Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

10 Reasons to Hate Democrats

jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 10:21:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1.) Obamacare

2.) Dodd frank

3.) Dishonestly claim to be anti war but practice pro war policies

4.) NSA

5.) Welfare State

6.) Economic illiteracy on issues like minimum wage and inequality

7.) Dishonestly claim to be pro civil liberties but anti civil liberty policies (like Drug war)

8.) Affirmative action

9.) Vietnam war and all the other wars Democrats have started

10.) Constantly defend statism both rhetorically and in practice

This is a follow up to my post about Republicans:

http://www.debate.org...

Democrats and Republicans suck.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 7:37:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 10:21:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
1.) Obamacare

Which led to 9.3 million people NET with insurance.

http://www.latimes.com...

2.) Dodd frank

Inadequate financial reform after a crisis caused by 30 years of deregulation. Your point?

AND the Republicans have ensured that it hasn't been enforced properly (http://www.forbes.com...).

3.) Dishonestly claim to be anti war but practice pro war policies

I actually think many of them claim not to be anti-war, but anti-war vis-a-vis the crazy war-happy GOP. But sure, they love war and are wrong for it.

4.) NSA

A program that began under George W. Bush and was justified by section 215 of the Patriot Act (http://kdvr.com...).

But sure, it sucks and shouldn't exist. Glad to see you're on the right side of this issue.

5.) Welfare State

It's funny that you have a problem with food stamps and head start -- which have been cut (http://www.msnbc.com...) -- but don't seem to have much of a problem with the REAL welfare in the system: subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, policies that allow giant multinationals like Walmart to pay poverty-level wages, etc.

6.) Economic illiteracy on issues like minimum wage and inequality

Nope, that's you on this case.

Minimum wage studies:
http://www.cepr.net...
http://www.americanprogress.org...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...
http://www.epi.org...
http://www.cepr.net...
http://nelp.3cdn.net...

And there's plenty more where that came from.

And, as for "inequality -- a study from the Congressional Research Service: http://www.foreffectivegov.org...

Here's my favorite line from that report:

"Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top
of the income distribution."


7.) Dishonestly claim to be pro civil liberties but anti civil liberty policies (like Drug war)

Some Democrats oppose the drug war, but sure, many are for it and shouldn't be.

8.) Affirmative action

Which the Supreme Court is destroying (http://www.washingtonpost.com...).

I don't see much of a problem with needs-based affirmative action rather than race-based, but to each his own.

9.) Vietnam war and all the other wars Democrats have started

Ok, how about the wars the GOP started? Iraq and Afghanistan, anyone? The longest prolonged conflicts in US history, the first of which was over a lie over WMDs.

But sure, Vietnam was a disaster and Jack Kennedy opposed it, but fair enough.

10.) Constantly defend statism both rhetorically and in practice

lol, this one is just laughable. If you believe in any existence of a state at all, you're a "statist."


This is a follow up to my post about Republicans:

http://www.debate.org...

Democrats and Republicans suck.

They do suck, but so do your reasons. I don't understand why economic illiterates like you feel as though you have the right to talk down to people who are light years smarter than you and light years more informed.

AND, I had to provide you with sources: you never source anything.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 12:57:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:37:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/26/2014 10:21:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
1.) Obamacare

Which led to 9.3 million people NET with insurance.

http://www.latimes.com...

Why is that good?

Too much insurance is a big part of the problem in the first place.


2.) Dodd frank

Inadequate financial reform after a crisis caused by 30 years of deregulation. Your point?

AND the Republicans have ensured that it hasn't been enforced properly (http://www.forbes.com...).

Of course. Deregulation had nothing to do with the financial crisis, but don't let that get in the way of a good narrative.


3.) Dishonestly claim to be anti war but practice pro war policies

I actually think many of them claim not to be anti-war, but anti-war vis-a-vis the crazy war-happy GOP. But sure, they love war and are wrong for it.

4.) NSA

A program that began under George W. Bush and was justified by section 215 of the Patriot Act (http://kdvr.com...).

But sure, it sucks and shouldn't exist. Glad to see you're on the right side of this issue.

5.) Welfare State

It's funny that you have a problem with food stamps and head start -- which have been cut (http://www.msnbc.com...) -- but don't seem to have much of a problem with the REAL welfare in the system: subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, policies that allow giant multinationals like Walmart to pay poverty-level wages, etc.

I oppose subsidies to corporations. In fact, I mention that in my post attacking Republicans.



6.) Economic illiteracy on issues like minimum wage and inequality

Nope, that's you on this case.

Minimum wage studies:
http://www.cepr.net...
http://www.americanprogress.org...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...
http://www.epi.org...
http://www.cepr.net...
http://nelp.3cdn.net...

And there's plenty more where that came from.

Sorry bud. Even 1000 links wouldn't change economic laws.


And, as for "inequality -- a study from the Congressional Research Service: http://www.foreffectivegov.org...

Ditto.


Here's my favorite line from that report:

"Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top
of the income distribution."



7.) Dishonestly claim to be pro civil liberties but anti civil liberty policies (like Drug war)

Some Democrats oppose the drug war, but sure, many are for it and shouldn't be.

Talking about actually taking steps to end it.


8.) Affirmative action

Which the Supreme Court is destroying (http://www.washingtonpost.com...).

I don't see much of a problem with needs-based affirmative action rather than race-based, but to each his own.

Good for the SC.


9.) Vietnam war and all the other wars Democrats have started

Ok, how about the wars the GOP started? Iraq and Afghanistan, anyone? The longest prolonged conflicts in US history, the first of which was over a lie over WMDs.

But sure, Vietnam was a disaster and Jack Kennedy opposed it, but fair enough.

I criticized the Repub wars too in my post on repubs.


10.) Constantly defend statism both rhetorically and in practice

lol, this one is just laughable. If you believe in any existence of a state at all, you're a "statist."


This is a follow up to my post about Republicans:

http://www.debate.org...

Democrats and Republicans suck.

They do suck, but so do your reasons. I don't understand why economic illiterates like you feel as though you have the right to talk down to people who are light years smarter than you and light years more informed.

AND, I had to provide you with sources: you never source anything.

Problem is that dems aren't light years smarter than me. In fact, the opposite is true.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 1:04:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 12:57:34 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:37:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/26/2014 10:21:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
1.) Obamacare

Which led to 9.3 million people NET with insurance.

http://www.latimes.com...


Why is that good?

Too much insurance is a big part of the problem in the first place.





2.) Dodd frank

Inadequate financial reform after a crisis caused by 30 years of deregulation. Your point?

AND the Republicans have ensured that it hasn't been enforced properly (http://www.forbes.com...).





Of course. Deregulation had nothing to do with the financial crisis, but don't let that get in the way of a good narrative.




3.) Dishonestly claim to be anti war but practice pro war policies

I actually think many of them claim not to be anti-war, but anti-war vis-a-vis the crazy war-happy GOP. But sure, they love war and are wrong for it.

4.) NSA

A program that began under George W. Bush and was justified by section 215 of the Patriot Act (http://kdvr.com...).

But sure, it sucks and shouldn't exist. Glad to see you're on the right side of this issue.

5.) Welfare State

It's funny that you have a problem with food stamps and head start -- which have been cut (http://www.msnbc.com...) -- but don't seem to have much of a problem with the REAL welfare in the system: subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, policies that allow giant multinationals like Walmart to pay poverty-level wages, etc.




I oppose subsidies to corporations. In fact, I mention that in my post attacking Republicans.





6.) Economic illiteracy on issues like minimum wage and inequality

Nope, that's you on this case.

Minimum wage studies:
http://www.cepr.net...
http://www.americanprogress.org...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...
http://www.epi.org...
http://www.cepr.net...
http://nelp.3cdn.net...

And there's plenty more where that came from.



Sorry bud. Even 1000 links wouldn't change economic laws.


Oh, you're one of those.

Everyone move along, nothing to see here.




And, as for "inequality -- a study from the Congressional Research Service: http://www.foreffectivegov.org...



Ditto.



Here's my favorite line from that report:

"Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top
of the income distribution."



7.) Dishonestly claim to be pro civil liberties but anti civil liberty policies (like Drug war)

Some Democrats oppose the drug war, but sure, many are for it and shouldn't be.



Talking about actually taking steps to end it.



8.) Affirmative action

Which the Supreme Court is destroying (http://www.washingtonpost.com...).

I don't see much of a problem with needs-based affirmative action rather than race-based, but to each his own.




Good for the SC.




9.) Vietnam war and all the other wars Democrats have started

Ok, how about the wars the GOP started? Iraq and Afghanistan, anyone? The longest prolonged conflicts in US history, the first of which was over a lie over WMDs.

But sure, Vietnam was a disaster and Jack Kennedy opposed it, but fair enough.



I criticized the Repub wars too in my post on repubs.





10.) Constantly defend statism both rhetorically and in practice

lol, this one is just laughable. If you believe in any existence of a state at all, you're a "statist."


This is a follow up to my post about Republicans:

http://www.debate.org...

Democrats and Republicans suck.

They do suck, but so do your reasons. I don't understand why economic illiterates like you feel as though you have the right to talk down to people who are light years smarter than you and light years more informed.

AND, I had to provide you with sources: you never source anything.

Problem is that dems aren't light years smarter than me. In fact, the opposite is true.

Lol
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 1:14:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 12:57:34 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:37:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/26/2014 10:21:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
1.) Obamacare

Which led to 9.3 million people NET with insurance.

http://www.latimes.com...


Why is that good?

Too much insurance is a big part of the problem in the first place.


Because without insurance not only are many people unable to afford health insurance because out-of-pocket costs are too high, but they go to the emergency room, are charged the most, and we all pick up the tab. And, without preventive care coverage, health care costs are higher anyway.



2.) Dodd frank

Inadequate financial reform after a crisis caused by 30 years of deregulation. Your point?

AND the Republicans have ensured that it hasn't been enforced properly (http://www.forbes.com...).





Of course. Deregulation had nothing to do with the financial crisis, but don't let that get in the way of a good narrative.

It's not a good narrative, my friend -- you're the one spouting nonsense and assertions. I'd love for you to prove to me that it had nothing to do with the crisis: that the repeal of Glass-Steaggall which allowed the banks to become too-big-to-fail had nothing to do with too-big-to-fail.

Do you realize how ridiculous and uneducated you sound? Provide me with one fact, and we'll go from there.




3.) Dishonestly claim to be anti war but practice pro war policies

I actually think many of them claim not to be anti-war, but anti-war vis-a-vis the crazy war-happy GOP. But sure, they love war and are wrong for it.

4.) NSA

A program that began under George W. Bush and was justified by section 215 of the Patriot Act (http://kdvr.com...).

But sure, it sucks and shouldn't exist. Glad to see you're on the right side of this issue.

5.) Welfare State

It's funny that you have a problem with food stamps and head start -- which have been cut (http://www.msnbc.com...) -- but don't seem to have much of a problem with the REAL welfare in the system: subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, policies that allow giant multinationals like Walmart to pay poverty-level wages, etc.




I oppose subsidies to corporations. In fact, I mention that in my post attacking Republicans.

Fair enough. But it doesn't excuse the fact that corporate welfare is not only massive -- and mind you, if you really opposed corporate welfare, you'd support a minimum wage increase -- but it's completely distinct from welfare to people who actually need it.




6.) Economic illiteracy on issues like minimum wage and inequality

Nope, that's you on this case.

Minimum wage studies:
http://www.cepr.net...
http://www.americanprogress.org...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...
http://www.epi.org...
http://www.cepr.net...
http://nelp.3cdn.net...

And there's plenty more where that came from.



Sorry bud. Even 1000 links wouldn't change economic laws.

I love this one. These are empirical studies. The "economic law" you're referring to isn't even an economic law. The microeconomic model which shows that increases in labor costs lead to higher prices, or that a minimum wage reduces employment, are operating under a ceteris paribus condition. I'd proven to you with empirical data from reputable sources that what you're saying is complete BS. And you can't even come back with a study of your own. What a joke.



And, as for "inequality -- a study from the Congressional Research Service: http://www.foreffectivegov.org...



Ditto.

Well, it disproves your entire argument, so cool.


Here's my favorite line from that report:

"Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top
of the income distribution."



7.) Dishonestly claim to be pro civil liberties but anti civil liberty policies (like Drug war)

Some Democrats oppose the drug war, but sure, many are for it and shouldn't be.



Talking about actually taking steps to end it.

I think it was Ron Paul and some other Democrat -- maybe Barney Frank -- who tried to decriminalize pot. So that'd one to the libertarians and one to the Democrats.


8.) Affirmative action

Which the Supreme Court is destroying (http://www.washingtonpost.com...).

I don't see much of a problem with needs-based affirmative action rather than race-based, but to each his own.




Good for the SC.

You really don't care about facts, do you?



9.) Vietnam war and all the other wars Democrats have started

Ok, how about the wars the GOP started? Iraq and Afghanistan, anyone? The longest prolonged conflicts in US history, the first of which was over a lie over WMDs.

But sure, Vietnam was a disaster and Jack Kennedy opposed it, but fair enough.



I criticized the Repub wars too in my post on repubs.

It's a false equivalency to say that "both Dems and Repubs start wars." I hope you realize that Republicans start way more wars than Democrats. That's simply a fact.




10.) Constantly defend statism both rhetorically and in practice

lol, this one is just laughable. If you believe in any existence of a state at all, you're a "statist."


This is a follow up to my post about Republicans:

http://www.debate.org...

Democrats and Republicans suck.

They do suck, but so do your reasons. I don't understand why economic illiterates like you feel as though you have the right to talk down to people who are light years smarter than you and light years more informed.

AND, I had to provide you with sources: you never source anything.

Problem is that dems aren't light years smarter than me. In fact, the opposite is true.

I'm not sure about all dems, though I'm not inclined to think very highly of you given your posts here and elsewhere. You effectively responded to my facts with "I know you are, but what am I?"
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 1:28:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 1:14:08 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 12:57:34 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:37:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/26/2014 10:21:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
1.) Obamacare

Which led to 9.3 million people NET with insurance.

http://www.latimes.com...


Why is that good?

Too much insurance is a big part of the problem in the first place.


Because without insurance not only are many people unable to afford health insurance because out-of-pocket costs are too high, but they go to the emergency room, are charged the most, and we all pick up the tab. And, without preventive care coverage, health care costs are higher anyway.



2.) Dodd frank

Inadequate financial reform after a crisis caused by 30 years of deregulation. Your point?

AND the Republicans have ensured that it hasn't been enforced properly (http://www.forbes.com...).





Of course. Deregulation had nothing to do with the financial crisis, but don't let that get in the way of a good narrative.

It's not a good narrative, my friend -- you're the one spouting nonsense and assertions. I'd love for you to prove to me that it had nothing to do with the crisis: that the repeal of Glass-Steaggall which allowed the banks to become too-big-to-fail had nothing to do with too-big-to-fail.

Do you realize how ridiculous and uneducated you sound? Provide me with one fact, and we'll go from there.





3.) Dishonestly claim to be anti war but practice pro war policies

I actually think many of them claim not to be anti-war, but anti-war vis-a-vis the crazy war-happy GOP. But sure, they love war and are wrong for it.

4.) NSA

A program that began under George W. Bush and was justified by section 215 of the Patriot Act (http://kdvr.com...).

But sure, it sucks and shouldn't exist. Glad to see you're on the right side of this issue.

5.) Welfare State

It's funny that you have a problem with food stamps and head start -- which have been cut (http://www.msnbc.com...) -- but don't seem to have much of a problem with the REAL welfare in the system: subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, policies that allow giant multinationals like Walmart to pay poverty-level wages, etc.




I oppose subsidies to corporations. In fact, I mention that in my post attacking Republicans.

Fair enough. But it doesn't excuse the fact that corporate welfare is not only massive -- and mind you, if you really opposed corporate welfare, you'd support a minimum wage increase -- but it's completely distinct from welfare to people who actually need it.




6.) Economic illiteracy on issues like minimum wage and inequality

Nope, that's you on this case.

Minimum wage studies:
http://www.cepr.net...
http://www.americanprogress.org...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...
http://www.epi.org...
http://www.cepr.net...
http://nelp.3cdn.net...

And there's plenty more where that came from.



Sorry bud. Even 1000 links wouldn't change economic laws.

I love this one. These are empirical studies. The "economic law" you're referring to isn't even an economic law. The microeconomic model which shows that increases in labor costs lead to higher prices, or that a minimum wage reduces employment, are operating under a ceteris paribus condition. I'd proven to you with empirical data from reputable sources that what you're saying is complete BS. And you can't even come back with a study of your own. What a joke.



And, as for "inequality -- a study from the Congressional Research Service: http://www.foreffectivegov.org...



Ditto.

Well, it disproves your entire argument, so cool.


Here's my favorite line from that report:

"Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top
of the income distribution."



7.) Dishonestly claim to be pro civil liberties but anti civil liberty policies (like Drug war)

Some Democrats oppose the drug war, but sure, many are for it and shouldn't be.



Talking about actually taking steps to end it.

I think it was Ron Paul and some other Democrat -- maybe Barney Frank -- who tried to decriminalize pot. So that'd one to the libertarians and one to the Democrats.


8.) Affirmative action

Which the Supreme Court is destroying (http://www.washingtonpost.com...).

I don't see much of a problem with needs-based affirmative action rather than race-based, but to each his own.




Good for the SC.

You really don't care about facts, do you?



9.) Vietnam war and all the other wars Democrats have started

Ok, how about the wars the GOP started? Iraq and Afghanistan, anyone? The longest prolonged conflicts in US history, the first of which was over a lie over WMDs.

But sure, Vietnam was a disaster and Jack Kennedy opposed it, but fair enough.



I criticized the Repub wars too in my post on repubs.

It's a false equivalency to say that "both Dems and Repubs start wars." I hope you realize that Republicans start way more wars than Democrats. That's simply a fact.




10.) Constantly defend statism both rhetorically and in practice

lol, this one is just laughable. If you believe in any existence of a state at all, you're a "statist."


This is a follow up to my post about Republicans:

http://www.debate.org...

Democrats and Republicans suck.

They do suck, but so do your reasons. I don't understand why economic illiterates like you feel as though you have the right to talk down to people who are light years smarter than you and light years more informed.

AND, I had to provide you with sources: you never source anything.

Problem is that dems aren't light years smarter than me. In fact, the opposite is true.

I'm not sure about all dems, though I'm not inclined to think very highly of you given your posts here and elsewhere. You effectively responded to my facts with "I know you are, but what am I?"

Meant to say "unable to afford health care services"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 2:12:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:37:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/26/2014 10:21:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
1.) Obamacare

Which led to 9.3 million people NET with insurance.
And, how many were forced into it?
How many still have no insurance? Is that the goal, to only cover 20% or so that didn't have any?
How many are now even more dependent on their employers for insurance, now that they must have it?

http://www.latimes.com...

5.) Welfare State

It's funny that you have a problem with food stamps and head start -- which have been cut (http://www.msnbc.com...) -- but don't seem to have much of a problem with the REAL welfare in the system: subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, policies that allow giant multinationals like Walmart to pay poverty-level wages, etc.

According to this, it doesn't appear the food stamps have been cut at all. In fact, it increased $2 billion. (page 49)
If you include the obvious temporary ARRA stimulus, then it is cut by $5 billion, but the budget was not.
http://www.obpa.usda.gov...

And, what, exactly are these programs and subsidies you speak of?
Did you ever see my response to your article a few months back?


6.) Economic illiteracy on issues like minimum wage and inequality

Nope, that's you on this case.
I'll tell you this with real life experience.
Hours and/or staff will be cut. It will hurt those people.
Due to this influx of unskilled workers, it is more difficult for them to get ahead and achieve income/wealth equality, isn't it.
Further, if I am now paying $9.50/hr, that should bring in more applicants. How does that not hurt those unskilled workers, who now have more competition?

8.) Affirmative action

Which the Supreme Court is destroying (http://www.washingtonpost.com...).

I don't see much of a problem with needs-based affirmative action rather than race-based, but to each his own.

Affirmative action is a sham, and why/how it was ever passed is a testament to how moronic the American people truly are. Or insidious. One of the two.
My work here is, finally, done.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 2:59:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 2:12:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:37:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/26/2014 10:21:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
1.) Obamacare

Which led to 9.3 million people NET with insurance.
And, how many were forced into it?
How many still have no insurance? Is that the goal, to only cover 20% or so that didn't have any?
How many are now even more dependent on their employers for insurance, now that they must have it?


How were people forced into it?

If people still have no insurance as you claim, isn't that kind of their issue?

http://www.latimes.com...

5.) Welfare State

It's funny that you have a problem with food stamps and head start -- which have been cut (http://www.msnbc.com...) -- but don't seem to have much of a problem with the REAL welfare in the system: subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, policies that allow giant multinationals like Walmart to pay poverty-level wages, etc.

According to this, it doesn't appear the food stamps have been cut at all. In fact, it increased $2 billion. (page 49)
If you include the obvious temporary ARRA stimulus, then it is cut by $5 billion, but the budget was not.
http://www.obpa.usda.gov...

And, what, exactly are these programs and subsidies you speak of?
Did you ever see my response to your article a few months back?


I'll let progressivedem answer, but how you deny the insane amount of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry is beyond me.

Besides that, the fact that, for instance, oil companies aren't charged for environmental damage caused by oil fracking is, ultimately, a subsidy, and a massive one. Even libertarians recognize the need to charge people based on "neighborhood effects", and if they aren't charged for things that to damage to the environments people live in, then they are effectively being subsidized.


6.) Economic illiteracy on issues like minimum wage and inequality

Nope, that's you on this case.
I'll tell you this with real life experience.
Hours and/or staff will be cut. It will hurt those people.
Due to this influx of unskilled workers, it is more difficult for them to get ahead and achieve income/wealth equality, isn't it.
Further, if I am now paying $9.50/hr, that should bring in more applicants. How does that not hurt those unskilled workers, who now have more competition?


As if that is the only issue to be considered when talking about minimum wage.

8.) Affirmative action

Which the Supreme Court is destroying (http://www.washingtonpost.com...).

I don't see much of a problem with needs-based affirmative action rather than race-based, but to each his own.

Affirmative action is a sham, and why/how it was ever passed is a testament to how moronic the American people truly are. Or insidious. One of the two.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 3:26:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 2:59:40 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:12:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:37:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/26/2014 10:21:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
1.) Obamacare

Which led to 9.3 million people NET with insurance.
And, how many were forced into it?
How many still have no insurance? Is that the goal, to only cover 20% or so that didn't have any?
How many are now even more dependent on their employers for insurance, now that they must have it?


How were people forced into it?

If people still have no insurance as you claim, isn't that kind of their issue?
Is it?
I don't qualify for subsidies, state care, or tax credits.
So, it's either buy the insurance I have, or pay the penalty (or buy a non-exchange policy).

If I don't have insurance, I may have to pay up to 3.5% of my income.

There are many variables into why people haven't gotten insurance that Obamacare either didn't deal with, or worsened. (I can't comment, as I haven't tried to get insurance before)

http://www.latimes.com...

5.) Welfare State

It's funny that you have a problem with food stamps and head start -- which have been cut (http://www.msnbc.com...) -- but don't seem to have much of a problem with the REAL welfare in the system: subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, policies that allow giant multinationals like Walmart to pay poverty-level wages, etc.

According to this, it doesn't appear the food stamps have been cut at all. In fact, it increased $2 billion. (page 49)
If you include the obvious temporary ARRA stimulus, then it is cut by $5 billion, but the budget was not.
http://www.obpa.usda.gov...

And, what, exactly are these programs and subsidies you speak of?
Did you ever see my response to your article a few months back?


I'll let progressivedem answer, but how you deny the insane amount of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry is beyond me.
And what are they, exactly?
I try not to comment on things I don't know.
Also, I'm not denying their existence, but I don't know how unfair or anything they are.
Most of the ones I've seen seem like accelerated depreciation.

Besides that, the fact that, for instance, oil companies aren't charged for environmental damage caused by oil fracking is, ultimately, a subsidy, and a massive one. Even libertarians recognize the need to charge people based on "neighborhood effects", and if they aren't charged for things that to damage to the environments people live in, then they are effectively being subsidized.

Perhaps, but is finding the culprit so easy?
Why should the state of MN have been sued for an architectural flaw in a bridge that collapsed some 30 years after it was built?

Deep Horizon - is that because of the oil company, the builders, the concrete base (or whatever happened)?


6.) Economic illiteracy on issues like minimum wage and inequality

Nope, that's you on this case.
I'll tell you this with real life experience.
Hours and/or staff will be cut. It will hurt those people.
Due to this influx of unskilled workers, it is more difficult for them to get ahead and achieve income/wealth equality, isn't it.
Further, if I am now paying $9.50/hr, that should bring in more applicants. How does that not hurt those unskilled workers, who now have more competition?


As if that is the only issue to be considered when talking about minimum wage.

Isn't it though?
The whole issue is helping those who make it, but raising it actually hurts them.

And if your argument is that you can't raise a family on it, tell me why I should pay you more (or hire you at all) just because you have a family. I can hire a teen who doesn't need to make more.
My work here is, finally, done.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 4:20:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 1:14:08 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Because without insurance not only are many people unable to afford health insurance because out-of-pocket costs are too high, but they go to the emergency room, are charged the most, and we all pick up the tab. And, without preventive care coverage, health care costs are higher anyway.

With insurance people have an incentive to overuse health care. We should have insurance, but only catastrophic insurance. And, where is evidence that preventative coverage lowers costs?

Obamacare forces people to buy comprehensive coverage.

It's not a good narrative, my friend -- you're the one spouting nonsense and assertions. I'd love for you to prove to me that it had nothing to do with the crisis: that the repeal of Glass-Steaggall which allowed the banks to become too-big-to-fail had nothing to do with too-big-to-fail.


Do you realize how ridiculous and uneducated you sound? Provide me with one fact, and we'll go from there.

Do you realize how stupid you are to think that the BoP lies on the person challenging your claim?

Seriously. If you claim that deregulation caused the crisis, you must first provide evidence. After you meet the BoP, we can go from there.

Fair enough. But it doesn't excuse the fact that corporate welfare is not only massive -- and mind you, if you really opposed corporate welfare, you'd support a minimum wage increase -- but it's completely distinct from welfare to people who actually need it.

"If you really opposed corporate welfare, you'd support a minimum wage increase"

Wow. If you're going to say things like that, you really shouldn't be calling other people stupid.

I love this one. These are empirical studies. The "economic law" you're referring to isn't even an economic law. The microeconomic model which shows that increases in labor costs lead to higher prices, or that a minimum wage reduces employment, are operating under a ceteris paribus condition. I'd proven to you with empirical data from reputable sources that what you're saying is complete BS. And you can't even come back with a study of your own. What a joke.

Ya. I'm a joke. The person saying that supply and demand isn't a real economic law (you) is a serious scholar. I'm starting to think you are trolling. And, yes, I can come back with my own study:

http://www.cbo.gov...

It is the CBO. The CBO, of course, doesn't have the same high research standards and reputation for objectivity as some of your sources, like American progress, have (that's sarcasm of course).

I think it was Ron Paul and some other Democrat -- maybe Barney Frank -- who tried to decriminalize pot. So that'd one to the libertarians and one to the Democrats.

Actually, that'd be one to the liberals and one to the libertarians. Or one to the repubs and one to the dems (Since Paul is a repub). But, the fact is that both parties are basically pro drug war.

You really don't care about facts, do you?

Somehow me having an opinion you disagree with means that I don't care about facts. Great logic.

It's a false equivalency to say that "both Dems and Repubs start wars." I hope you realize that Republicans start way more wars than Democrats. That's simply a fact.

Let's take a look at some wars in USA history:

1.) WWI- Started under Woodrow Wilson a Democrat

2.) WW2- Started under FDR a Democrat

3.) Korean War- Started under Harry Truman a Democrat

4.) Vietnam War- Kennedy or Johnson Democrat either way

5.) Desert Storm- Bush Republican

6.) War on Terror- Bush Republican.

But, I like your word: false equivalency. Democrats actually start more wars. That is a simple fact.

Pwned by facts.


I'm not sure about all dems, though I'm not inclined to think very highly of you given your posts here and elsewhere. You effectively responded to my facts with "I know you are, but what am I?"

Well, in this post alone, you have:

1.) Claimed that the BoP is on me to show that deregulation did not cause the financial crisis.

2.) Claimed that supporting the minimum wage is the same thing as opposing corporate welfare.

3.) Claimed that Republicans have started more wars than Democrats.

In other words, you have no place to talk when it comes to knowing the facts.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 4:28:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 4:20:15 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:

With insurance people have an incentive to overuse health care. We should have insurance, but only catastrophic insurance. And, where is evidence that preventative coverage lowers costs?

By the adage: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, perhaps?

"If you really opposed corporate welfare, you'd support a minimum wage increase"

Wow. If you're going to say things like that, you really shouldn't be calling other people stupid.

I agree that is an odd statement, but care to explain why?
My work here is, finally, done.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 4:43:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 4:28:43 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/27/2014 4:20:15 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:

With insurance people have an incentive to overuse health care. We should have insurance, but only catastrophic insurance. And, where is evidence that preventative coverage lowers costs?

By the adage: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, perhaps?

Alright. But, providing an incentive to go to the doctor for every broken nail isn't encouraging prevention. It's encouraging unnecessary visits.


"If you really opposed corporate welfare, you'd support a minimum wage increase"

Wow. If you're going to say things like that, you really shouldn't be calling other people stupid.

I agree that is an odd statement, but care to explain why?

Well, it should be on him to explain why it makes sense. But, progdem never explains anything.

So, sure. Corporate welfare is state favoritism in the form of subsidies for corporations. The minimum wage has, quite literally, nothing to do with that.

They're totally different things.

Actually, if you really want to get into the economics, the minimum wage favors big corporations over small businesses because they can absorb higher labor costs more easily than small businesses.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 4:51:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
With insurance people have an incentive to overuse health care. We should have insurance, but only catastrophic insurance. And, where is evidence that preventative coverage lowers costs?

"Overuse" is a ridiculous word. They may go for regular check-ups which prevents illnesses and drives down healthcare costs. It turns out trying vicious diseases costs more than a checkup. Or paying for birth control costs less than paying for a pregnancy.

The evidence is extensive, actually: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...

Obamacare forces people to buy comprehensive coverage.

It does, which is a good thing because they were free-riding the system prior to the individual mandate. This is a conservative idea, my friend.

It's not a good narrative, my friend -- you're the one spouting nonsense and assertions. I'd love for you to prove to me that it had nothing to do with the crisis: that the repeal of Glass-Steaggall which allowed the banks to become too-big-to-fail had nothing to do with too-big-to-fail.




Do you realize how ridiculous and uneducated you sound? Provide me with one fact, and we'll go from there.




Do you realize how stupid you are to think that the BoP lies on the person challenging your claim?

Seriously. If you claim that deregulation caused the crisis, you must first provide evidence. After you meet the BoP, we can go from there.

I did provide you evidence: Glass-Steaggall was repealed in 1999, which prevented banks from becoming too big to fail. Then banks became too big to fail and took on to much leverage, thus bubble, bubble, bubble, burst.

And, no, you're wrong again. The BOP is on you because it is commonly believed -- and even libertarians like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul agree with me on this -- that deregulation is incompatible with "too big to fail" because the assumption of a bailout will encourage banks to overleverage. So you either remove that cushion, which crashes the global economy, or you break them up. It's that simple.

If not for too big to fail, what did cause the crisis? You've got nothing because you don't understand economics in the least bit.

Fair enough. But it doesn't excuse the fact that corporate welfare is not only massive -- and mind you, if you really opposed corporate welfare, you'd support a minimum wage increase -- but it's completely distinct from welfare to people who actually need it.

"If you really opposed corporate welfare, you'd support a minimum wage increase"

Wow. If you're going to say things like that, you really shouldn't be calling other people stupid.

Awww an ad hominem and you're proving how utterly poor your reading comprehension is because I didn't call you stupid -- I only said that, based on your statements, your argument that you were "smarter than most Dems" is not evidenced.

I pointed out the logic earlier, but clearly you're too dense to pick it up. We subsidize large companies like Walmart and McDonald's with giant profit margins by paying for food stamps, welfare and Medicaid for their employees because they aren't paying a minimum wage. A minimum wage REDUCES the need for corporate welfare and reduces the incidence of "welfare queens." You should love this if you really opposed corporate welfare, yet you don't.:

I love this one. These are empirical studies. The "economic law" you're referring to isn't even an economic law. The microeconomic model which shows that increases in labor costs lead to higher prices, or that a minimum wage reduces employment, are operating under a ceteris paribus condition. I'd proven to you with empirical data from reputable sources that what you're saying is complete BS. And you can't even come back with a study of your own. What a joke.

Ya. I'm a joke. The person saying that supply and demand isn't a real economic law (you) is a serious scholar. I'm starting to think you are trolling. And, yes, I can come back with my own study:

Never once did I say that supply and demand were not real, but way to completely strawman my argument.

I said the microeconomic model of a price ceiling -- the minimum wage -- saying that an increase will lead to a surplus of labor and thus unemployment is incompatible with empirical data because it operates under a ceteris-paribus condition and presumes that workers are paid an equilibrium wage based on their marginal productivity of labor -- which by and of itself isn't true, as productivity has dwarfed median wages, anyway.

http://www.cbo.gov...

It is the CBO. The CBO, of course, doesn't have the same high research standards and reputation for objectivity as some of your sources, like American progress, have (that's sarcasm of course).

I cited a Congressional Research Service study, two studies from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and the Economic Policy Institute and yet you want to focus on one study from American Progress. Nice. It's also nice to know that you didn't bother to read my study, nor did you do any actual work explicating the study you found. It proves my point.

That CBO study actually places the loss of unemployment in a range from 0 to 1 million, argues that it will generate a demand-side stimulus, and lift over 1 million people out of poverty. It doesn't support your narrative in the least bit, but nice try.


I think it was Ron Paul and some other Democrat -- maybe Barney Frank -- who tried to decriminalize pot. So that'd one to the libertarians and one to the Democrats.



Actually, that'd be one to the liberals and one to the libertarians. Or one to the repubs and one to the dems (Since Paul is a repub). But, the fact is that both parties are basically pro drug war.

We agree on the drug war.

You really don't care about facts, do you?

No pal, but nice strawman. I provided you plenty of facts. YOU'RE the one who said "I dont care how many studies you cite." You're the one who doesn't care about facts, my friends.


Somehow me having an opinion you disagree with means that I don't care about facts. Great logic.

That's what you've been doing all week, including in your "liberals have no intelligent arguments" thread.



It's a false equivalency to say that "both Dems and Repubs start wars." I hope you realize that Republicans start way more wars than Democrats. That's simply a fact.



Let's take a look at some wars in USA history:

1.) WWI- Started under Woodrow Wilson a Democrat

A necessary war.
2.) WW2- Started under FDR a Democrat

A necessary war.
3.) Korean War- Started under Harry Truman a Democrat

Necessary war.
4.) Vietnam War- Kennedy or Johnson Democrat either way

Kennedy was assassinated at the time.
5.) Desert Storm- Bush Republican

I think this one was justified.
6.) War on Terror- Bush Republican.

This one was ridiculous.
But, I like your word: false equivalency. Democrats actually start more wars. That is a simple fact.

First of all, I was clearly speaking in modern terms, but nice way to twist these.

Also, I denounced warfare on the basis of stupidity and lies. You can't argue that WWII was unnecessary or based on a lie. The same can't be said for Iraq.

Pwned by facts.


Nope, not at all.







Well, in this post alone, you have:

1.) Claimed that the BoP is on me to show that deregulation did not cause the financial crisis.

I didn't do that. I did that now. I already evidenced that.

2.) Claimed that supporting the minimum wage is the same thing as opposing corporate welfare.

I never said it was the same thing. I said opposition to it is a form of corporate welfare, which it is.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 4:52:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
3.) Claimed that Republicans have started more wars than Democrats.

More stupid, senseless wars based on lies.

And I do have a place to say that I know the facts because I do. I've proven that. I provided sources, you dodged completely viable points, and even cited a study which PROVED MY POINT, which proves me to that you haven't read it and have no experience examining economic literature, which doesn't surprise me giving your poor comprehension skills.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 4:57:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And I just looked back and noticed that this guy called me stupid. How utterly laughable. I'd be offended if he weren't such a buffoon. I graduated in the top 5% of my class and have been in Mensa since I was 12. What do you have to show for yourself?
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 4:57:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And Khaos_Mage: I'd respond to you, but I have like 4 papers to write haha. I'll try to get to it in the next few days, or PM you to discuss that further because I'm sure you actually make some valid points.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:41:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 4:43:12 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 4:28:43 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/27/2014 4:20:15 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:

With insurance people have an incentive to overuse health care. We should have insurance, but only catastrophic insurance. And, where is evidence that preventative coverage lowers costs?

By the adage: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, perhaps?


Alright. But, providing an incentive to go to the doctor for every broken nail isn't encouraging prevention. It's encouraging unnecessary visits.

So, having insurance is promoting overuse?
Is that better than seeing an ER for a minor illness, because you can't see a doctor?



"If you really opposed corporate welfare, you'd support a minimum wage increase"

Wow. If you're going to say things like that, you really shouldn't be calling other people stupid.

I agree that is an odd statement, but care to explain why?

Well, it should be on him to explain why it makes sense. But, progdem never explains anything.

So, sure. Corporate welfare is state favoritism in the form of subsidies for corporations. The minimum wage has, quite literally, nothing to do with that.

They're totally different things.

Nope, they are related in the sense he will argue that minimum wage is a poverty wage, thus businesses paying them and pocketing the difference and/or using general business credits to get a tax credit for employing someone on welfare.

This is faulty, since it is assumed the profit is kept, as opposed to the end cost being lowered.

Actually, if you really want to get into the economics, the minimum wage favors big corporations over small businesses because they can absorb higher labor costs more easily than small businesses.

And most small businesses don't have employees, either.
In fact, less than 11% of businesses have more than 20 employees.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:42:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 4:57:49 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
And Khaos_Mage: I'd respond to you, but I have like 4 papers to write haha. I'll try to get to it in the next few days, or PM you to discuss that further because I'm sure you actually make some valid points.

That's always your excuse ;)

You're in mensa?
Don't you get a grant or something to do whatever you want?
My work here is, finally, done.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:59:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 4:51:27 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
"Overuse" is a ridiculous word. They may go for regular check-ups which prevents illnesses and drives down healthcare costs. It turns out trying vicious diseases costs more than a checkup. Or paying for birth control costs less than paying for a pregnancy.

The evidence is extensive, actually: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...


It does, which is a good thing because they were free-riding the system prior to the individual mandate. This is a conservative idea, my friend.

The free riding could be gotten rid of by catastrophic coverage. And, how long will it take you to understand that I am libertarian... not conservative or Republican?

Anyways, prevention is good. But, telling people that they won't incur any direct costs if they visit the doctor doesn't encourage preventative medicine... it encourages frivolous medicine.

I did provide you evidence: Glass-Steaggall was repealed in 1999, which prevented banks from becoming too big to fail. Then banks became too big to fail and took on to much leverage, thus bubble, bubble, bubble, burst.

And, no, you're wrong again. The BOP is on you because it is commonly believed -- and even libertarians like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul agree with me on this -- that deregulation is incompatible with "too big to fail" because the assumption of a bailout will encourage banks to overleverage. So you either remove that cushion, which crashes the global economy, or you break them up. It's that simple.

If not for too big to fail, what did cause the crisis? You've got nothing because you don't understand economics in the least bit.

One thing you say is absolutely correct: bailouts encourage overleveraging. However, the core problem is the moral hazard created by the bailout.

So yes, I will grant you that, with the presence of other government policies that encourage overleveraging (like bailouts, subsidies, lax standards, etc), regulations are necessary. However, regulations are only necessary to offset other bad government policies.

That is important.

Awww an ad hominem and you're proving how utterly poor your reading comprehension is because I didn't call you stupid -- I only said that, based on your statements, your argument that you were "smarter than most Dems" is not evidenced.

I pointed out the logic earlier, but clearly you're too dense to pick it up. We subsidize large companies like Walmart and McDonald's with giant profit margins by paying for food stamps, welfare and Medicaid for their employees because they aren't paying a minimum wage. A minimum wage REDUCES the need for corporate welfare and reduces the incidence of "welfare queens." You should love this if you really opposed corporate welfare, yet you don't.:

Walmart doesn't force us to pay for those programs. The state does.

And, the minimum wage kills jobs, which increases welfare.

Never once did I say that supply and demand were not real, but way to completely strawman my argument.

I said the microeconomic model of a price ceiling -- the minimum wage -- saying that an increase will lead to a surplus of labor and thus unemployment is incompatible with empirical data because it operates under a ceteris-paribus condition and presumes that workers are paid an equilibrium wage based on their marginal productivity of labor -- which by and of itself isn't true, as productivity has dwarfed median wages, anyway.

Um. Where is your evidence that entry level fast food workers are so much more productive than they get paid?

I find it hard to believe, but I'm open to the idea.



I cited a Congressional Research Service study, two studies from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and the Economic Policy Institute and yet you want to focus on one study from American Progress. Nice. It's also nice to know that you didn't bother to read my study, nor did you do any actual work explicating the study you found. It proves my point.

That CBO study actually places the loss of unemployment in a range from 0 to 1 million, argues that it will generate a demand-side stimulus, and lift over 1 million people out of poverty. It doesn't support your narrative in the least bit, but nice try.

I made one claim: the minimum wage increase would reduce employment. The CBO verified that claim. It's the same claim that a simple supply and demand model would predict and it holds.

We agree on the drug war.

Good.

That's what you've been doing all week, including in your "liberals have no intelligent arguments" thread.

Well. Maybe if leftists didn't say silly things all the time, I wouldnt make threads like that.




It's a false equivalency to say that "both Dems and Repubs start wars." I hope you realize that Republicans start way more wars than Democrats. That's simply a fact.


1.) WWI- Started under Woodrow Wilson a Democrat

A necessary war.
2.) WW2- Started under FDR a Democrat

A necessary war.
3.) Korean War- Started under Harry Truman a Democrat

Necessary war.
4.) Vietnam War- Kennedy or Johnson Democrat either way

Kennedy was assassinated at the time.
5.) Desert Storm- Bush Republican

I think this one was justified.
6.) War on Terror- Bush Republican.

This one was ridiculous.
But, I like your word: false equivalency. Democrats actually start more wars. That is a simple fact.

First of all, I was clearly speaking in modern terms, but nice way to twist these.

Also, I denounced warfare on the basis of stupidity and lies. You can't argue that WWII was unnecessary or based on a lie. The same can't be said for Iraq.

You claimed "wars". You didn't say "wars that I think were necessary" or "wars in a time period I deem as modern".

I disagree that WWI or WW2 were "necessary". But, that topic is too big for this. But, yes, WWII was sold, at least in part, on lies. I hope you know that wartime, dishonest propaganda didn't pop out of thin air when Bush jr became president.




Nope, not at all.

Sorry bud. But I did.








Well, in this post alone, you have:

1.) Claimed that the BoP is on me to show that deregulation did not cause the financial crisis.

I didn't do that. I did that now. I already evidenced that.

At first you did, but you fixed that this round.


2.) Claimed that supporting the minimum wage is the same thing as opposing corporate welfare.

I never said it was

That was the clear implication
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:59:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 4:52:35 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
3.) Claimed that Republicans have started more wars than Democrats.

More stupid, senseless wars based on lies.

And I do have a place to say that I know the facts because I do. I've proven that. I provided sources, you dodged completely viable points, and even cited a study which PROVED MY POINT, which proves me to that you haven't read it and have no experience examining economic literature, which doesn't surprise me giving your poor comprehension skills.

I love it when a leftist has been defeated in argument so starts calling names instead.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:01:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:59:36 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 4:52:35 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
3.) Claimed that Republicans have started more wars than Democrats.

More stupid, senseless wars based on lies.

And I do have a place to say that I know the facts because I do. I've proven that. I provided sources, you dodged completely viable points, and even cited a study which PROVED MY POINT, which proves me to that you haven't read it and have no experience examining economic literature, which doesn't surprise me giving your poor comprehension skills.

I love it when a leftist has been defeated in argument so starts calling names instead.

You called me stupid, pal. But nice try.

And no, I wasn't "defeated" -- not even close. Again, nice try.

I'm gonna respond to your other post and then go to bed.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:02:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:41:33 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:



So, having insurance is promoting overuse?
Is that better than seeing an ER for a minor illness, because you can't see a doctor?

No. You can pay out of pocket for a minor illness. Doctors want patients who pay out of pocket.

It's not too expensive.




"If you really opposed corporate welfare, you'd support a minimum wage increase"

Wow. If you're going to say things like that, you really shouldn't be calling other people stupid.

I agree that is an odd statement, but care to explain why?

Well, it should be on him to explain why it makes sense. But, progdem never explains anything.

So, sure. Corporate welfare is state favoritism in the form of subsidies for corporations. The minimum wage has, quite literally, nothing to do with that.

They're totally different things.

Nope, they are related in the sense he will argue that minimum wage is a poverty wage, thus businesses paying them and pocketing the difference and/or using general business credits to get a tax credit for employing someone on welfare.

This is faulty, since it is assumed the profit is kept, as opposed to the end cost being lowered.

Regardless, it is a bad argument based on bad economics and unsound logic (from progdem)


Actually, if you really want to get into the economics, the minimum wage favors big corporations over small businesses because they can absorb higher labor costs more easily than small businesses.

And most small businesses don't have employees, either.
In fact, less than 11% of businesses have more than 20 employees.

That's misleading. Those stats count anyone who's sold anything on eBay as a "business". The percentage of actual businesses is much higher.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:02:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:01:09 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:59:36 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 4:52:35 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
3.) Claimed that Republicans have started more wars than Democrats.

More stupid, senseless wars based on lies.

And I do have a place to say that I know the facts because I do. I've proven that. I provided sources, you dodged completely viable points, and even cited a study which PROVED MY POINT, which proves me to that you haven't read it and have no experience examining economic literature, which doesn't surprise me giving your poor comprehension skills.

I love it when a leftist has been defeated in argument so starts calling names instead.


You called me stupid, pal. But nice try.

And no, I wasn't "defeated" -- not even close. Again, nice try.

I'm gonna respond to your other post and then go to bed.

You're losing so far, clearly.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:03:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:02:57 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:01:09 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:59:36 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 4:52:35 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
3.) Claimed that Republicans have started more wars than Democrats.

More stupid, senseless wars based on lies.

And I do have a place to say that I know the facts because I do. I've proven that. I provided sources, you dodged completely viable points, and even cited a study which PROVED MY POINT, which proves me to that you haven't read it and have no experience examining economic literature, which doesn't surprise me giving your poor comprehension skills.

I love it when a leftist has been defeated in argument so starts calling names instead.


You called me stupid, pal. But nice try.

And no, I wasn't "defeated" -- not even close. Again, nice try.

I'm gonna respond to your other post and then go to bed.

You're losing so far, clearly.

No matter how many times you repeat the same BS, it's not going to miraculously become true.

And I have to ask: are you and Bigdave80 the same person? At the same time he left, you arrived. Serious question. The two of you have almost identical positions.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:17:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The free riding could be gotten rid of by catastrophic coverage. And, how long will it take you to understand that I am libertarian... not conservative or Republican?

Notice that I said it was a "conservative" plan. You're a fiscal conservative, correct? Thus it applies to you.

Catastrophic coverage is hogwash, bare-bones coverage. The point is that getting everyone covered balances the risk pool and allows people who can't afford insurance normally to access it at a lower cost, which reduces out-of-pocket costs. That's the substance behind the ACA, and thus far it's been proven right.

Anyways, prevention is good. But, telling people that they won't incur any direct costs if they visit the doctor doesn't encourage preventative medicine... it encourages frivolous medicine.

They still pay co-pays, first of all.

And, really? Have you ever said "you know, I think I'll be frivolous and get myself sick because I won't go bankrupt the next time I need to go to the doctor!" I mean, come on, have you even thought this through?


If not for too big to fail, what did cause the crisis? You've got nothing because you don't understand economics in the least bit.


One thing you say is absolutely correct: bailouts encourage overleveraging. However, the core problem is the moral hazard created by the bailout.

Actually, the real problem is the moral hazard created by too-big-to-fail financial institutions failing and taking the rest of the global economy with them. I hate bailouts. They make me cringe. But what's the alternative? I'd love to say "we won't bail you out, so play nice," but (1) people make mistakes (2) people call bluffs and (3) we could never actually follow through. So I think the only actual option is to preempt it.

So yes, I will grant you that, with the presence of other government policies that encourage overleveraging (like bailouts, subsidies, lax standards, etc), regulations are necessary. However, regulations are only necessary to offset other bad government policies.

That is important.

I obviously disagree with the necessity of regs, but we do seem to agree on overleveraging which is a start. Would you support Glass-Steaggal? If that's the case, we're completely in the same camp on this.



I pointed out the logic earlier, but clearly you're too dense to pick it up. We subsidize large companies like Walmart and McDonald's with giant profit margins by paying for food stamps, welfare and Medicaid for their employees because they aren't paying a minimum wage. A minimum wage REDUCES the need for corporate welfare and reduces the incidence of "welfare queens." You should love this if you really opposed corporate welfare, yet you don't.:

Walmart doesn't force us to pay for those programs. The state does.

Without Walmart paying poverty-level wages, we wouldn't need to subsidize those workers, thus subsidizing their wage-depression policies. Why should I have to pay for a giant multinational whose heirs have inherited an obscene amount of money because they won't pay their workers a decent wage?

And, the minimum wage kills jobs, which increases welfare.

Well, no, and I provided plenty of studies showing otherwise.


Um. Where is your evidence that entry level fast food workers are so much more productive than they get paid?

I find it hard to believe, but I'm open to the idea.

I didn't cite fast food workers in particular, but it's simply a fact that productivity has doubled since 1980, but median wages have stagnated; CEO pay progressed from about 42 times the pay of an average worker in 1981 to about 400 times the pay of an average worker today. And, since 2009, 95% of income gains have gone to the top 1 percent. There's something to be said here. And that doesn't even get into the implications for political power.



I made one claim: the minimum wage increase would reduce employment. The CBO verified that claim. It's the same claim that a simple supply and demand model would predict and it holds.

It doesn't say that it will absolutely reduce unemployment, but lays out possible figures. The point is, even if it leads to a moderate amount of job losses, which could actually be nothing, it will lift enough people out of poverty and impact enough wages to offset those losses with stimulus. And, not to mention, a lot of companies can simply absorb the costs, anyway, and will because in the industries that pay minimum wage -- restaurants, etc. -- there's actually a fair amount of competition, so price hikes tend to hurt competitiveness.

That's what you've been doing all week, including in your "liberals have no intelligent arguments" thread.


Well. Maybe if leftists didn't say silly things all the time, I wouldnt make threads like that.

But the thread itself was saying a very silly thing.

You claimed "wars". You didn't say "wars that I think were necessary" or "wars in a time period I deem as modern".

I disagree that WWI or WW2 were "necessary". But, that topic is too big for this. But, yes, WWII was sold, at least in part, on lies. I hope you know that wartime, dishonest propaganda didn't pop out of thin air when Bush jr became president.

Of course there's propaganda. There always is. I'm not for warfare even in the least bit unless it's absolutely necessary, in which case I'm not inclined to blame the president for conditions outside of his control.

Now, I don't think we could compare the rise of the Nazis to Saddam, so I don't think this was comparable to Iraq in the least bit, especially when we considering the political power of Haliburton et al.

I will give you this, though. When Rand Paul pointed out a few years ago that Dick Cheney and Haliburton profited off Iraq, I cheered -- not because it happened, but because he was right. So I really don't think this of all issues is one we should be arguing on. We both agree that war sucks and is a last resort. So how about we leave it at that?

At first you did, but you fixed that this round.

No you were the first one to say BOP.

2.) Claimed that supporting the minimum wage is the same thing as opposing corporate welfare.

I never said it was


That was the clear implication

I said that supporting Walmart through de facto subsidies was corporate welfare. That's it.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:23:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:59:36 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 4:52:35 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
3.) Claimed that Republicans have started more wars than Democrats.

More stupid, senseless wars based on lies.

And I do have a place to say that I know the facts because I do. I've proven that. I provided sources, you dodged completely viable points, and even cited a study which PROVED MY POINT, which proves me to that you haven't read it and have no experience examining economic literature, which doesn't surprise me giving your poor comprehension skills.

I love it when a leftist has been defeated in argument so starts calling names instead.

1. He didn't call names, he said you lack comprehension of economic literature, which is obviously true.

2. You called names lol, you called him stupid.

I love it when a libertarian has been defeated in argument so starts making meaningless attacks.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:07:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:02:08 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Regardless, it is a bad argument based on bad economics and unsound logic (from progdem)

It may be a bad argument, but at least they are related, unlike your claim they aren't.
In fact, less than 11% of businesses have more than 20 employees.

That's misleading. Those stats count anyone who's sold anything on eBay as a "business". The percentage of actual businesses is much higher.

Why are they not businesses, if that is their business?
Are you going to tell me that my wife, as a dog groomer, wasn't a business owner?
And, I would assume they refer to anyone who files a Schedule C, K1, or any corporate tax form as a business. But, I got that from the Census Bureau.
My work here is, finally, done.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:36:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
How is this only 10 reasons? Same thing for republicans post. I admire your ability to hold back.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:29:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Two good threads to illustrate the American mindset of hating each other for their politics. Maybe it's time to go get your guns out? Hmmmm?
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 12:45:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:03:58 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:02:57 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:01:09 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:59:36 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 4:52:35 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
3.) Claimed that Republicans have started more wars than Democrats.

More stupid, senseless wars based on lies.

And I do have a place to say that I know the facts because I do. I've proven that. I provided sources, you dodged completely viable points, and even cited a study which PROVED MY POINT, which proves me to that you haven't read it and have no experience examining economic literature, which doesn't surprise me giving your poor comprehension skills.

I love it when a leftist has been defeated in argument so starts calling names instead.


You called me stupid, pal. But nice try.

And no, I wasn't "defeated" -- not even close. Again, nice try.

I'm gonna respond to your other post and then go to bed.

You're losing so far, clearly.


No matter how many times you repeat the same BS, it's not going to miraculously become true.


Not at all.

And I have to ask: are you and Bigdave80 the same person? At the same time he left, you arrived. Serious question. The two of you have almost identical positions.

No. And, wasn't he like a creationist or something?

I'm not at all a creationist. I'm also pro choice, pro gay marriage, and anti drug war. I don't know his position on everything, but I'm pretty sure they were different on those issues (just based on him being a creationist).