• 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!

House passes huge GOP budget cuts

CriticalThought said:
Libertarian means favoring individaul rights. It doesn't mean sabotaging the governement to the point that corporations possess more rights than the individual.
Click to expand...

Real libertarians are for minimal government. You don't seem to be a minimalist government type to me. Libertarians don’t flame corporations and advocate bigger government. I don’t know who you think you are fooling with that label but you clearly aren’t a libertarian.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Real libertarians are for minimal government.
Click to expand...

No, that is minarchism. You can be a libertarian and not embrace minarchism. Please learn your political philosophies before you lecture who can and cannot belong to a certain ideology.

Libertarians don’t flame corporations and advocate bigger government. I don’t know who you think you are fooling with that label but you clearly aren’t a libertarian.
Click to expand...

Wow, since you are so clearly incapable of basic reading comprehension, here again is what I posted.

CriticalThought said:
I hope the Republicans succeed. Their notion that a smaller government is a better government is just as annoying and naive as the liberal's notion that a bigger government is a better government. Nothing would awaken this country to the idiocy of leading by blind ideology than a flood of starving poor, elderly, and sick unlike has been seen since the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

I'm a centrist libertarian, which means I hold very moderate economic views and view the role of government pragmatically as opposed to idealistically. Corporations on the other hand have long sabotaged the government for the purpose of growing ever larger and limiting possible competition. That is in direct opposition to free market principles and warrants "flaming".
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
He hasn't increased my taxes, as a matter of fact I got a tax break.
Click to expand...

you're not interesting

elmendorf is

You are opposed to cutting waste in medicare?
Click to expand...

obamacare cuts medicare a half T while simultaneously expanding its already teetering enrollment

Months of waiting for knee and hip replacements are damn sight better than not being able to afford knee and hip replacements at all!
Click to expand...

americans with NO INSURANCE fare better---lower costs and mortalities, shorter stays---than their neighbors on medicaid, the ghetto of health care

ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations

and if hurryup harry doesn't DO something soon, our entitlement programs will not be there for the next generation

excellent speeches, anyone?
 
Catawba said:
We will see if he sticks to this
Click to expand...

and there ya go

americans are just gonna have to wait

meanwhile, service on the debt, mere interest alone, is racing toward a full T per year

every two weeks go by we go further under on the order of a hundred bil

and if something isn't done soon about entitlement reform, social security and medicare and medicaid will simply not be there for the next generation (nor will state pensions)

at least not in the form we've been promised and expect

leadership, anyone?
 
haymarket said:
Just for you rev. Just for you.

Social Security Online - HISTORY: Vote tallies on 1935 law

You right wing extremists rant and rail about Social Security and the New Deal. As I have said, it was enacted by both a majority of the members from BOTH parties and that includes Republicans.

House vote 4/19/35 on passage of the Social Security Act

Dems 284 - 15
Rep 81 - 15 (thats over 80% of republican members voting FOR it.

If that is not enough humble pie for you and Turtle to dine on jointly

Senate vote on Social Security Act

Dems 60 yes 1 no 8 not voting
REP 16 yes - 5 no - 4 not voting (thats 2 of every 3 GOP Senators voting FOR Social Security passage
Click to expand...



The Good Reverend, not being a right wing extremist, has said nothing on SS or the New Deal. Perhaps the far left wing socialist, union apologist can prove his assertion instead of resorting to prevarication.


The Good Reverend notes that both party's spend like far left liberal fools. Perhaps you can debate his actual points not the far left extremist communist unionist drivel.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Real libertarians are for minimal government. You don't seem to be a minimalist government type to me. Libertarians don’t flame corporations and advocate bigger government. I don’t know who you think you are fooling with that label but you clearly aren’t a libertarian.
Click to expand...

There are many types of libertarians.
You can even have left libertarians who oppose private property rights in general. Libertarianism is one of the most wide-ranging political philosophies.
 
iamitter said:
There are many types of libertarians.
You can even have left libertarians who oppose private property rights in general. Libertarianism is one of the most wide-ranging political philosophies.
Click to expand...

Yes.

I would say I'm kinda left libertarian, as my ideology has no common representation. The result of forming much of it earlier than most and THEN coming in contact with existing ideologies.

But I would qualify it as not opposing private property rights in theory at all, but having issues with how they translate into practice sometimes. If that makes sense.

I actually thought I had found "my" ideology when I encountered libertarianism.

It was the laissez-faire thing that refused to resolve for me.

I've just never seen the issue of the tendency of capitalism to not only create wealth, but to concentrate weath as well, addressed to my satisfaction.

No system made by man is perfect that I have encountered.

Our Constitutional system comes closer IMHO than anything prior to addressing the issue of humans and govt., but the Founders knew that time and wisdom would require it to evolve, so designed it to allow this "correction" of their vision.

No economic philosophy was set forth in the Constitution, as I feel was appropriate.

And capitalism is good at doing what it does.

But it is a system devised by man, and is therefore imperfect.

It was preceded by earlier ideas and will inevitably be followed with something that better suits some future set of conditions.

I am rarely able to even get anyone to discuss my concerns with capitalism, which are actually more with the details of how its shortcomings might be addressed than a rejection of it on its face.

The level of discussion on this forum has improved markedly recently. I really enjoy it.

And I really appreciate those who have opinions they have clearly formed themselves. As this means they think ABOUT what they're talking about, and not just HOW to prove someone else wrong.

That I always agree with!

I tend to test my conclusions against others'. To test them. Partisan, ideological bickering doesn't help me learn.

It actually tends to re-enforce my original belief when someone insists on answering a question I'm not asking.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, in other words.:2wave:
 
CriticalThought said:
Debt-to-GDP ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you don't even know the simplest measures of economic health, then I really can't help you.
Click to expand...

lol obviously you don’t have a clue how the “debt” in your chart was calculated. You see, sheeple who look at pretty little graphs without asking or understanding how the underlying data was derived are exactly what JFK was talking about when he said, as my signature quotes, “Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought”.

If you bothered to educate yourself a little on the subject you would realize that there are a number of types of debt and a number of ways that debt is calculated. This is also why government reports of surpluses and deficits are misleading.

Had you bothered to read the article you would have noticed the essential mathematical equation “Government Debt divided by GDP” and understood that “Government Debt” is a variable that must be replaced with a value (as is “GDP”) before mathematical computations can occur and graphs can be drawn.

Obviously you have no clue how these values were derived and for your pretty little chart and you probably didn’t even bother to follow the link on your website where you could have learned that there are a number of ways government debt is defined/calculated. Government debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You enjoyed the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
 
GPS_Flex said:
You enjoyed the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
Click to expand...

:roll:

That was a long winded way of saying that you don't like the graph so you are going to protest the numbers behind it without actually knowing what they are. Most calculations place the debt as percentage of GDP at below 60%. Not to mention our debt is rated AAA which means it is among the best investments in the world. So apparently the people who rate debt and the people who buy debt are pretty confident in our debt as percentage of GDP, and you, without providing any numbers of your own, are not, simply because it doesn't spell the gloom and doom that you have been brainwashed to believe we are currently facing. Hm, should I believe you or the market? The only way we would have any problem is if the GOP stands in the way of raising the debt ceiling, but they would have to be suicidal to try to pull such a stunt.
 
CriticalThought said:
No, that is minarchism. You can be a libertarian and not embrace minarchism. Please learn your political philosophies before you lecture who can and cannot belong to a certain ideology.



Wow, since you are so clearly incapable of basic reading comprehension, here again is what I posted.



I'm a centrist libertarian, which means I hold very moderate economic views and view the role of government pragmatically as opposed to idealistically. Corporations on the other hand have long sabotaged the government for the purpose of growing ever larger and limiting possible competition. That is in direct opposition to free market principles and warrants "flaming".
Click to expand...

iamitter said:
There are many types of libertarians.
You can even have left libertarians who oppose private property rights in general. Libertarianism is one of the most wide-ranging political philosophies.
Click to expand...

What if...? said:
Yes.

I would say I'm kinda left libertarian, as my ideology has no common representation. The result of forming much of it earlier than most and THEN coming in contact with existing ideologies.

But I would qualify it as not opposing private property rights in theory at all, but having issues with how they translate into practice sometimes. If that makes sense.

I actually thought I had found "my" ideology when I encountered libertarianism.

It was the laissez-faire thing that refused to resolve for me.

I've just never seen the issue of the tendency of capitalism to not only create wealth, but to concentrate weath as well, addressed to my satisfaction.

No system made by man is perfect that I have encountered.

Our Constitutional system comes closer IMHO than anything prior to addressing the issue of humans and govt., but the Founders knew that time and wisdom would require it to evolve, so designed it to allow this "correction" of their vision.

No economic philosophy was set forth in the Constitution, as I feel was appropriate.

And capitalism is good at doing what it does.

But it is a system devised by man, and is therefore imperfect.

It was preceded by earlier ideas and will inevitably be followed with something that better suits some future set of conditions.

I am rarely able to even get anyone to discuss my concerns with capitalism, which are actually more with the details of how its shortcomings might be addressed than a rejection of it on its face.

The level of discussion on this forum has improved markedly recently. I really enjoy it.

And I really appreciate those who have opinions they have clearly formed themselves. As this means they think ABOUT what they're talking about, and not just HOW to prove someone else wrong.

That I always agree with!

I tend to test my conclusions against others'. To test them. Partisan, ideological bickering doesn't help me learn.

It actually tends to re-enforce my original belief when someone insists on answering a question I'm not asking.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, in other words.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Platform | Libertarian Party

I will admit that I’m not an expert on political parties but the Libertarian Party platform doesn’t hold the same principles that some of you self proclaimed libertarians do. I don’t see how you can oppose private property rights and/or call for more government regulations and call yourself a libertarian.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Platform | Libertarian Party

I will admit that I’m not an expert on political parties but the Libertarian Party platform doesn’t hold the same principles that some of you self proclaimed libertarians do. I don’t see how you can oppose private property rights and/or call for more government regulations and call yourself a libertarian.
Click to expand...

They can't. Lol, Got to love these people. You will love the socialist Libertarians around here somewhere. Their amount of nonsense is outstanding!
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
Platform | Libertarian Party

I will admit that I’m not an expert on political parties but the Libertarian Party platform doesn’t hold the same principles that some of you self proclaimed libertarians do. I don’t see how you can oppose private property rights and/or call for more government regulations and call yourself a libertarian.
Click to expand...

Someday you'll realize that not every libertarian's views are supported by the LP. They are a spectrum, just like every other philosophy.
 
CriticalThought said:
Look at the pretty chart.

The fear mongering may work on you but it doesn't work on me. Are things great? No. But they are by no means bad or even close to as bad as they have been in the past. People are not starving and dying in the streets. The tax rate right now is as low as it has ever been. Maybe some people need to take their heads out of their asses and actually research how bad the economic conditions actually are instead of listening to pundits screaming on radio and television shows how bad things are.
Click to expand...


GPS_Flex said:
You might be hypnotized by “pretty chart” but I am educated enough and informed enough to know that they are meaningless without an explanation of the methods used to create it.

Maybe you are among the people who need to take their heads out of their asses and do some research of your own. If you can answer this simple question, I will bow down before you and worship your “non-head in ass highness” but if you can’t, you are just another guy with analcraniumosis.

How does your “pretty chart” incorporate public debt and intragovernmental holdings? If you don’t know the answer to this, you need to stop staring at pretty little charts and educate yourself a little.
Click to expand...


CriticalThought said:
Debt-to-GDP ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you don't even know the simplest measures of economic health, then I really can't help you.
Click to expand...

CriticalThought said:
:roll:

That was a long winded way of saying that you don't like the graph so you are going to protest the numbers behind it without actually knowing what they are. Most calculations place the debt as percentage of GDP at below 60%. Not to mention our debt is rated AAA which means it is among the best investments in the world. So apparently the people who rate debt and the people who buy debt are pretty confident in our debt as percentage of GDP, and you, without providing any numbers of your own, are not, simply because it doesn't spell the gloom and doom that you have been brainwashed to believe we are currently facing. Hm, should I believe you or the market? The only way we would have any problem is if the GOP stands in the way of raising the debt ceiling, but they would have to be suicidal to try to pull such a stunt.
Click to expand...

Anyone with the ability to perform basic reasoning can see that I asked you to explain the values behind your chart and you failed.

I even offered to bow down and worship you if you could tell me how your chart incorporated “public debt and intragovernmental holdings” but you obviously don’t have a clue what those big words mean and have no idea why they are relevant so I might as well be arguing quantum physics with a 3rd grader because you don’t seem capable of an intelligent discussion of the issue.
 
Last edited:
iamitter said:
Someday you'll realize that not every libertarian's views are supported by the LP. They are a spectrum, just like every other philosophy.
Click to expand...

You can call yourself whatever you want. It doesn’t mean you are a libertarian though just because you say you are. That’s the simple fact jack.
 
GPS_Flex said:
You can call yourself whatever you want. It doesn’t mean you are a libertarian though just because you say you are. That’s the simple fact jack.
Click to expand...

And where exactly would you put me?
I'm a military non-interventionist who thinks we can easily scale back defense spending to a fifth of what it is now.
I'm pro-free trade and think we shouldn't have any tariffs.
I think government shouldn't be involved on any social issue. That means for things like gay marriage, either give other people the same privilege or call everything sanctioned by the government a civil union.
I don't think we should have anything like Social Security/Medicare. For those who really want some security, give them an optional lockbox in a government account where they can put a certain % of their income. Don't hold the hand of those who don't need it.
I think we should retain some aspects of Medicaid. There's some people in our society who can't take care of themselves and in a well-developed society, we can easily care for them.
I don't believe in corporatism or LLCs at all.
I think some anti-trust legislation is necessary. Most of the issues of consumers getting hurt are removed when you take away the corporate shield, though.
I would be in favor of spending on things like alternative energy and other scientific research. Likewise, most of the need for this is removed when the corporate shield is gone. When you pollute someone's air in their backyard or their local river and someone can actually sue you for it now, companies will invest in these things themselves.

Most of the things I support I think would easily identify me as a libertarian. Having said that, I disagree pretty strongly with most "libertarians" in congress now.
 
CriticalThought said:
:roll:

That was a long winded way of saying that you don't like the graph so you are going to protest the numbers behind it without actually knowing what they are. Most calculations place the debt as percentage of GDP at below 60%. Not to mention our debt is rated AAA which means it is among the best investments in the world. So apparently the people who rate debt and the people who buy debt are pretty confident in our debt as percentage of GDP, and you, without providing any numbers of your own, are not, simply because it doesn't spell the gloom and doom that you have been brainwashed to believe we are currently facing. Hm, should I believe you or the market? The only way we would have any problem is if the GOP stands in the way of raising the debt ceiling, but they would have to be suicidal to try to pull such a stunt.
Click to expand...

Pretty judgemental responsenot sure the answer is as black and white(almost nothing is) as you presume. Federal debt to outside parties is in fact about 60% of GDP. However this does not include interagency debt. The biggest piece of this are the treasuries that the social security fund holds. This brings the total to about 100%. Let's remeber the discussion about the debt ceiling. The current ceiling is about $14.3 trillion. This is federal debt only. Adding state and local debt the percent rises to about 125% of GDP.

You pick an interesting day for the above post. As just this morning S&P put U.S. debt of negative credit watch. Saying if the deficit situation shows little sign of getting fixed by 2013 then we should expect a downgrade.

So put aside this partisan hackery as this is a problem everyone on both sides of the aisle says needs to be addressed.
 
iamitter said:
And where exactly would you put me?
I'm a military non-interventionist who thinks we can easily scale back defense spending to a fifth of what it is now.
I'm pro-free trade and think we shouldn't have any tariffs.
I think government shouldn't be involved on any social issue. That means for things like gay marriage, either give other people the same privilege or call everything sanctioned by the government a civil union.
I don't think we should have anything like Social Security/Medicare. For those who really want some security, give them an optional lockbox in a government account where they can put a certain % of their income. Don't hold the hand of those who don't need it.
I think we should retain some aspects of Medicaid. There's some people in our society who can't take care of themselves and in a well-developed society, we can easily care for them.
I don't believe in corporatism or LLCs at all.
I think some anti-trust legislation is necessary. Most of the issues of consumers getting hurt are removed when you take away the corporate shield, though.
I would be in favor of spending on things like alternative energy and other scientific research. Likewise, most of the need for this is removed when the corporate shield is gone. When you pollute someone's air in their backyard or their local river and someone can actually sue you for it now, companies will invest in these things themselves.

Most of the things I support I think would easily identify me as a libertarian. Having said that, I disagree pretty strongly with most "libertarians" in congress now.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t try to place you. If you strongly disagree with the Libertarian Party though I don’t see why you would want to call yourself a Libertarian.

I strongly disagree with all of the parties so I register to vote as “unaffiliated”. I don’t get to vote in any primaries but that doesn’t bother me. It’s just one less time I have to plug my nose and vote for the least deplorable candidate on the ballot.
 
washunut said:
Pretty judgemental responsenot sure the answer is as black and white(almost nothing is) as you presume. Federal debt to outside parties is in fact about 60% of GDP. However this does not include interagency debt. The biggest piece of this are the treasuries that the social security fund holds. This brings the total to about 100%. Let's remeber the discussion about the debt ceiling. The current ceiling is about $14.3 trillion. This is federal debt only. Adding state and local debt the percent rises to about 125% of GDP.

You pick an interesting day for the above post. As just this morning S&P put U.S. debt of negative credit watch. Saying if the deficit situation shows little sign of getting fixed by 2013 then we should expect a downgrade.

So put aside this partisan hackery as this is a problem everyone on both sides of the aisle says needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Finally an intelligent response. Thank you washunut.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I wouldn’t try to place you. If you strongly disagree with the Libertarian Party though I don’t see why you would want to call yourself a Libertarian.

I strongly disagree with all of the parties so I register to vote as “unaffiliated”. I don’t get to vote in any primaries but that doesn’t bother me. It’s just one less time I have to plug my nose and vote for the least deplorable candidate on the ballot.
Click to expand...

Because Libertarian for me isn't a party affiliation, but a philosophical one. Notice that other leans here are not classified as "Republican" or "Democrat", but rather "conservative" and "liberal" (also, foreign folks).
You can be a conservative and disagree with republicans, just like you can be a libertarian and disagree with the libertarian party.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Platform | Libertarian Party

I will admit that I’m not an expert on political parties but the Libertarian Party platform doesn’t hold the same principles that some of you self proclaimed libertarians do. I don’t see how you can oppose private property rights and/or call for more government regulations and call yourself a libertarian.
Click to expand...

The Libertarian Party represents just one segment of libertarians. I also never opposed private property rights. It seems you like to put words in people's mouths because you are incapable of listening.
 
washunut said:
Adding state and local debt the percent rises to about 125% of GDP.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. Why would you add state and local debt? Most of the states are indebted to the federal government. Most of the local goverments are in turn indebted to the state. So you are pretty much doubling a lot of the same debt.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Anyone with the ability to perform basic reasoning can see that I asked you to explain the values behind your chart and you failed.
Click to expand...

I provided you a handy dandy wiki article that you simply refused to read. Not my problem.
 
yeah i hate when people bring the libertarian party against libertarianism, its an idea, it sucks that the party is a bunch of sellouts

CriticalThought said:
The Libertarian Party represents just one segment of libertarians. I also never opposed private property rights. It seems you like to put words in people's mouths because you are incapable of listening.
Click to expand...
 
disneydude said:
House passes huge GOP budget cuts, opposing Obama - Yahoo! News

Republicans controlling the House pushed to passage on Friday a bold but politically dangerous budget blueprint to slash social safety net programs like food stamps and Medicaid and fundamentally restructure Medicare health care for the elderly.

The choice in the next election is becoming more and more clear. There is no question which party represents the interests of the wealthy and which party represents the interests of the rest of the country.

The GOP fought hard earlier to preserve tax cuts for those making over 250K. Today they showed how they want to pay for those cuts...by slashing money from food stamps, medicaid and medicare.

The GOP war on the elderly, the poor and the working class continues....
Click to expand...

They just handed the Dems a political play book by putting these fringe-right Tea Party ideas down on the Congressional record -- the yeas just voted to pull the plug on grandma and a whole host of other things...

Go GOP!! Drink the Tea!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom