...or any right...to dictate to States, school districts or parents? To save health care premiums??? Is that in the Constitution?

No. Michelle's pet political project doesn't give her the right to get her husband's administration to spend $14 Billion taxpayer dollars...especially just because you think it's "better" for people. If people want to save their own health care premiums they can take steps to do it themselves.

This is exactly what I've been talking about...and there's absolutely too much of it going on. People and politicians...mostly liberals...deciding the government HAS to do something for the people (whether the people want it or not) and it HAS to spend more taxpayer money...or worse, money the government doesn't even have...to do it. Michelle's pet project is only one example. There's a lot more of that going on and it all adds up to billions of dollars being taken out of the private sector for nothing more than political purposes.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
What makes you think the government has any responsibility...or any right...to dictate to States, school districts or parents? To save health care premiums??? Is that in the Constitution?

No. Michelle's pet political project doesn't give her the right to get her husband's administration to spend $14 Billion taxpayer dollars...especially just because you think it's "better" for people. If people want to save their own health care premiums they can take steps to do it themselves.

This is exactly what I've been talking about...and there's absolutely too much of it going on. People and politicians...mostly liberals...deciding the government HAS to do something for the people (whether the people want it or not) and it HAS to spend more taxpayer money...or worse, money the government doesn't even have...to do it. Michelle's pet project is only one example. There's a lot more of that going on and it all adds up to billions of dollars being taken out of the private sector for nothing more than political purposes.
Click to expand...

I was talking about YOUR health insurance premiums. A buncha fat kids growing into fat adults will cost you more.

Maybe a little less frustration from nutrition-based stupid.

And since the feds pay for school lunches, they get to provide whatever they want and if the little.libertarians don't like it they can bring their lunch. Nobody makes them eat school lunches.
 
Critter7r said:
The max pay in to SS if you work 45 years making over $120k per year is about $330k, with a max payout of about $25k per year. 13 years to recoup. Pay in for someone earning median wages (about $30k) pays in only about $105k and recoups in 4 years. Reduce the payout by 25% and it increases the recoup time for median earners by a little over a year. That's hardly "losing" anything.
Click to expand...

the reduced payout also means less disposable income.
 
Mycroft said:
The real irony is that you provide a definition that supports what I said...but you believe it supports your misunderstanding.

Go figure...
Click to expand...
You keep telling yourself that, the point remains, FSL programs have been around for over 7 decades and her pushing to make them more healthy is not political, it is a health issue. WiF would you object to more healthy foods for school age children?
 
Mycroft said:
What makes you think the government has any responsibility...or any right...to dictate to States, school districts or parents? To save health care premiums??? Is that in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
Good grief what nuttery! Here is an idea, I'm betting you could get a local principal to go along with you to end an over 70 year old school lunch program (and I'm sure you have some state legislators who would want to get in on this too, they would love to get rid of those nasty federal dollars for their schools and place a greater burden on local property owners!) by creating a case against the federal govt, to bring suite that the program is un-Constitutional. Who knows what teh basis would be, who the injured party is, who has standing, but you seem like a really brilliant constitutional scholar and could come up with something......because after all, the school lunch program has been shown to have caused deficits......why I read somewheres it caused the 08 recession too!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
, I'm betting you could get a local principal to go along with you to end an over 70 year old school lunch program!
Click to expand...

best to end all the welfare programs to end the moral hazard and socialism they embody. The more welfare there is the weaker our people become and the weaker our nation becomes.
 
James972 said:
best to end all the welfare programs to end the moral hazard and socialism they embody. The more welfare there is the weaker our people become and the weaker our nation becomes.
Click to expand...
EjJopdb.jpg
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You keep telling yourself that, the point remains, FSL programs have been around for over 7 decades and her pushing to make them more healthy is not political, it is a health issue. WiF would you object to more healthy foods for school age children?
Click to expand...

I don't think her doing this has anything to do with politics but you have to have reasonable goals that you can achieve instead of lip service that does not work. I think the consensus is that if you go too overboard with this you wind up getting the opposite results of what you intended and this seems to be what is happening. Unfortunately, in this area, you have to take baby steps or you wind up going backwards.
 
James972 said:
best to end all the welfare programs to end the moral hazard and socialism they embody. The more welfare there is the weaker our people become and the weaker our nation becomes.
Click to expand...

Where is you evidence that "the more welfare there is the weaker our people become and the weaker our nation becomes?" In all European countries the social support network is more generous than that in the U.S. and nobody sees the weakness that you speak about. Moreover, the best available research done by ( An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Programs in the United States ) show that the programs conservatives most wants to slash, Medicaid and food stamps, don’t even have large negative effects on work effort either.
 
KLATTU said:
You don't even see yourself,do you?
Blockbuster news.Krugman Steiglitz and a bunch of other liberals support liberal policies.
Krugman ,et al would NEVER let their political views cloud his judgment. ( Is there really a sentient human being that believes that?)
I bet the NY times says it was great too.
Click to expand...
Yeah, see the question though is does being well educated make you more liberal or does being liberal make you more educated? At some point people like Krugman had no idea whether they supported liberal positions or not. Why is it that so many people who study these subjects just magically gravitate towards liberalism exactly? How come more conservatives don't study economics? Are you afraid it might blow your mind or something?

I voted for the first time back in 2000. Initially I kind of liked McCain actually until Bush won the primary. I ultimately ended up voting for Ralph Nader because I felt like we needed a change of pace and didn't particularly care for either Bush or Gore. Even after the election it took quite some time before I fully realized how ****ing stupid Bush was. Even then though I would have referred to myself more as a left leaning libertarian. I watched the O'Reilly Factor almost every single day. Not because I agreed with him, but because I wanted to make sure I understood both sides of the argument. I always enjoyed reading John Stossle's libertarian take in his columns. It wasn't until after Obama got elected and I started hearing the stupid ass **** coming out of libertarians who hated him that I really went full blown liberal. Even now some of the things coming from Bernie Bro's concern me, but man I would take that in a second over anything coming from republicans or libertarians. You see I'm a white male raised Lutheran in a small mid-western town. My parents and most of my family are heavily conservative. If there was anything that I was brain-washed into it would have been conservativism. If you can't convince me then you can't convince anybody you make sense. I'm liberal because I learned over time just how ****ing stupid conservatives are. The more I understand about the world the more delusional republicans become.

KLATTU said:
Btw WAY, the graph I posted was from the OBAMA ADMINSTRATION.
So by THEIR benchmark, the ARRA did nothing that wouldn't have happened without it.
Click to expand...

And as you were even forced to admit, it's widely understood that said graph was issued months before President Obama took office and does not reflect the dramatic worsening that he had zero control over.
 
MrWonka said:
Yeah, see the question though is does being well educated make you more liberal or does being liberal make you more educated? At some point people like Krugman had no idea whether they supported liberal positions or not. Why is it that so many people who study these subjects just magically gravitate towards liberalism exactly? How come more conservatives don't study economics? Are you afraid it might blow your mind or something?

I voted for the first time back in 2000. Initially I kind of liked McCain actually until Bush won the primary. I ultimately ended up voting for Ralph Nader because I felt like we needed a change of pace and didn't particularly care for either Bush or Gore. Even after the election it took quite some time before I fully realized how ****ing stupid Bush was. Even then though I would have referred to myself more as a left leaning libertarian. I watched the O'Reilly Factor almost every single day. Not because I agreed with him, but because I wanted to make sure I understood both sides of the argument. I always enjoyed reading John Stossle's libertarian take in his columns. It wasn't until after Obama got elected and I started hearing the stupid ass **** coming out of libertarians who hated him that I really went full blown liberal. Even now some of the things coming from Bernie Bro's concern me, but man I would take that in a second over anything coming from republicans or libertarians. You see I'm a white male raised Lutheran in a small mid-western town. My parents and most of my family are heavily conservative. If there was anything that I was brain-washed into it would have been conservativism. If you can't convince me then you can't convince anybody you make sense. I'm liberal because I learned over time just how ****ing stupid conservatives are. The more I understand about the world the more delusional republicans become.



And as you were even forced to admit, it's widely understood that said graph was issued months before President Obama took office and does not reflect the dramatic worsening that he had zero control over.
Click to expand...

wow.MONTHS! LAFF....well,that changes EVERYthing!!HAHAHAHHA
 
MTAtech said:
In all European countries the social support network is more generous than that in the U.S. and nobody sees the weakness that you speak about.
Click to expand...

how little you understand! France has the per capita income of Arkansas, about our poorest state. They depend on us for defense, they depend on us for inventions. Did you think Apple Google were French?? They depended on us to save them through 2 world wars and give them a new culture. They are miserable and so don't reproduce, and will be majority Muslim in 50 years. They survive at about 70% of our standard of living thanks to our inventions, and, luckily, being a old world theme park for tourists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom