Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Higher taxes are not the answer.

HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 9:48:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.

SO do I. And also we cut spending drastically under Clinton, but newt and the other house republicans are the ones to congratulate. They did it, even with goverment shut downs, Clinton succumbed, but after a lot of kicking and screaming.

But my signature agrees with you
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 11:58:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.

I agree that there is a spending problem. The problem is not, however, that we are spending too much; rather, it is that we are misallocating our funds. We currently spend more on our military than every other nation in the world does combined. 31 corporations received billions of dollars in tax refunds even though they paid $0 in taxes (look up General Electrics), and many more essentially paid negative taxes after rebates. Money is unnecessarily spent on Medicare due to corruption and fraud among doctors. Congressmen also decry universal healthcare while gladly using government money to pay for their families' operations (if they do not want state-funded healthcare, then they should stop using it.) Tax loopholes also need to be eliminated; they deprive the government money that it deserves according to the law. The situation is more complex than you have portrayed it to be.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 12:04:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 11:58:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.

I agree that there is a spending problem. The problem is not, however, that we are spending too much; rather, it is that we are misallocating our funds. We currently spend more on our military than every other nation in the world does combined. 31 corporations received billions of dollars in tax refunds even though they paid $0 in taxes (look up General Electrics), and many more essentially paid negative taxes after rebates. Money is unnecessarily spent on Medicare due to corruption and fraud among doctors. Congressmen also decry universal healthcare while gladly using government money to pay for their families' operations (if they do not want state-funded healthcare, then they should stop using it.) Tax loopholes also need to be eliminated; they deprive the government money that it deserves according to the law. The situation is more complex than you have portrayed it to be.

I can see that you are putting that Columbia education to good use spouting your usual leftist nonsense.

I am all for eliminating tax loopholes.... We should eliminate all taxes and there would be no tax loopholes left... Problem solved.

In fact, all of the problems you identified could be solved by simply dissolving the state and having a true free market, an market anarchist society...

I'm glad you finally see that a free market is the only solution to all of our current problems
President of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 12:06:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The other thing that you are not taking into consideration is that income taxes actually favor the rich because it provides them with free resources. The market prices goods based on an individual's ability to pay for them relative to the abilities of others to pay for them. Progressive income tax system then essentially allow the rich to gain free services while providing the poor with resources as well. I read a fantastic article about this by Professor Robert Frank of Cornell University. Assuming that you are interested in discussion instead of a political flame war, I have posted the link below.

http://nontrivialpursuits.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 12:07:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 12:04:56 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/7/2011 11:58:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.

I agree that there is a spending problem. The problem is not, however, that we are spending too much; rather, it is that we are misallocating our funds. We currently spend more on our military than every other nation in the world does combined. 31 corporations received billions of dollars in tax refunds even though they paid $0 in taxes (look up General Electrics), and many more essentially paid negative taxes after rebates. Money is unnecessarily spent on Medicare due to corruption and fraud among doctors. Congressmen also decry universal healthcare while gladly using government money to pay for their families' operations (if they do not want state-funded healthcare, then they should stop using it.) Tax loopholes also need to be eliminated; they deprive the government money that it deserves according to the law. The situation is more complex than you have portrayed it to be.

I can see that you are putting that Columbia education to good use spouting your usual leftist nonsense.

I am all for eliminating tax loopholes.... We should eliminate all taxes and there would be no tax loopholes left... Problem solved.

In fact, all of the problems you identified could be solved by simply dissolving the state and having a true free market, an market anarchist society...

I'm glad you finally see that a free market is the only solution to all of our current problems

Jimtimmy, instead of being bitter that I am not voting for you and that you are your only supporter, you could maturely have a discussion with me. Explain why anything that I said was leftist nonsense. No, I do not believe that a free market is a solution to our problems. Rather, I would say that is the cause of many of our problems.

Please see my post above.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 12:18:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 12:07:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/8/2011 12:04:56 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/7/2011 11:58:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.

I agree that there is a spending problem. The problem is not, however, that we are spending too much; rather, it is that we are misallocating our funds. We currently spend more on our military than every other nation in the world does combined. 31 corporations received billions of dollars in tax refunds even though they paid $0 in taxes (look up General Electrics), and many more essentially paid negative taxes after rebates. Money is unnecessarily spent on Medicare due to corruption and fraud among doctors. Congressmen also decry universal healthcare while gladly using government money to pay for their families' operations (if they do not want state-funded healthcare, then they should stop using it.) Tax loopholes also need to be eliminated; they deprive the government money that it deserves according to the law. The situation is more complex than you have portrayed it to be.

I can see that you are putting that Columbia education to good use spouting your usual leftist nonsense.

I am all for eliminating tax loopholes.... We should eliminate all taxes and there would be no tax loopholes left... Problem solved.

In fact, all of the problems you identified could be solved by simply dissolving the state and having a true free market, an market anarchist society...

I'm glad you finally see that a free market is the only solution to all of our current problems

Jimtimmy, instead of being bitter that I am not voting for you and that you are your only supporter, you could maturely have a discussion with me. Explain why anything that I said was leftist nonsense. No, I do not believe that a free market is a solution to our problems. Rather, I would say that is the cause of many of our problems.

Please see my post above.

The state is an institution that violently steals a part of everyone's income (taxation)...

In a stateless free market, everything that people wanted would be available... If people wanted to have a large welfare system, they would contribute to a large welfare system... It wouldnt be funded by force, however.

As for the economics of the matter, the state caused virtually econonomic crisis that has taken place... The 2008 crash was caused by the Fed's overexpansion of Credit and the lax lending standards that was forced/encouraged by the Federal Gov...

1970s stagflation was another result of idiotic Keynesian fiscal/monetary policies and awful, leftist supply side policies (high tax rates, energy price controls, all the usual socialist idiocy from libs)

1929... Federal reserve overexpanded credit and, voila, crash... Hoover and FDR respond with too much intervention (tax hikes and spending increases... and regulations)... voila... Great Depression..

The worst part is that these same retards want to run our Health Care system too.
President of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 12:29:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 12:18:05 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/8/2011 12:07:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/8/2011 12:04:56 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/7/2011 11:58:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.

I agree that there is a spending problem. The problem is not, however, that we are spending too much; rather, it is that we are misallocating our funds. We currently spend more on our military than every other nation in the world does combined. 31 corporations received billions of dollars in tax refunds even though they paid $0 in taxes (look up General Electrics), and many more essentially paid negative taxes after rebates. Money is unnecessarily spent on Medicare due to corruption and fraud among doctors. Congressmen also decry universal healthcare while gladly using government money to pay for their families' operations (if they do not want state-funded healthcare, then they should stop using it.) Tax loopholes also need to be eliminated; they deprive the government money that it deserves according to the law. The situation is more complex than you have portrayed it to be.

I can see that you are putting that Columbia education to good use spouting your usual leftist nonsense.

I am all for eliminating tax loopholes.... We should eliminate all taxes and there would be no tax loopholes left... Problem solved.

In fact, all of the problems you identified could be solved by simply dissolving the state and having a true free market, an market anarchist society...

I'm glad you finally see that a free market is the only solution to all of our current problems

Jimtimmy, instead of being bitter that I am not voting for you and that you are your only supporter, you could maturely have a discussion with me. Explain why anything that I said was leftist nonsense. No, I do not believe that a free market is a solution to our problems. Rather, I would say that is the cause of many of our problems.

Please see my post above.

The state is an institution that violently steals a part of everyone's income (taxation)...

In a stateless free market, everything that people wanted would be available... If people wanted to have a large welfare system, they would contribute to a large welfare system... It wouldnt be funded by force, however.

As for the economics of the matter, the state caused virtually econonomic crisis that has taken place... The 2008 crash was caused by the Fed's overexpansion of Credit and the lax lending standards that was forced/encouraged by the Federal Gov...

1970s stagflation was another result of idiotic Keynesian fiscal/monetary policies and awful, leftist supply side policies (high tax rates, energy price controls, all the usual socialist idiocy from libs)

1929... Federal reserve overexpanded credit and, voila, crash... Hoover and FDR respond with too much intervention (tax hikes and spending increases... and regulations)... voila... Great Depression..

The worst part is that these same retards want to run our Health Care system too.

Somalia is a fantastic example of a stateless free market; it is a violent regime controlled by drug lords. Regulation is actually necessary to maintain a free market and prevent the formation of monopolies; any history textbook will discuss the empires of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and JP Morgan. The 2008 Crash was caused by private banks and their sneaky mortgage policies; the Fed (run by Republican Ben Bernanke) did not play as large of a role as you claim. 1970s stagflation was the result of an oil crisis caused by our arrogant treatment of OPEC. Hoover had no response to the Great Depression; in fact, he was voted out of office because he literally thought that the market would improve itself. I will concede that the New Deal did not completely heal the market, but it definitely improved the condition of the state.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 12:30:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you look at the WHO rankings of the world' s healthcare system, you will see that many nations with socialized heatlh care offer better treatment options than the United States does.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 12:38:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 12:30:13 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
If you look at the WHO rankings of the world' s healthcare system, you will see that many nations with socialized heatlh care offer better treatment options than the United States does.

You mean the 11 year old report that has virtuallly no credibility?

Even more interesting is that the Singapore System ranks above many of your beloved socialized systems and it is 67% privately financed. For comparison, the US system is only 52% privatley financed.
President of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 12:42:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 12:38:18 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/8/2011 12:30:13 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
If you look at the WHO rankings of the world' s healthcare system, you will see that many nations with socialized heatlh care offer better treatment options than the United States does.


You mean the 11 year old report that has virtuallly no credibility?

Even more interesting is that the Singapore System ranks above many of your beloved socialized systems and it is 67% privately financed. For comparison, the US system is only 52% privatley financed.

Sigh. I do not mean to be crass or offensive, but you literally spout out nonsense without researching.

"Singapore has a modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls. Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions (funded by both employers and workers) to provide subsidies within a nationalized health insurance plan known as Medisave. Within Medisave, each citizen accumulates funds that are individually tracked, and such funds can be pooled within and across an entire extended family. The vast majority of Singapore citizens have substantial savings in this scheme. One of three levels of subsidy is chosen by the patient at the time of the healthcare episode." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Why does the WHO ranking sheet not have any credibility? You probably just said that because it does not list the United States as #1.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 1:01:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 12:29:28 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/8/2011 12:18:05 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/8/2011 12:07:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/8/2011 12:04:56 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/7/2011 11:58:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.

I agree that there is a spending problem. The problem is not, however, that we are spending too much; rather, it is that we are misallocating our funds. We currently spend more on our military than every other nation in the world does combined. 31 corporations received billions of dollars in tax refunds even though they paid $0 in taxes (look up General Electrics), and many more essentially paid negative taxes after rebates. Money is unnecessarily spent on Medicare due to corruption and fraud among doctors. Congressmen also decry universal healthcare while gladly using government money to pay for their families' operations (if they do not want state-funded healthcare, then they should stop using it.) Tax loopholes also need to be eliminated; they deprive the government money that it deserves according to the law. The situation is more complex than you have portrayed it to be.

I can see that you are putting that Columbia education to good use spouting your usual leftist nonsense.

I am all for eliminating tax loopholes.... We should eliminate all taxes and there would be no tax loopholes left... Problem solved.

In fact, all of the problems you identified could be solved by simply dissolving the state and having a true free market, an market anarchist society...

I'm glad you finally see that a free market is the only solution to all of our current problems

Jimtimmy, instead of being bitter that I am not voting for you and that you are your only supporter, you could maturely have a discussion with me. Explain why anything that I said was leftist nonsense. No, I do not believe that a free market is a solution to our problems. Rather, I would say that is the cause of many of our problems.

Please see my post above.

The state is an institution that violently steals a part of everyone's income (taxation)...

In a stateless free market, everything that people wanted would be available... If people wanted to have a large welfare system, they would contribute to a large welfare system... It wouldnt be funded by force, however.

As for the economics of the matter, the state caused virtually econonomic crisis that has taken place... The 2008 crash was caused by the Fed's overexpansion of Credit and the lax lending standards that was forced/encouraged by the Federal Gov...

1970s stagflation was another result of idiotic Keynesian fiscal/monetary policies and awful, leftist supply side policies (high tax rates, energy price controls, all the usual socialist idiocy from libs)

1929... Federal reserve overexpanded credit and, voila, crash... Hoover and FDR respond with too much intervention (tax hikes and spending increases... and regulations)... voila... Great Depression..

The worst part is that these same retards want to run our Health Care system too.

Somalia is a fantastic example of a stateless free market; it is a violent regime controlled by drug lords. Regulation is actually necessary to maintain a free market and prevent the formation of monopolies; any history textbook will discuss the empires of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and JP Morgan. The 2008 Crash was caused by private banks and their sneaky mortgage policies; the Fed (run by Republican Ben Bernanke) did not play as large of a role as you claim. 1970s stagflation was the result of an oil crisis caused by our arrogant treatment of OPEC. Hoover had no response to the Great Depression; in fact, he was voted out of office because he literally thought that the market would improve itself. I will concede that the New Deal did not completely heal the market, but it definitely improved the condition of the state.

Wow, you really just take in whatever your retarded professors feed you...

First, Somalia. I love how you statist retards bring this up as an example of Anarchy. Somalia is an African country. Is Zimbabwe or Cameroon a lot better off than Somalia?

Even better, you act like it is controlled by drug lords. In fact, without state, law, roads, telecommunications, and many other things formed. Somalia has actually done relatively WELL without a state. If anything, Somalia is proof that anarchy at least works better than the redistribution, print money type countries like Zimbabwe. Link here:

http://mises.org...

Okay, regulation necessary to hold back monopolies. Wrong. Monopolies don't form in a free market unless they offer high quality items at low prices. If companies raise prices or get innefficient, they will get outcompeted.

The original anti trust laws were created by companies that wanted to take down more competitive companies. The problem was that some "monopolies" were selling their items at, oh the horrors, too low of a price... in other words, consumers were benefitting too much...

Other regulations have failed to anything but suppresss competition. As, they are alll written by leaders in the industry to suppress competition....

Okay, now, the 2008 crash caused by "private banks"... Well, you didn't give any explanation here. The fact is that the Fed overexpanded credit which created an artificial bubble which crashed.

Meanwhile, State sponsored and created entities like Fannie and Freddie gave out irresponsible loans at the artificially low interest rates... and the state also forced private lenders to give out irresponsible loans to low income folks... Bubble bursted.

This really isnt even that debatable... the state caused the crash... it wasnt some "the free market failed" situation

Okay, the 1970s was a result of "OPEC"... lol, its hard to even take you seriously at this point...

No, theres a pretty good explanation of this in standard economics...The Fed printed too much money and, as logic would tell us, prices went way up...

Stagflation was the result of too much money being printed and things like high taxes, price controls, etc which held back the supply side of the economy... Very simple and correct explanation

Wow, Hoover did nothing... you are ignorant... He put up tariffs, fixed wages, increased spending, and passed MASSIVE tax hikes... he did a lot... and it hurt... Roosevelt did more and he hurt even more:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu...

The economy would have recovered much quicker had nothing been done.

Wow, your arguments are pretty much the standard statist retardation... I love how you claimed to be so smart, and now it is obvious that you are not
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 1:02:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 12:42:54 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/8/2011 12:38:18 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/8/2011 12:30:13 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
If you look at the WHO rankings of the world' s healthcare system, you will see that many nations with socialized heatlh care offer better treatment options than the United States does.


You mean the 11 year old report that has virtuallly no credibility?

Even more interesting is that the Singapore System ranks above many of your beloved socialized systems and it is 67% privately financed. For comparison, the US system is only 52% privatley financed.

Sigh. I do not mean to be crass or offensive, but you literally spout out nonsense without researching.

"Singapore has a modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls. Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions (funded by both employers and workers) to provide subsidies within a nationalized health insurance plan known as Medisave. Within Medisave, each citizen accumulates funds that are individually tracked, and such funds can be pooled within and across an entire extended family. The vast majority of Singapore citizens have substantial savings in this scheme. One of three levels of subsidy is chosen by the patient at the time of the healthcare episode." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Why does the WHO ranking sheet not have any credibility? You probably just said that because it does not list the United States as #1.

Lol, the best part of this is that it does not at all discredit what I was saying... Singapore is the most privatley financed system in the world, as measured by percentage privatley financed...

How do you even take yourself seriously?
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 1:05:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 12:29:28 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/8/2011 12:18:05 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/8/2011 12:07:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/8/2011 12:04:56 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/7/2011 11:58:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.

I agree that there is a spending problem. The problem is not, however, that we are spending too much; rather, it is that we are misallocating our funds. We currently spend more on our military than every other nation in the world does combined. 31 corporations received billions of dollars in tax refunds even though they paid $0 in taxes (look up General Electrics), and many more essentially paid negative taxes after rebates. Money is unnecessarily spent on Medicare due to corruption and fraud among doctors. Congressmen also decry universal healthcare while gladly using government money to pay for their families' operations (if they do not want state-funded healthcare, then they should stop using it.) Tax loopholes also need to be eliminated; they deprive the government money that it deserves according to the law. The situation is more complex than you have portrayed it to be.

I can see that you are putting that Columbia education to good use spouting your usual leftist nonsense.

I am all for eliminating tax loopholes.... We should eliminate all taxes and there would be no tax loopholes left... Problem solved.

In fact, all of the problems you identified could be solved by simply dissolving the state and having a true free market, an market anarchist society...

I'm glad you finally see that a free market is the only solution to all of our current problems

Jimtimmy, instead of being bitter that I am not voting for you and that you are your only supporter, you could maturely have a discussion with me. Explain why anything that I said was leftist nonsense. No, I do not believe that a free market is a solution to our problems. Rather, I would say that is the cause of many of our problems.

Please see my post above.

The state is an institution that violently steals a part of everyone's income (taxation)...

In a stateless free market, everything that people wanted would be available... If people wanted to have a large welfare system, they would contribute to a large welfare system... It wouldnt be funded by force, however.

As for the economics of the matter, the state caused virtually econonomic crisis that has taken place... The 2008 crash was caused by the Fed's overexpansion of Credit and the lax lending standards that was forced/encouraged by the Federal Gov...

1970s stagflation was another result of idiotic Keynesian fiscal/monetary policies and awful, leftist supply side policies (high tax rates, energy price controls, all the usual socialist idiocy from libs)

1929... Federal reserve overexpanded credit and, voila, crash... Hoover and FDR respond with too much intervention (tax hikes and spending increases... and regulations)... voila... Great Depression..

The worst part is that these same retards want to run our Health Care system too.

Somalia is a fantastic example of a stateless free market; it is a violent regime controlled by drug lords. Regulation is actually necessary to maintain a free market and prevent the formation of monopolies; any history textbook will discuss the empires of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and JP Morgan. The 2008 Crash was caused by private banks and their sneaky mortgage policies; the Fed (run by Republican Ben Bernanke) did not play as large of a role as you claim. 1970s stagflation was the result of an oil crisis caused by our arrogant treatment of OPEC. Hoover had no response to the Great Depression; in fact, he was voted out of office because he literally thought that the market would improve itself. I will concede that the New Deal did not completely heal the market, but it definitely improved the condition of the state.


Wow, you really just take in whatever your retarded professors feed you...

First, Somalia. I love how you statist retards bring this up as an example of Anarchy. Somalia is an African country. Is Zimbabwe or Cameroon a lot better off than Somalia?

Even better, you act like it is controlled by drug lords. In fact, without state, law, roads, telecommunications, and many other things formed. Somalia has actually done relatively WELL without a state. If anything, Somalia is proof that anarchy at least works better than the redistribution, print money type countries like Zimbabwe. Link here:

http://mises.org...

Okay, regulation necessary to hold back monopolies. Wrong. Monopolies don't form in a free market unless they offer high quality items at low prices. If companies raise prices or get innefficient, they will get outcompeted.

The original anti trust laws were created by companies that wanted to take down more competitive companies. The problem was that some "monopolies" were selling their items at, oh the horrors, too low of a price... in other words, consumers were benefitting too much...

Other regulations have failed to anything but suppresss competition. As, they are alll written by leaders in the industry to suppress competition....

Okay, now, the 2008 crash caused by "private banks"... Well, you didn't give any explanation here. The fact is that the Fed overexpanded credit which created an artificial bubble which crashed.

Meanwhile, State sponsored and created entities like Fannie and Freddie gave out irresponsible loans at the artificially low interest rates... and the state also forced private lenders to give out irresponsible loans to low income folks... Bubble bursted.

This really isnt even that debatable... the state caused the crash... it wasnt some "the free market failed" situation

Okay, the 1970s was a result of "OPEC"... lol, its hard to even take you seriously at this point...

No, theres a pretty good explanation of this in standard economics...The Fed printed too much money and, as logic would tell us, prices went way up...
Stagflation was the result of too much money being printed and things like high taxes, price controls, etc which held back the supply side of the economy... Very simple and correct explanation

Wow, Hoover did nothing... you are ignorant... He put up tariffs, fixed wages, increased spending, and passed MASSIVE tax hikes... he did a lot... and it hurt... Roosevelt did more and he hurt even more:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu...

The economy would have recovered much quicker had nothing been done.

Wow, your arguments are pretty much the standard statist retardation... I love how you claimed to be so smart, and now it is obvious that you are not
President of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 1:31:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
First, Somalia. I love how you statist retards bring this up as an example of Anarchy. Somalia is an African country. Is Zimbabwe or Cameroon a lot better off than Somalia?

Even better, you act like it is controlled by drug lords. In fact, without state, law, roads, telecommunications, and many other things formed. Somalia has actually done relatively WELL without a state. If anything, Somalia is proof that anarchy at least works better than the redistribution, print money type countries like Zimbabwe. Link here:

http://mises.org...


Okay, regulation necessary to hold back monopolies. Wrong. Monopolies don't form in a free market unless they offer high quality items at low prices. If companies raise prices or get innefficient, they will get outcompeted.

The original anti trust laws were created by companies that wanted to take down more competitive companies. The problem was that some "monopolies" were selling their items at, oh the horrors, too low of a price... in other words, consumers were benefitting too much...

Other regulations have failed to anything but suppresss competition. As, they are alll written by leaders in the industry to suppress competition....


Okay, now, the 2008 crash caused by "private banks"... Well, you didn't give any explanation here. The fact is that the Fed overexpanded credit which created an artificial bubble which crashed.

Meanwhile, State sponsored and created entities like Fannie and Freddie gave out irresponsible loans at the artificially low interest rates... and the state also forced private lenders to give out irresponsible loans to low income folks... Bubble bursted.

This really isnt even that debatable... the state caused the crash... it wasnt some "the free market failed" situation


Okay, the 1970s was a result of "OPEC"... lol, its hard to even take you seriously at this point...

No, theres a pretty good explanation of this in standard economics...The Fed printed too much money and, as logic would tell us, prices went way up...

Stagflation was the result of too much money being printed and things like high taxes, price controls, etc which held back the supply side of the economy... Very simple and correct explanation


Wow, Hoover did nothing... you are ignorant... He put up tariffs, fixed wages, increased spending, and passed MASSIVE tax hikes... he did a lot... and it hurt... Roosevelt did more and he hurt even more:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu...

The economy would have recovered much quicker had nothing been done.


Wow, your arguments are pretty much the standard statist retardation... I love how you claimed to be so smart, and now it is obvious that you are not

Apparently, you feel obligated to end every single one of your comments with a personal attack or an insult. Keep in mind that you have lied about examples multiple times in the past two days; Singapore and gene amplification are prime examples.

Somalia's GDP is 5.89 billion. While I admit that this is higher than Zimbabwe's GDP, the vast majority of African nations have higher GDPs than Somalia does. (Egypt and South Africa are prime examples of this.) (http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP))
Your argument would have validity if Somalia was the richest African nation in the world; unfortuantely for you, however, it is one of the poorest and most violent. In fact, they are so fed up with the system that elections are being arranged for 2012.
Zimbabwe is led by a corrupt leader who uses the state's money to line his pockets instead of aid the people; it is not really a fantastic example for your side of the debate.

"Monopolies do not form in a free market unless . . ." This just admits that monopolies do form in a free market. Pick up any history textbook and read about Rockefeller and Carnegie; they established monopolies in an unfettered free market. As usual, you choose to spam rather than research. The first U.S. antitrust law, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, was written to prevent monopolies. Corporations were actually opposed to it; they did not advance it to break up larger companies.

"The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by the United States federal government. However, for the most part, politicians were unwilling to refer to the law until Theodore Roosevelt's presidency (1901–1909)."

2008: I discussed private bank's lending policies. You claim that the blame lies with the government, but the problem was that both instituted avaristic policies. "The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of valuation and liquidity problems in the United States banking system in 2008.[3] The collapse of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2007, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[4] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009." Most of the problems above were caused by the private banks and not the government, so the private sector is responsible for these atrocities.

With regards to Hoover: none of his policies were Keynesian in the slightest sense. In fact, Hoover relied on voluntary action and the free market to lift society out of the Depression. (He did pass laws that deported Mexicans, but that was just racism that did nothing to solve the crisis.)

"From before his entry to the presidency, he was a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth.[39] Hoover feared that too much intervention or coercion by the government would destroy individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important American values. Both his ideals and the economy were put to the test with the onset of the Great Depression . . . . Calls for greater government assistance increased as the U.S. economy continued to decline. Hoover rejected direct federal relief payments to individuals, as he believed that a dole would be addictive, and reduce the incentive to work. He was also a firm believer in balanced budgets, and was unwilling to run a budget deficit to fund welfare programs . . . Hoover's stance on the economy had been based largely on voluntarism.[50] That is, expecting churches and social institutions to aid the poor."

The UCLA argument is ridiculously stupid. Hoover attempted to institute minimalist policies, and the economy did not recover at all. There is thus no reason to believe that doing little would have somehow helped FDR improve the economy. (I argue that Hoover did little; obviously he did not literally do nothing. See the above quotes aboout Hoover.)
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 1:46:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I see the point about wasting most of what is brought in on useless wars. But if we were to cut spending in half and the military by 2/3, we would still end up spending less than we currently spend on programs liberals find favorable. Are you prepared to go back to Clinton era budgets?
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 1:54:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 11:58:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.

I agree that there is a spending problem. The problem is not, however, that we are spending too much; rather, it is that we are misallocating our funds. We currently spend more on our military than every other nation in the world does combined. 31 corporations received billions of dollars in tax refunds even though they paid $0 in taxes (look up General Electrics), and many more essentially paid negative taxes after rebates.

A perfect example of why you shouldn't believe everything you read, whether it comes from a blog, or the NY Times. GE didn't get a tax refund, that's one of the most propagated lies about US taxes I've seen. If you want the government to get the money it 'deserves', we should adopt lower taxes to keep more business in-country.

But OP is absolutely correct. With our current deficit, we would have to tax all corporations at 100% *effective*, and the top 1% at 100% *effective* to balance the budget.
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 2:00:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 1:54:14 AM, TheTruthAnalyst wrote:
At 12/7/2011 11:58:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.

I agree that there is a spending problem. The problem is not, however, that we are spending too much; rather, it is that we are misallocating our funds. We currently spend more on our military than every other nation in the world does combined. 31 corporations received billions of dollars in tax refunds even though they paid $0 in taxes (look up General Electrics), and many more essentially paid negative taxes after rebates.

A perfect example of why you shouldn't believe everything you read, whether it comes from a blog, or the NY Times. GE didn't get a tax refund, that's one of the most propagated lies about US taxes I've seen. If you want the government to get the money it 'deserves', we should adopt lower taxes to keep more business in-country.

But OP is absolutely correct. With our current deficit, we would have to tax all corporations at 100% *effective*, and the top 1% at 100% *effective* to balance the budget.

So, basically every media source in the nation is lying about GE's tax refund. Please provide some evidence of this from a credible source.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 2:02:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 1:46:14 AM, HandsOff wrote:
I see the point about wasting most of what is brought in on useless wars. But if we were to cut spending in half and the military by 2/3, we would still end up spending less than we currently spend on programs liberals find favorable. Are you prepared to go back to Clinton era budgets?

My argument is that we should use the funds that we receive from the proposed alterations to fund social programs.
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 2:18:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 2:00:35 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/8/2011 1:54:14 AM, TheTruthAnalyst wrote:
At 12/7/2011 11:58:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.

I agree that there is a spending problem. The problem is not, however, that we are spending too much; rather, it is that we are misallocating our funds. We currently spend more on our military than every other nation in the world does combined. 31 corporations received billions of dollars in tax refunds even though they paid $0 in taxes (look up General Electrics), and many more essentially paid negative taxes after rebates.

A perfect example of why you shouldn't believe everything you read, whether it comes from a blog, or the NY Times. GE didn't get a tax refund, that's one of the most propagated lies about US taxes I've seen. If you want the government to get the money it 'deserves', we should adopt lower taxes to keep more business in-country.

But OP is absolutely correct. With our current deficit, we would have to tax all corporations at 100% *effective*, and the top 1% at 100% *effective* to balance the budget.

So, basically every media source in the nation is lying about GE's tax refund. Please provide some evidence of this from a credible source.

No, not every media source. Every idiot who copies an AP post and adds their name to it for a local paper, or personal blog. Every person who believes(for what reason i will never know) that something online must be true.

NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com...

1 - People mistook this as a $3.2 billion *refund*, when it wasn't. Tax benefit =/= refund. NY Times screwed up royally with their stupid headlines and poor article.

2 - GE's taxes aren't strictly year-to-year like most individuals. Companies pay in advance, defer payments, and otherwise mix income and expenses from year to year for various reasons. Income can be offset by temporarily re-investing... there is so much to the taxes for a corp like GE that trying to generalize it as the NY Times did is illogical.

3 - GE's tax return wasn't even finished at that point. The reporter got the figure from a financial statement, not from a tax return. GE has stated that they had a net tax liability for 2010. The truth is, nobody outside GE and the IRS actually gets to see their taxes, bu the 'multi-billion dollar tax refund' is a complete lie.

4 - There is really no such thing as 'GE' when talking about taxes. There is GE Capital, GE Energy, GE Technology Infrastructure, and GE Home and Business Solutions. All those companies are separate entities, yet the NY Times seems to combine them into one.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...

There's a little to get you started. I'm sure you can do your own research from there.
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 2:43:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.ge.com...

16.8% effective in 2010... lower than normal since they were still absorbing losses from the recession.

Credible enough?
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 5:01:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.

Straw man fallacy. Let me help,When an entity bases its economy on borrowing money it has a spending problem. If I borrowed 60 cents of every dollar I spend the Law in the US ensures I would end up owning nothing. I am not permitted to go to my neighbors and say, give me money.

To Big to Fail is political speak for to small to succeed.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 7:34:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

Apparently, you feel obligated to end every single one of your comments with a personal attack or an insult. Keep in mind that you have lied about examples multiple times in the past two days; Singapore and gene amplification are prime examples.

Again, I am amazed that you take yourself seriously. First, I misdefined gene amplification. However, the proccess of genes getting stronger with age that I was explaining was very correct. For Singapore, I was actually right.

Singapore's system is the most private in the world, as measured by percentage of it beng privately financed... 67%... vs 52% in the United States. So, you are saying I lied when I was actually completely correct...

So, great job...


Somalia's GDP is 5.89 billion. While I admit that this is higher than Zimbabwe's GDP, the vast majority of African nations have higher GDPs than Somalia does. (Egypt and South Africa are prime examples of this.) (http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP))
Your argument would have validity if Somalia was the richest African nation in the world; unfortuantely for you, however, it is one of the poorest and most violent. In fact, they are so fed up with the system that elections are being arranged for 2012.
Zimbabwe is led by a corrupt leader who uses the state's money to line his pockets instead of aid the people; it is not really a fantastic example for your side of the debate.

Somalia has seen faster per capita GDP Growth than most other African nations during the past 19 years, when no state has existed. Life expectancy and other social indicators have also improved, look at my link in my last comment... The fact is that Somalia has done much beter without a state than it did with a state.


"Monopolies do not form in a free market unless . . ." This just admits that monopolies do form in a free market. Pick up any history textbook and read about Rockefeller and Carnegie; they established monopolies in an unfettered free market. As usual, you choose to spam rather than research. The first U.S. antitrust law, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, was written to prevent monopolies. Corporations were actually opposed to it; they did not advance it to break up larger companies.

The companies trying to compete against Rockefeller and Carnegie were very much for it and behind it. And, if these "monopolies" formby benefitting consumers, as they always have, what is the problem with them?

"The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by the United States federal government. However, for the most part, politicians were unwilling to refer to the law until Theodore Roosevelt's presidency (1901–1909)."

Thank you for giving us the official law here. However, competitors of larrge, successful companies were completey behind this because it protected them from competition.


2008: I discussed private bank's lending policies. You claim that the blame lies with the government, but the problem was that both instituted avaristic policies. "The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of valuation and liquidity problems in the United States banking system in 2008.[3] The collapse of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2007, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[4] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009." Most of the problems above were caused by the private banks and not the government, so the private sector is responsible for these atrocities.

Lol, you just copied and pasted some quote from Wikipedia... Ron Paul, an strong libertarian, predicted the crash in 2003, including the cause... as did ultra libertarian Peter Schiff in 2007 (with creepy accuracy)

None of the statist economists predicted the crash with this type of accuracy...Paul Krugman claims to have, but his prediction was very general and far less accurate than Paul's or Schiff.s

The reason they predicted it correctly was thath they understand that the state is the cause of the crisis, and it is.


With regards to Hoover: none of his policies were Keynesian in the slightest sense. In fact, Hoover relied on voluntary action and the free market to lift society out of the Depression. (He did pass laws that deported Mexicans, but that was just racism that did nothing to solve the crisis.)

Ever heard of the Smoot-Hawtley Tariff Act?

Or, how about the 1932 tax increase that brought the top rate from 25% to 63%... Lol, I love how you just don't even care that reality completely contradicts your leftist beliefs


"From before his entry to the presidency, he was a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth.[39] Hoover feared that too much intervention or coercion by the government would destroy individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important American values. Both his ideals and the economy were put to the test with the onset of the Great Depression . . . . Calls for greater government assistance increased as the U.S. economy continued to decline. Hoover rejected direct federal relief payments to individuals, as he believed that a dole would be addictive, and reduce the incentive to work. He was also a firm believer in balanced budgets, and was unwilling to run a budget deficit to fund welfare programs . . . Hoover's stance on the economy had been based largely on voluntarism.[50] That is, expecting churches and social institutions to aid the poor."

Quoting sources that are wrong does not help. Hoover had plenty of public works... a massive tax hike.... and protectionism


The UCLA argument is ridiculously stupid. Hoover attempted to institute minimalist policies, and the economy did not recover at all. There is thus no reason to believe that doing little would have somehow helped FDR improve the economy. (I argue that Hoover did little; obviously he did not literally do nothing. See the above quotes aboout Hoover.)

Ya, the fact that you believe Hoover "attempted to institute minimalist policies" shows your incredible ignorance on history and economics. Hoover intervened very much, but you won't admit this because you don't care about reality.

How can you possibly take yourself seriously?
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 8:02:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 12:30:13 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
If you look at the WHO rankings of the world' s healthcare system, you will see that many nations with socialized heatlh care offer better treatment options than the United States does.

But the #1 is Singapore and they have the most privatized healthcare. And it is cheaper ther. so socialized medicine is not the answer. Also obamacare (socialized medicine) hurts my dad and his workings a lot (hes a doctor) so obamacare is bad for the doctors. Also socialized medicine is not better, the wait times are 4 times longer.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 8:11:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 8:02:47 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/8/2011 12:30:13 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
If you look at the WHO rankings of the world' s healthcare system, you will see that many nations with socialized heatlh care offer better treatment options than the United States does.

But the #1 is Singapore and they have the most privatized healthcare. And it is cheaper ther. so socialized medicine is not the answer. Also obamacare (socialized medicine) hurts my dad and his workings a lot (hes a doctor) so obamacare is bad for the doctors. Also socialized medicine is not better, the wait times are 4 times longer.

You seem to have dissociated yourself from reality. Singapore does not have the #1 healthcare system; rather, it is ranked sixth. (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ranking_of_healthcare_systems)

Moreover, Singapore has a government-backed universal healthcare system. I even posted evidence about this above, but as usual, jimtimmy has chosen to ignore the evidence and spout his unresearched bilge.

"Singapore has a modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls. Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions (funded by both employers and workers) to provide subsidies within a nationalized health insurance plan known as Medisave. Within Medisave, each citizen accumulates funds that are individually tracked, and such funds can be pooled within and across an entire extended family. The vast majority of Singapore citizens have substantial savings in this scheme. One of three levels of subsidy is chosen by the patient at the time of the healthcare episode."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Socialized systems, such as those of France and Singapore, have higher rankings than the United States does. Obamacare is atrocious because it just benefits insurance companies; it does little to help the people. It will not, however, harm your father in any substantial manner. He will have the opportunity to treat more people because more people will be able to have access to healthcare.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 8:25:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 2:18:36 AM, TheTruthAnalyst wrote:
At 12/8/2011 2:00:35 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/8/2011 1:54:14 AM, TheTruthAnalyst wrote:
At 12/7/2011 11:58:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I agree with that opinion. We have irrefutable evidence that the country can operate well on half what we are currently spending. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced 4 budgets, and no one was dying in the streets. It is no coincidence that we are short by exactly half of what is needed to pay our bills after we decided to double our spending. We are bringing in more in tax revenues today than during the Clinton presidency-- even adjusted for inflation.

I agree that there is a spending problem. The problem is not, however, that we are spending too much; rather, it is that we are misallocating our funds. We currently spend more on our military than every other nation in the world does combined. 31 corporations received billions of dollars in tax refunds even though they paid $0 in taxes (look up General Electrics), and many more essentially paid negative taxes after rebates.

A perfect example of why you shouldn't believe everything you read, whether it comes from a blog, or the NY Times. GE didn't get a tax refund, that's one of the most propagated lies about US taxes I've seen. If you want the government to get the money it 'deserves', we should adopt lower taxes to keep more business in-country.

But OP is absolutely correct. With our current deficit, we would have to tax all corporations at 100% *effective*, and the top 1% at 100% *effective* to balance the budget.

So, basically every media source in the nation is lying about GE's tax refund. Please provide some evidence of this from a credible source.

No, not every media source. Every idiot who copies an AP post and adds their name to it for a local paper, or personal blog. Every person who believes(for what reason i will never know) that something online must be true.

NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com...

1 - People mistook this as a $3.2 billion *refund*, when it wasn't. Tax benefit =/= refund. NY Times screwed up royally with their stupid headlines and poor article.

2 - GE's taxes aren't strictly year-to-year like most individuals. Companies pay in advance, defer payments, and otherwise mix income and expenses from year to year for various reasons. Income can be offset by temporarily re-investing... there is so much to the taxes for a corp like GE that trying to generalize it as the NY Times did is illogical.

3 - GE's tax return wasn't even finished at that point. The reporter got the figure from a financial statement, not from a tax return. GE has stated that they had a net tax liability for 2010. The truth is, nobody outside GE and the IRS actually gets to see their taxes, bu the 'multi-billion dollar tax refund' is a complete lie.

4 - There is really no such thing as 'GE' when talking about taxes. There is GE Capital, GE Energy, GE Technology Infrastructure, and GE Home and Business Solutions. All those companies are separate entities, yet the NY Times seems to combine them into one.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...


There's a little to get you started. I'm sure you can do your own research from there.

Fair enough. GE is still guilty of tax dodging, however.

"Samuels said at a tax forum in February that GE needs a tax system that will let it compete effectively with such giant, foreign-based multinationals as Mitsubishi, Siemens and Phillips. However, their effective tax rates for earnings purposes last year were 40 percent, 31 percent and 26 percent, respectively, compared with 7 percent for GE. (GE says its tax rate has been artificially low in past years and will rise.)" http://www.washingtonpost.com...

I believe you because you chose to post sources (unlike other debaters on this thread.)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 8:38:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/8/2011 7:34:03 AM, jimtimmy wrote:

Apparently, you feel obligated to end every single one of your comments with a personal attack or an insult. Keep in mind that you have lied about examples multiple times in the past two days; Singapore and gene amplification are prime examples.


Again, I am amazed that you take yourself seriously. First, I misdefined gene amplification. However, the proccess of genes getting stronger with age that I was explaining was very correct. For Singapore, I was actually right.

Singapore's system is the most private in the world, as measured by percentage of it beng privately financed... 67%... vs 52% in the United States. So, you are saying I lied when I was actually completely correct...

So, great job...

Nice job dodging the quotes about Singapore's government-funded UNIVERSAL healthcare system that I posted above.


Somalia's GDP is 5.89 billion. While I admit that this is higher than Zimbabwe's GDP, the vast majority of African nations have higher GDPs than Somalia does. (Egypt and South Africa are prime examples of this.) (http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP))
Your argument would have validity if Somalia was the richest African nation in the world; unfortuantely for you, however, it is one of the poorest and most violent. In fact, they are so fed up with the system that elections are being arranged for 2012.
Zimbabwe is led by a corrupt leader who uses the state's money to line his pockets instead of aid the people; it is not really a fantastic example for your side of the debate.


Somalia has seen faster per capita GDP Growth than most other African nations during the past 19 years, when no state has existed. Life expectancy and other social indicators have also improved, look at my link in my last comment... The fact is that Somalia has done much beter without a state than it did with a state.

Your analysis even admits that other African nations had higher per capita growth. Life expectancy has decreased due to wonton violence and deregulation. It is worse off than it was when there was a state; this is why they are holding elections next year.



"Monopolies do not form in a free market unless . . ." This just admits that monopolies do form in a free market. Pick up any history textbook and read about Rockefeller and Carnegie; they established monopolies in an unfettered free market. As usual, you choose to spam rather than research. The first U.S. antitrust law, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, was written to prevent monopolies. Corporations were actually opposed to it; they did not advance it to break up larger companies.



The companies trying to compete against Rockefeller and Carnegie were very much for it and behind it. And, if these "monopolies" formby benefitting consumers, as they always have, what is the problem with them?

No, this had nothing to do with other companies; this was done for the sake of consumers. The corporations had lower prices UNTIL they became monopolies. The moment that they did, they exploited consumers by raising prices artificially. Since there was no other source, consumers paid unfairly high costs for goods. Read about Ida Tarbell and the muckrakers if you want evidence.

"The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by the United States federal government. However, for the most part, politicians were unwilling to refer to the law until Theodore Roosevelt's presidency (1901–1909)."



Thank you for giving us the official law here. However, competitors of larrge, successful companies were completey behind this because it protected them from competition.

Consumer advocacy was not done by other companies. Regardless, monopolies hinder the free market. Moreover, monopolies often have Congress pass legislation to harm burgeoning sellers of the same products.

2008: I discussed private bank's lending policies. You claim that the blame lies with the government, but the problem was that both instituted avaristic policies. "The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of valuation and liquidity problems in the United States banking system in 2008.[3] The collapse of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2007, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet,


Lol, you just copied and pasted some quote from Wikipedia... Ron Paul, an strong libertarian, predicted the crash in 2003, including the cause... as did ultra libertarian Peter Schiff in 2007 (with creepy accuracy)

None of the statist economists predicted the crash with this type of accuracy...Paul Krugman claims to have, but his prediction was very general and far less accurate than Paul's or Schiff.s

The reason they predicted it correctly was thath they understand that the state is the cause of the crisis, and it is.

Who cares if they did not predict this? That does not mean that it is not true.

With regards to Hoover: none of his policies were Keynesian in the slightest sense. In fact, Hoover relied on voluntary action and the free market to lift society out of the Depression. (He did pass laws that deported Mexicans, but that was just racism that did nothing to solve the crisis.)



Ever heard of the Smoot-Hawtley Tariff Act?

I have. Keynesianism does not advocate Tariffs. Mercantilism, however, does.
Or, how about the 1932 tax increase that brought the top rate from 25% to 63%... Lol, I love how you just don't even care that reality completely contradicts your leftist beliefs

I mean, Hoover decreased taxes just before the Depression, so he was just reversing what he had done. That does not make him a Keynesian econmist. His tax reduction helped spark the depression. It is thus logical to assume that maintaining it would not have fixed the economy.



"From before his entry to the presidency, he was a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth.[39] Hoover feared that too much intervention or coercion by the government would destroy individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important American values. Both his ideals and the economy were put to the test with the onset of the Great Depression . . . . Calls for greater government assistance increased as the U.S. economy continued to decline. Hoover rejected direct federal relief payments to individuals, as he believed that a dole would be addictive, and reduce the incentive to work. ."



If this is wrong, please post a source that is not. Keynesianism is not equal to protectionism. He had minimal public works, including deporting Mexicans to Mexico (which you would undoubtedly support.) He relied on voluntarism and the market to fix itself. That was an utter failure.

The UCLA argument is ridiculously stupid. Hoover attempted to institute minimalist policies, and the economy did not recover at all. There is thus no reason to believe that doing little would have somehow helped FDR improve the economy. (I argue that Hoover did little; obviously he did not literally do nothing. See the above quotes aboout Hoover.)


Ya, the fact that you believe Hoover "attempted to institute minimalist policies" shows your incredible ignorance on history and economics. Hoover intervened very much, but you won't admit this because you don't care about reality.

How can you possibly take yourself seriously?

He had minimalist policies and hoped to have the market fix itself. I eve
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 8:41:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am not posting anymore on this thread because you literally just continue to insult me and lie about your positions. Hoover reduced taxes just before the Depression . . . You also lied about Singapore and gene amplification. You may be able to fool people at your school, but I will literally verify everything that you say. Too bad.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 9:15:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 9:28:57 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'd like a logical response to the argument that this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

I think we have both.