Think you know History?

[Figmentum]

A little history lesson:
If you don't know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it?

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common
good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few,
by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared
responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means
something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to
give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common
ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the
most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being
watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above


Answers: scroll down



















(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004

(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007

(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

[Santana28]

I love this one :)

Yet another reason why we need to only Republican who can take Hitlery down to win the primary - RON PAUL!

[Figmentum]

I've never been a fan of Hillary myself. She's always been too devious. Not to mention all of the "Natural" deaths that have happen to those who've opposed her over the years.

[Henry]

I've never been a fan of Hillary myself. She's always been too devious. Not to mention all of the "Natural" deaths that have happen to those who've opposed her over the years.

Better make sure the doors are locked tightly.

Two statements:
1. I'd strongly prefer a competent paternalist of ANY political color to an incompetent.


2. Income and wealth inequalities, even once you back out immigrants, are near all-time highs. Technological changes and international trade have generated a lot of wealth for our country over the past 20 years, but virtually all of that wealth and income has gone to the top 20%, eg those with college degrees and where both spouses work.

I don't know about you, but I don't really think this is fair, particularly for a blue collar type that just never had enough intelligence to make it through school and work in a corporate job, etc, to completely miss out on the benefits of globalization and technological advancement.

I would also assume that she's referring to nationalized health care. Access to health care disparities are the most significant equality issue in the country today. And Europe covers everyone - EVERYONE - for 4-8% of (considerably smaller per capita) GDP. Our health care system is the most ineffecient and inequitable system in the world, and our friends in Europe are clearly on a much more rational, just, and effecient path than we are. So why don't we do what's obviously working better? "WTF, we can't be like Stalin"

She has a point.

[Figmentum]

Regardless of my own, or others beliefs about Hillary, If she is elected president and takes action in what she has stated... Civil War, or at the very least armed factions. Alot of the people in this country will not stand for her. I may sound a little extreme, but it is the religious nuts who will be the extreme ones. I'm just stating something that has a good chance of happening if she stands by her words.

[Henry]

Regardless of my own, or others beliefs about Hillary, If she is elected president and takes action in what she has stated... Civil War, or at the very least armed factions. Alot of the people in this country will not stand for her. I may sound a little extreme, but it is the religious nuts who will be the extreme ones. I'm just stating something that has a good chance of happening if she stands by her words.

So when she raises the top tax bracket from 35% to 40%, then people are going to revolt over that? If she puses for a more effecient and equitable health care system, people are going to revolt over that? The religious right is fucking crazy, and consistently bitch about how we're not as crazy as the islamofacists, but that doesn't mean that we should gear policy to make them happy any more than we shoudl to make the islamofacists happy.

They haven't revolted over the use of the constitution as toilet paper to wipe away the inevitable aftermath of our oil and machismo binge in the middle east, so I'm doubting they'll revolt over Hillary raising Paris Hilton's taxes from 35% to 40%. Just a hunch.

[Desfrei]

In my oppinion, I agree with Figmentum. Hillary's actions could seriously pose a threat to the wellfare of this country and its people. Though she may beleive that what she does will help, she is far from being correct. No longer would a single person own a possesion with her ways, you no longer own something when it can be taken from you because another feels you dont require it. That fact alone will bring a torrent of chaos upon on the people as revolts will break out.

[Figmentum]

C'mon, Henry. You can list some good things. But I know you can think of quite a few antagonistic ones. I don't care how much you want to defend her. There's going to be a mass of people breaking out in violence, should she become president and enforce what she's told. You know this, whether or not you want to admit it. Health care, econimical equality... GREAT! Now, convince the extremist over in the corner why she's not worth fighting against.

[Aestheticbend]

So when she raises the top tax bracket from 35% to 40%, then people are going to revolt over that? If she puses for a more effecient and equitable health care system, people are going to revolt over that? The religious right is fucking crazy, and consistently bitch about how we're not as crazy as the islamofacists, but that doesn't mean that we should gear policy to make them happy any more than we shoudl to make the islamofacists happy.

They haven't revolted over the use of the constitution as toilet paper to wipe away the inevitable aftermath of our oil and machismo binge in the middle east, so I'm doubting they'll revolt over Hillary raising Paris Hilton's taxes from 35% to 40%. Just a hunch.

I fail to see how Hillarycare constitutes a more efficient healthcare system.

Either way Hillary represents the progressive movement quite well; her understanding of economics is remniscent of vulgar keynesianism and in some ways I hope for her to get in. Mostly because her spending might cause the collapse of the nation's economy which would make realize that interventionism is not the way to achieve prosperity. That, and given her voting record she is relatively close to a foreign policy positon that endorses a form of realistic wilsonianism, no matter what she says in the primary.

[Henry]

I fail to see how Hillarycare constitutes a more efficient healthcare system.

Never stated she did. Stated she is likely to push for nationalized health care, which as practiced in Europe, is clearly preferable to the ineffecient, inequitable system we have here.

US spend about 13% of GDP on health care, and a significant portion of the population has no real access to health care. Countries in the EU cover every person in the country for generally 4-8% of GDP (which are also generally considerably lower on a per capita basis). Clearly we can learn something from Europe.

Either way Hillary represents the progressive movement quite well; her understanding of economics is remniscent of vulgar keynesianism and in some ways I hope for her to get in. Mostly because her spending might cause the collapse of the nation's economy which would make realize that interventionism is not the way to achieve prosperity. That, and given her voting record she is relatively close to a foreign policy positon that endorses a form of realistic wilsonianism, no matter what she says in the primary.

...

Any of you want a tissue to go with all this teary eyed "the world is going to end if we copy the Dutch health care system" bullshit?

Regarding foreign policy, I have no idea what she'd be like. I do know that its highly unlikely to get any worse, as even if she is a meddling autocrat, at least she is not a moronic meddling autocrat.

[Figmentum]

Any of you want a tissue to go with all teary eyed "the world is going to end if we copy the Dutch health care system" bullshit?


You mistake me for saying that's bad. I'm saying people will fight... I didn't say I would personally. I love the general european healthcare system. Billy "goat" Graham would be the general (sarcasm).

[Henry]

You mistake me for saying that's bad. I'm saying people will fight... I didn't say I would personally. I love the general european healthcare system. Billy "goat" Graham would be the general (sarcasm).

That comment was directed at our overly-emotional poster who seems to have an emotional tie to insurance bureaucrats and PI attorneys, not you.

[Aestheticbend]

Never stated she did. Stated she is likely to push for nationalized health care, which as practiced in Europe, is clearly preferable to the ineffecient, inequitable system we have here.

US spend about 13% of GDP on health care, and a significant portion of the population has no real access to health care. Countries in the EU cover every person in the country for generally 4-8% of GDP (which are also generally considerably lower on a per capita basis). Clearly we can learn something from Europe.



...

Any of you want a tissue to go with all this teary eyed "the world is going to end if we copy the Dutch health care system" bullshit?

Regarding foreign policy, I have no idea what she'd be like. I do know that its highly unlikely to get any worse, as even if she is a meddling autocrat, at least she is not a moronic meddling autocrat.

Henry, firstly I would like to make it clear that I do not support state capitalism, so thus I do not support the highly regulated and controlled market for health insurance that currently exists in the states. So, your argument is a strawman.

One thing that could be changed is the AMA which essentially limits the supply of doctors greatly in the United States. Hence, why Americans pay more for doctors than most western countries per capita. I don't support either Hillarycare or the bloated corporatist system that exists currently now.

What I fear is that the US has a populous that is taxed almost as highly as where I am from, Canada. And you have nowhere near the amount of government services we have. Also, consider the current status of the US currency, in comparison with the rest of the world. The US's economy is weaker than ever, and Hillary proposes a New "New Deal" of sorts and if one understands that the New Deal as well as Hoover's rampant monetary policy actually deepened the depression until it came out as a result of the market. So my point is that the economy should be liberalized further, this has been shown to be, by many nobel prize winning economists, the best way to help the poor. What Hillary proposes is not the solution, but more to the problem.

Partially the reason that Europe can do what they do with healthcare is because they are importing economies whereas the US leans towards being more of an exporting economy. Also, most of them have far higher unemployment rates as a result of their policies of government involvement. Quasikeynesian policies like increasing regulation push foreign investment away from the US and thus growth will decrease.


I fail to see how my post was emotional. I just won't support Hillary for both moral and pragmatic reasons.

[Bossy Mom]

I am a woman, and I will NEVER vote for Hillary. I am from Southern California, where we have to take care of illegal aliens in hospital emergency rooms. I took my daughter to the emergency room last month and we had to wait behind several people who couldn't speak English. The nurses were complaining about the illegals overloading our system and causing hospitals to close their emergency rooms due to bankrupting the system. My daughter and I had to wait for care for HOURS! Do you now know why our health care costs are so high? When I lived in Minnesota, our hospitals were full of Canadian patients who couldn't get the care they needed in Canada, so they chose to come to the U.S. and pay in cash for the care they need. The hospitals in the U.K. are overloaded and filthy. Their system is so stretched that people CANNOT get the care they need. When people think they get something for "free," they can't get enough of it, so they lead their country into bankruptcy.

I am already taxed enough. I don't want to supplement the incomes of people who don't want to work, and I fear the mindset that those who do not have are more deserving than those who do.

I have always been suspicious of Hillary Clinton. I think she is devious and power hungry and I have a healthy fear of people like her.

[Lucid]

Quite frankly, I don't think people will fight or revolt or even protest heavily. We, as a society, have far too much to lose by engaging in armed revolt. Our nice comfortable houses, iPods, our cars, our plasma TVs, etc. That's why nobody has revolted over Bush.

I know an INTJ or two in real life who often vote to keep the current party in power (no matter who that party is) because they're afraid that anything else will lead to some kind of civil war and, in turn, society's downfall. Maybe it's common for our type?

As a nation (and as a species) we've survived worse (than Hillary OR Bush) without citizens taking to the streets with weapons or Bush playing the fiddle while Washington burns.

[Figmentum]

Bush is an idiot. But he has people backing him that are EXTREMELY God fearing. Most people who support Hillary (or the left for that matter) are generally not religious. When you cross a God fearing extremist too badly, he will fight. Hillary stands for everything they don't: change, socialism, abortion, gay marriage, becoming more like the world (christians generally hate that). The motivation for these extremists is profound. The Southern Baptists will be the first to react, first diplomatically, as soon as Hillary shuts them down... we have an armed faction on our hands. Another Jihad...

[Lucid]

Bush is an idiot. But he has people backing him that are EXTREMELY God fearing. Most people who support Hillary (or the left for that matter) are generally not religious. When you cross a God fearing extremist too badly, he will fight. Hillary stands for everything they don't: change, socialism, abortion, gay marriage, becoming more like the world (christians generally hate that). The motivation for these extremists is profound. The Southern Baptists will be the first to react, first diplomatically, as soon as Hillary shuts them down... we have an armed faction on our hands. Another Jihad...

Ok... I mean... quite frankly I'm not sure that would be such a bad thing... but it's just not going to happen.

[Figmentum]

I'm not paranoid about it, I just play it all out in my mind and that's how I see it turning out. Regardless, it only helps strengthen why I don't believe in a God.

[Lucid]

I'm not paranoid about it, I just play it all out in my mind and that's how I see it turning out. Regardless, it only helps strengthen why I don't believe in a God.

I think your N is running away with you :)

[Figmentum]

Lmao, so it seems.

[Desfrei]

Quite frankly, I don't think people will fight or revolt or even protest heavily. We, as a society, have far too much to lose by engaging in armed revolt. Our nice comfortable houses, iPods, our cars, our plasma TVs, etc. That's why nobody has revolted over Bush.

I know an INTJ or two in real life who often vote to keep the current party in power (no matter who that party is) because they're afraid that anything else will lead to some kind of civil war and, in turn, society's downfall. Maybe it's common for our type?

As a nation (and as a species) we've survived worse (than Hillary OR Bush) without citizens taking to the streets with weapons or Bush playing the fiddle while Washington burns.

I fear that you are wrong in this matter, and I wish that you were not. As we have seen in history, whenever a force tries to take privileges that people have becime accustomed to, a revolt is inevitable. This has been seen from the Civil War that struck America. Though many beleive that war to come from slavery, they are wrong as that was only part of it because the slaves were property to those who were privledged enough to afford them. As I can see I am off topic now I will end this here. Should any thing try to take away rights and privledges, it will be revolted against no matter the cost.

[Desfrei]

One last point, though Bush is quite unfavorable, he isnt stiring up a revolt because the only ones he wishes to take privileges from are gay's, the elderly, the poor, and minorities. As such he remains in favor of the rich, straight, and young white people who contain the others somewhat.

[Henry]

Henry, firstly I would like to make it clear that I do not support state capitalism, so thus I do not support the highly regulated and controlled market for health insurance that currently exists in the states. So, your argument is a strawman.

My argument is only that the system as practiced in the EU is clearly preferable to the US system. Its more effecient, its more equitable.

I don't give a damn whether the money goes to a corporation or government, I want cheap

One thing that could be changed is the AMA which essentially limits the supply of doctors greatly in the United States. Hence, why Americans pay more for doctors than most western countries per capita. I don't support either Hillarycare or the bloated corporatist system that exists currently now.

A tiny part of the problem. The AMA is very stringent on who gets an MD in the continental US, but a huge number of docs were educated overseas and its really up to the state to decide which way to go on that issue.

Insurance company v PI attorney red tape is where a TON of the cost comes in, and then we have a lot more middlemen taking their cut in the US system than an EU system.

What I fear is that the US has a populous that is taxed almost as highly as where I am from, Canada. And you have nowhere near the amount of government services we have. Also, consider the current status of the US currency, in comparison with the rest of the world. The US's economy is weaker than ever, and Hillary proposes a New "New Deal" of sorts and if one understands that the New Deal as well as Hoover's rampant monetary policy actually deepened the depression until it came out as a result of the market. So my point is that the economy should be liberalized further, this has been shown to be, by many nobel prize winning economists, the best way to help the poor. What Hillary proposes is not the solution, but more to the problem.

Please show me one credible economist who thinks that the depression in the 1930s had anything to do with "rampant monetary policy". The biggest single causal factor in the depression was the fed's unwillingness to provide liquidity when there was 30% unemployment and a massive deflation.

The New Deal had both good and bad elements to it. Price controls are almost always a negative, government spending clearly a positive in an economy running at 50-60% of capacity.

Your reference to the weakness of the economy hinges largely on the currency correction that is ongoing, and that's to correct the massive CA deficit that is the result of Asian countries consistent propping up the dollar and low US savings. CA deficits are caused by dearths in saving relative to investment. Low US savings are partly explained by the very high real exchange rate, and also partly by the fact that we spend 5-9% (strictly as a raw percentage of GDP) on health care than other developed countries.

Partially the reason that Europe can do what they do with healthcare is because they are importing economies whereas the US leans towards being more of an exporting economy. Also, most of them have far higher unemployment rates as a result of their policies of government involvement. Quasikeynesian policies like increasing regulation push foreign investment away from the US and thus growth will decrease.

I can assure you that lowering health care costs would *not* push employers away from the US. Many corporations are run rationally (eg "Whatever will maximize profits"), and rationals don't care whether the money goes to government or corporations.

Higher unemployment in europe is caused by a number of factors, most significantly a minimum wage that is much higher in european countries. It has very little to do with their flatly better health care system.

[Henry]

The nurses were complaining about the illegals overloading our system and causing hospitals to close their emergency rooms due to bankrupting the system. My daughter and I had to wait for care for HOURS! Do you now know why our health care costs are so high? When I lived in Minnesota, our hospitals were full of Canadian patients who couldn't get the care they needed in Canada, so they chose to come to the U.S. and pay in cash for the care they need. The hospitals in the U.K. are overloaded and filthy. Their system is so stretched that people CANNOT get the care they need. When people think they get something for "free," they can't get enough of it, so they lead their country into bankruptcy.


A yes, the "my brief anecdotal evidence trumps solid data and rationale" argument. My favorite.

[Aestheticbend]

My argument is only that the system as practiced in the EU is clearly preferable to the US system. Its more effecient, its more equitable..

I would agree, I actually think that the model that the German's originally endorsed was sound. There is a difference between my opposition to Hillary and endorsing the current system. My thinking is not that dichotomous.

I don't give a damn whether the money goes to a corporation or government, I want cheap .

I have principles and I don't like being stolen from. Business do not take my money without asking, while the state does.

A tiny part of the problem. The AMA is very stringent on who gets an MD in the continental US, but a huge number of docs were educated overseas and its really up to the state to decide which way to go on that issue. ..

Is there not a possibility of collusion between state and business in order to maximize given the power of regulations.

Insurance company v PI attorney red tape is where a TON of the cost comes in, and then we have a lot more middlemen taking their cut in the US system than an EU system...

Yes, I am not arguing for the US system.....


Please show me one credible economist who thinks that the depression in the 1930s had anything to do with "rampant monetary policy". The biggest single causal factor in the depression was the fed's unwillingness to provide liquidity when there was 30% unemployment and a massive deflation.

Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek.... Two of those are nobel prize winners by the way.

[Henry]

I would agree, I actually think that the model that the German's originally endorsed was sound. There is a difference between my opposition to Hillary and endorsing the current system. My thinking is not that dichotomous.


I have principles and I don't like being stolen from. Business do not take my money without asking, while the state does.

Unless you are able to self-insure the several million in expense that could come from some types of illnesses, you need to contribute to your portion of the risk. Otherwise, everyone else gets to pick up the tab for you when you get ill. That's hardly fair. Or we make you sign a waiver stating "I understand that if I run out of money I will no longer have access to treatment" which is unconscionable.

Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek.... Two of those are nobel prize winners by the way.

Hardly. Friedman and Schwartz both took the position that the contraction of the money supply is what turned a fairly common bottom of a business cycle into a full blown disaster.

As for Mises and Hayek, I couldn't care less, particularly with Hayek, as his work is, at bottom, about politics and not about economics.

Friedman wrote extensively on the Great Depression, which he called the Great Contraction, arguing that it had been caused by an ordinary financial shock whose duration and seriousness were greatly increased by the subsequent contraction of the money supply caused by the misguided policies of the directors of the Federal Reserve

Financial excess, whether in the form of minting money or incurring great loads of debt, does not lead to depression. It leads to inflation, which is almost as bad. The critical keynesian insight, that in the true-by-definition economic equation MoneySupply*Velocity=Price*RealOutput prices, not real income, are sticky, is accepted by basically every economist I know of. Even Keynes' staunchest critics agree on this point.

[Bossy Mom]

I don't think there will be an armed rebellion if Hillary wins. People here are overestimating the mindset of the so-called "religious right." After all, we lived through four years of Jimmy Carter (and that was very tough) and eight years of Bill Clinton. None of the people I have known who are "religious right" are violent - they just think they will live through it (the administration of Hillary Clinton), and hope for better times in the future. I also see that many people in this country have forgotten we have a Constitution, and believe that the federal government has the right to take whatever they want from anyone they want.

[Riverratt]

I am a woman, and I will NEVER vote for Hillary. I am from Southern California, where we have to take care of illegal aliens in hospital emergency rooms. I took my daughter to the emergency room last month and we had to wait behind several people who couldn't speak English. The nurses were complaining about the illegals overloading our system and causing hospitals to close their emergency rooms due to bankrupting the system. My daughter and I had to wait for care for HOURS! Do you now know why our health care costs are so high? When I lived in Minnesota, our hospitals were full of Canadian patients who couldn't get the care they needed in Canada, so they chose to come to the U.S. and pay in cash for the care they need. The hospitals in the U.K. are overloaded and filthy. Their system is so stretched that people CANNOT get the care they need. When people think they get something for "free," they can't get enough of it, so they lead their country into bankruptcy.

I am already taxed enough. I don't want to supplement the incomes of people who don't want to work, and I fear the mindset that those who do not have are more deserving than those who do.

I have always been suspicious of Hillary Clinton. I think she is devious and power hungry and I have a healthy fear of people like her.

A yes, the "my brief anecdotal evidence trumps solid data and rationale" argument. My favorite.


Okay, how about this, My wife, is the SUPERVISOR of a ICU unit, and Emergency Room of a medium sized hospital.....

She says the SAME THING Bossy Mom says... She also hates Hillery Clinton, with a passion, but she hates her for a very different reason than most. She says that Hillery is weak, because she did not deal with Bill and his "philandering".. Actually it goes beyond hate, and right into a total lack of respect for Hillery.

She says; The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and she let Bill walk all over her, she would let other nations do the same to us. She can't keep her own house in order, and now she wants to run the country??

Amazing point of view my ESFJ wife has. :lovestruck:

[prometheus]

I don't know about you, but I don't really think this is fair, particularly for a blue collar type that just never had enough intelligence to make it through school and work in a corporate job, etc, to completely miss out on the benefits of globalization and technological advancement.


Love your avatar!

So is it fair that a doctor/engineer couple are forced (by gun if necessary) to support a laborer/housewife couple through taxes?

[Bossy Mom]

So Henry thinks I have "brief anecdotal evidence" of the overloading of our health care system by illegals. It isn't good to go through life only seeing what you want to see. The illegals are one reason our health care costs are so high, but not the only reason. What about malpractice suits? Ambulance chasing lawyers advertise on television to try to get more suits started. They make millions while the people who suffered or think they did get pennies and the doctors are forced out of medicine with extravagantly high malpractice insurance (especially neurosurgeons). Also, I am not "speaking from the sidelines" of the health care debate. I have seen my daughter through two liver transplants and so many other surgeries I can't count them all. I have also seen parents on welfare whose children are in the hospital leeching on the system. They sit in their children's rooms eating junk food and watching Jerry Springer while people like me who work and pay taxes fund their "way of life."

[Lights]

I have also seen parents on welfare whose children are in the hospital leeching on the system. They sit in their children's rooms eating junk food and watching Jerry Springer while people like me who work and pay taxes fund their "way of life."

That seems to be a bit of a generalization to me. There are plenty of hard working poor people who can't afford health insurance. Maybe the problem isn't the people, but the health care system.

[Henry]

Love your avatar!

So is it fair that a doctor/engineer couple are forced (by gun if necessary) to support a laborer/housewife couple through taxes?

Yes, because policies of free international trade, labor market flexibility, and the basically open border situation have generated a lot of wealth, but it hasn't really helped many outside of the top 20%. I don't really think its fair to those who just aren't smart to have to live a lifetime of hard manual labor that will barely pay the bills because they don't have the IQ to go to college.


Additionally, this line of reasoning is could be applied as an argument against any taxation policy.

"So is it fair that a non-driver is forced (by gun if necessary) to support the drivers."

"Is it far that non readers are forced (by gun if necessary) to support libraries">

Or even the inverse argument could be made from this perspective. "Is it fair that the laborer is forced (by gun if necessary) to miss on the benefits of globalization?" "Is it fair that the laborer is forced to accept, by gun if necessary, policies that consistently cheapen the value of his labor and enhance the value of the doctor/engineer".

[prometheus]

Yes, because policies of free international trade, labor market flexibility, and the basically open border situation have generated a lot of wealth, but it hasn't really helped many outside of the top 20%. I don't really think its fair to those who just aren't smart to have to live a lifetime of hard manual labor that will barely pay the bills because they don't have the IQ to go to college.


Additionally, this line of reasoning is could be applied as an argument against any taxation policy.

"So is it fair that a non-driver is forced (by gun if necessary) to support the drivers."

"Is it far that non readers are forced (by gun if necessary) to support libraries">

Or even the inverse argument could be made from this perspective. "Is it fair that the laborer is forced (by gun if necessary) to miss on the benefits of globalization?" "Is it fair that the laborer is forced to accept, by gun if necessary, policies that consistently cheapen the value of his labor and enhance the value of the doctor/engineer".

Well argued, but taxation is nothing but pure theft. I have chosen to stop producing to supporting a system I loathe, and therefore can guarantee I earn less than you. I choose to not take any government handouts, but if I followed your reasoning I would be entitled to part of your earnings because you earn more than me. Or are you saying only the uber rich should be mercilessly taxed to the point they are driven to other countries with their capitol and employment? Like is now happening.

[Henry]

So Henry thinks I have "brief anecdotal evidence" of the overloading of our health care system by illegals. It isn't good to go through life only seeing what you want to see. The illegals are one reason our health care costs are so high, but not the only reason. What about malpractice suits? Ambulance chasing lawyers advertise on television to try to get more suits started. They make millions while the people who suffered or think they did get pennies and the doctors are forced out of medicine with extravagantly high malpractice insurance (especially neurosurgeons).

Except europe has illegal immigrants, Europe has malpractice attorneys, and Europe provides care for every man woman and child, has longer life expectancy and infant mortality, and does so for about 5% of a smaller per capita GDP. We treat perhaps 80% of the population for 13% of a larger per capita GDP.

Seems we can learn something from the Swedes, or even from Great Britain, no?

Also, I am not "speaking from the sidelines" of the health care debate. I have seen my daughter through two liver transplants and so many other surgeries I can't count them all. I have also seen parents on welfare whose children are in the hospital leeching on the system. They sit in their children's rooms eating junk food and watching Jerry Springer while people like me who work and pay taxes fund their "way of life."

Never said that you were speaking from the sidelines, said your argument hinged on anecdotal evidence.

My goal is the best care - care as in "treatment of illness", not "customer service" like getting a ton of attention for frivilous maladies - for the dollar. Europe has shown that there's a better way to do this. We would be wise to follow when there's a system that's both more equitable and less costly.

I don't know what to make of this whole "leeching on the system" argument about kids getting health care. Yeah, the parents should be working. Yeah there's a cap on the amount of time that they can receive welfare benefits and it should probably be tied to some form of public works participation. But are you somehow implying that there's injustice in the child receiving care? Even if the parents are lazy, does that really mean that a child should go without needed care?



Well argued, but taxation is nothing but pure theft. I have chosen to stop producing to supporting a system I loathe, and therefore can guarantee I earn less than you. I choose to not take any government handouts, but if I followed your reasoning I would be entitled to part of your earnings because you earn more than me.

The position that taxation is theft is a strong philosophical position, and one that from a purely abstract perspective I largely agree with. But concretely, I think everyone is better off with reasonable taxes. Nearly everyone is better off because of mandatory public schooling, nearly everyone is better of because of roads, the police department, and the fire department, and the sums of money required to support these services are clearly outweighed by the costs.

Or are you saying only the uber rich should be mercilessly taxed to the point they are driven to other countries with their capitol and employment? Like is now happening.

My position is something along the lines of federal taxation at 40-45% for income over 250k per year, 30% flat tax for anything up to that and a very large standard deduction. Which is basically consistent with the rest of the developed world except Japan, who, as we all have seen over the past 17 years, has not exactly led the way in the area of developed economy growth.

When you tax an additional 5% at 800k per year, you're taxing the 3rd home, the Ferrari, the absurd vacations. When you tax an additional 5% at 40 or even 50k per year, you're taking money out of retirement plans, kids out of college, health insurance, etc.

[prometheus]

But concretely, I think everyone is better off with reasonable taxes. Nearly everyone is better off because of mandatory public schooling, nearly everyone is better of because of roads, the police department, and the fire department, and the sums of money required to support these services are clearly outweighed by the costs.

Any of these "services" could be more efficiently ran privately with use fees. Also, todays public schools are mostly just propaganda camps, the knowledge of one of todays HS graduates is pathetic compared to 50 years ago.

[Lights]

Any of these "services" could be more efficiently ran privately with use fees. Also, todays public schools are mostly just propaganda camps, the knowledge of one of todays HS graduates is pathetic compared to 50 years ago.

Any school is susceptible to indoctrination. It's just a matter of choice with private schools. And I don't think it's very logical to compare schools from 50 years ago to today. After all, they didn't have the emphasis on technology we have today. Finally, our post secondary schooling system is still the best in the world and it's the public funding through pell grants and financial aid that makes it possible for many middle class to impoverished people to attend those schools.

[Bossy Mom]

We have nothing to learn from Europe but how to create inefficient health care systems with overtaxed health care workers and poor quality of care. Europe also has illegal immigrants who are having a detrimental effect on their health care systems.

The argument that so many poor people don't have health care...why do they have so many children? I don't expect others to raise my children, any more than I feel obligated to raise the children of others. I don't care if others think I am cold and unfeeling...with freedom come responsibilites. Those who use the strong arm of government to enforce their "compassion" aren't compassionate at all -- they just want power over others. Why should I have to pay for someone else's code of "compassion" or their type of "morality"? Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat.

[prometheus]

Any school is susceptible to indoctrination. It's just a matter of choice with private schools. And I don't think it's very logical to compare schools from 50 years ago to today. After all, they didn't have the emphasis on technology we have today.


Maybe todays HS grads can surf the net. But 50 years ago they could F'in read and do "sums". Most could even read Latin, and knew calculus.

[Henry]

We have nothing to learn from Europe but how to create inefficient health care systems with overtaxed health care workers and poor quality of care. Europe also has illegal immigrants who are having a detrimental effect on their health care systems.


Poor quality of care? What are you basing that on? Longer life expectancy is bad? That higher infant mortality constitutes "quality care"? That the exact same medications that cost hundreds here cost about ten euros there? Ah yes, living longer at a far lower price is clearly "low quality care".

The fact that Europe also has illegal immigrants is something that supports my thesis, eg that Europe is doing this much better than we are, as they have all the same problems but do the work for 1/3rd to 6/10ths of the cost.

"overtaxed health care workers" boo-hoo-hoo. Everyone's an overtaxed worker, and there are not a shortage of people wanting to become doctors in even the worst systems in Europe. Clearly this is a complete non point.



The argument that so many poor people don't have health care...why do they have so many children? I don't expect others to raise my children, any more than I feel obligated to raise the children of others. I don't care if others think I am cold and unfeeling...with freedom come responsibilites. Those who use the strong arm of government to enforce their "compassion" aren't compassionate at all -- they just want power over others. Why should I have to pay for someone else's code of "compassion" or their type of "morality"? Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat.

A child's health care should be dependent on whether or not their parents work? So the sick kid dies because mom is a crack addict? Ah yes, that's truly the land of equal opportunity, and also a land of great freedom for the child.

By this line of "any more than I feel obligated to raise the children of others", we should not be removing children from abusive homes? After all, its not your responsibility that they aren't raising their kids right. We should, after all, let the parents sodomize the children if they like, as how is that your responsibility? You are out to get yours, and forget the rest, right?


Your arguments hinge on totally unverifiable anecdote, they lack integrative complexity or nuance, any sense of even acknowledging the existence of others, and in response to hard data and strong corresponding rationale, you throw up unsupported conjecture. Forgive me if I'm not inspired to let you dictate my reading list.

[Lucid]

The argument that so many poor people don't have health care...why do they have so many children?

It's not just poor people who don't have health care, it's also a huge number of the middle class. And it has nothing to do with how many children a family has.
It seems like you've had many opportunities and a certain amount of financial stability. That's a really good thing and I'm glad you've been so fortunate.
I'm not trying to say that you haven't had hardships or that you haven't worked hard for what you have. But many many people work very hard and are still poor and still without health care. I'm sorry, but I just don't think you've had enough experience with the welfare or medicaid systems to understand how difficult it is to get any kind of help.

Anecdotal evidence:
I have a friend who is a single mother. She has a job that pays about $12.00 an hour, which, in my city (where minimum wage is still about $5.50 an hour) is still hard to live and support a child on. Child care for babies (her child is about 6 months old) is very expensive and she can't afford to pay for child care and pay her energy bill (which is very expensive here and gets worse as the weather gets colder). Also, her employer does not offer her health insurance. She works 40 hours a week. She is 25 and has one child. She does not qualify for government aid to help pay for child care. She's still going down there and filling out paperwork to see if there's anything she qualifies for. This makes it very difficult for her to get to work. If she has to call in too many times because there's no one to watch her child, she will lose her job.
While this example may not be representative of all of the people who seek government aid, it does represent the majority of them.

While there would certainly be problems with any health care system or welfare system, I simply don't think you've had the experience or the information to actually understand the systems or how they work. I would like to see you try to live the way most people on welfare or medicaid live. I think that if you had to do it for just a few months your opinion would change by about 180 degrees.
I don't think you're evil, just uninformed or misinformed.

*Edit - I was making a sandwich and still thinking about this thread. I think that there are some people who abuse the system. However, everything I've read and experienced with regards to this subject leads me to believe that they are by far the minority.
Also, there will always be people who find ways to abuse any system. I guess for me, I'm happy to pay to fund a system that some people abuse if it means giving other people (especially children, who can't vote, work or care for themselves and who are basically at the mercy of the society into which they are born) what they need to survive.

[Lights]

We have nothing to learn from Europe but how to create inefficient health care systems with overtaxed health care workers and poor quality of care. Europe also has illegal immigrants who are having a detrimental effect on their health care systems.

The argument that so many poor people don't have health care...why do they have so many children? I don't expect others to raise my children, any more than I feel obligated to raise the children of others. I don't care if others think I am cold and unfeeling...with freedom come responsibilites. Those who use the strong arm of government to enforce their "compassion" aren't compassionate at all -- they just want power over others. Why should I have to pay for someone else's code of "compassion" or their type of "morality"? Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat.

I could argue relentlessly with you about the reality of the health care system and the working poor, but it would be meaningless since I think you may be misinformed and uneducated on the issues. So here is some suggested reading in case you ever care to objectively challenge your own beliefs.

The Working Poor (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Nickel and Dimed (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Flat Broke With Children (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I think if you actually take the time to educate yourself on the issues, you will find that it isn't an issue of compassion, but one of common sense and reason.

Maybe todays HS grads can surf the net. But 50 years ago they could F'in read and do "sums". Most could even read Latin, and knew calculus.

And today they have advanced placement courses for college credit in maths and science, teach more than one foreign language, and hold their educators accountable for achieving success in the fundamentals. It's easy to look back and say the good ol' days were so much better, but it's comparing apples to oranges. Schools back then educated people as best they could for those times, and our schools educate people as best they can for these times.

[prometheus]

And today they have advanced placement courses for college credit in maths and science, teach more than one foreign language, and hold their educators accountable for achieving success in the fundamentals. It's easy to look back and say the good ol' days were so much better, but it's comparing apples to oranges. Schools back then educated people as best they could for those times, and our schools educate people as best they can for these times.



..........and if you are seriously arguing todays grad is more intelligent, close you eyes and open your mouth

[Bossy Mom]

The reason we have poverty in this country is a behavior problem. The illegitimate birth rate has skyrocketed in the last fifty years. Who is responsible for this? With the many forms of birth control!

As for me being the lucky recipient of a wealthy family, you are totally incorrect. I was born the eldest of nine children of a poor rural couple. I worked my way through college and have worked hard to make sure my children had clothes, food, a roof over their heads and good health care.

Liberals always use their "compassion" to attack others who think more logically. Lenin was right - liberals are useful idiots.

[prometheus]

The reason we have poverty in this country is a behavior problem. The illegitimate birth rate has skyrocketed in the last fifty years.

So.... a bastard child can't make any money, or...he spends it all on crack for his nig, nig, negro kids?

[apex.predator]

I can assure you that lowering health care costs would *not* push employers away from the US. Many corporations are run rationally (eg "Whatever will maximize profits"), and rationals don't care whether the money goes to government or corporations.

Government can't lower costs; they can lower only the immediate price paid.

[rocksteady]

The reason we have poverty in this country is a behavior problem. The illegitimate birth rate has skyrocketed in the last fifty years. Who is responsible for this? With the many forms of birth control!

As for me being the lucky recipient of a wealthy family, you are totally incorrect. I was born the eldest of nine children of a poor rural couple. I worked my way through college and have worked hard to make sure my children had clothes, food, a roof over their heads and good health care.

Liberals always use their "compassion" to attack others who think more logically. Lenin was right - liberals are useful idiots.

Hey you! more Thinking, less Judging! It's not working for you!

[Lights]

..........and if you are seriously arguing todays grad is more intelligent, close you eyes and...

What does that have to do with anything? I hate how when INTJs can't make a decent argument they have to start fuzzing up the issue. As if a single case example is indicative of anything. Not exactly the kind of logic that I expect from an NT.

By the way, you might want to remove that. Posting pornographic links is forbidden as outlined in the FAQ.

The reason we have poverty in this country is a behavior problem. The illegitimate birth rate has skyrocketed in the last fifty years. Who is responsible for this? With the many forms of birth control!

As for me being the lucky recipient of a wealthy family, you are totally incorrect. I was born the eldest of nine children of a poor rural couple. I worked my way through college and have worked hard to make sure my children had clothes, food, a roof over their heads and good health care.

Liberals always use their "compassion" to attack others who think more logically. Lenin was right - liberals are useful idiots.

I proudly reside in Idaho, one of the most conservative states in the union, and Idaho does not teach sex ed in its public schools. Did I mention we are among the highest in teen pregnancy rates in the country? I wonder whose fault those illegitimate births are? The Conservative law makers? The Conservative parents? Here is a scary thought! Maybe it has nothing to do with political affiliation!

Statistically speaking, our country has significantly lower birth rates than ever before. But of course, it is so much easier to ignore that little fact and believe whole heartedly in some political affiliation. I'm really done listening to you spewing your political devotion without actually taking the time to learn the issues. If I wanted to hear preaching then I would go to church.

It's funny how no one wants to take personal responsibility for any of our country's problems. No matter which side anyone picks politically, it so much easier to blame the other side and pretend that your political views mean something rather than to make an effort toward finding a solution.

[Lucid]

As for me being the lucky recipient of a wealthy family, you are totally incorrect. I was born the eldest of nine children of a poor rural couple. I worked my way through college and have worked hard to make sure my children had clothes, food, a roof over their heads and good health care.

I don't think anybody said you hadn't worked for what you have. Just that not everybody is as fortunate as you are. Even with being one of 9 children born to a poor rural couple.

Lenin was right - liberals are useful idiots.

There's no need to get nasty. I think this kind of response is doing your argument more harm than good.

[Henry]

Government can't lower costs; they can lower only the immediate price paid.

Government does health care does directly reduce costs, particularly with almost perfectly inelastic demand and short run supply curves.

Some ways can reduce costs considerably:
1. Reducing demand for unnecessary services performed by a doctor to shield him or herself from PI liability and by restricting vanity procedures. When there are legitimately ill people, it makes little sense to use resources to extend the wealthy man's penis by a quarter inch.
2. Eliminating most of the billing/insurance bureaucracy and profit cuts for each party
3. Massive reduction in liability exposure for doctors (as the government assumes all this liability) helping to increase the available supply of doctors.

[Henry]

The reason we have poverty in this country is a behavior problem. The illegitimate birth rate has skyrocketed in the last fifty years. Who is responsible for this? With the many forms of birth control!

...

Teens having extramarital sex is not an argument against national health care. Furthermore, who are you to call a birth "illegitimate"?

There's poverty in the country for a variety of reasons, most notably that there are people who are too dumb, too naturally unhealthy, or who come from backgrounds that don't encourage the values that lead to wealth. None of which has anything to do with the right of the individual to get to see a doctor when they get sick.


As for me being the lucky recipient of a wealthy family, you are totally incorrect. I was born the eldest of nine children of a poor rural couple. I worked my way through college and have worked hard to make sure my children had clothes, food, a roof over their heads and good health care.

Congrats. You had the IQ to go to college. You are free from genetic defect. You were not so abused by your parents that you couldn't function.

And if society can provide health care to EVERYONE for less than it provides care for the upper middle class and above, why NOT do it? Because you want a lot of attention for maladies that you should take a tylenol for and then forget about? That's the only advantage of our system over the European model.

Liberals always use their "compassion" to attack others who think more logically. Lenin was right - liberals are useful idiots.

Lets do a brief summation of the arguments:
1. Mine - Europe has a cheaper, more efficient model that provides better bottom line care.
2. Yours - "Kids of welfare parents eating junk food while watching Jerry Springer don't deserve health care" "I've worked hard to give my kids things and other people don't deserve them unless they work hard too"

Tell me, who is the more emotional? Who is relying on data? Who has resorted to making personal comments?

[apex.predator]

Government does health care does directly reduce costs, particularly with almost perfectly inelastic demand and short run supply curves.

You'll have to try again; your above statement makes no sense.

As for your other points, you have provided no explanation of how government can reduce the costs of medical procedures. When a government-paid physician performs an operation, do they use procedures any different from private physicians?

All you have done is asserted that anything government does is immune from questioning.

[Henry]

You'll have to try again; your above statement makes no sense.

As for your other points, you have provided no explanation of how government can reduce the costs of medical procedures. When a government-paid physician performs an operation, do they use procedures any different from private physicians?

All you have done is asserted that anything government does is immune from questioning.

I'll spell it out STJ style so everyone can understand, as "all you have done is asserted that anything government does is immune from questioning" which is not what I said at all.

1. All other things being equal, removing costs faced by producers (eg billing department, malpractice insurance premiums, etc) will lead to a lower market price at higher production levels. Supply curve shifts right.
2. Removing a middleman that essentially acts as a sales tax (eg insurance companies) will lead to a lower market price, greater levels of consumer surplus, and greater levels of producer surplus.
3. The reduction of unnecessary services performed by doctors for frivilous maladies to shield themselves from liability. Demand curve shifts left.
4. Eliminating vanity treatments. Demand curve shifts left, supply curve expands out.

As its very easy to establish that demand curve is vertical for many medical treatments, and suppliers have not responded to the increases in price because most of that is going to attorneys and insurance company bureaucracy.

Do you need me to draw a graph?

[apex.predator]

I'll spell it out...

You want the government telling you what is "necessary." I want the government out of the lives of citizens as much as possible. Draw all the graphs you want; you will have plenty of time when you're told to wait six months for your medical care.

Government researchers now note that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12% of that province's population) can't find family physicians. Health officials in one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a lottery to determine who'd get a doctor's appointment.

These problems are not unique to Canada — they characterize all government-run health care systems.
...
Americans live 75.3 years on average, fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the French (76.6) or the citizens of any Western European nation save Portugal. Health care influences life expectancy, of course. But a life can end because of a murder, a fall or a car accident. Such factors aren't academic — homicide rates in the U.S. are much higher than in other countries.
...
And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50%; the European rate is just 35%. Esophageal carcinoma: 12% in the U.S., 6% in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2% here, yet 61.7% in France and down to 44.3% in England — a striking variation.

..government bureaucrats would be able to cut costs — but only by shrinking access to health care, as in Canada, and engendering a Canadian-style nightmare of overflowing emergency rooms and yearlong waits for treatment.


A Canadian Doctor Describes How Socialized Medicine Doesn't Work
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

HillaryCare in Tennessee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

More to the point of this thread - history - the primary reason health care is an issue currently is an consequence of wage caps during WWII by the US federal government. Employers seeking to attract workers at the time couldn't offer higher wages, so they competed on the basis of benefits with health care being one of the most important.

It is well documented that price caps - "cost reductions" for the more politically naive - invariably lead to shortages and quality deterioration.

As is often the case, the political system frets and the market is already in the process of solving the problem. If you live in the US, chances are there is a community health center - performing many of the services of physicians - located at a drug store near you.

[rocksteady]

guys, why can't we just agree to have both systems of healthcare, a socialized one to take care of people that can't afford, and private for those who want higher quality care, it seems like this would be a good compromise?

I see things in motion that seem to be heading towards a system like this, doesn't seem like a terrible thing to me. There doesn't seem to be one catch-all ideal solution. It can be tedious to read arguments about the nuances of personal/political utopia sometimes!

[Lights]

That is the most sensible thought I have heard in this thread. Well said rocksteady.

[Riverratt]

guys, why can't we just agree to have both systems of healthcare, a socialized one to take care of people that can't afford, and private for those who want higher quality care, it seems like this would be a good compromise?




Problem is, we already HAVE that system, and it is rife with abuses..and outright STUPIDITY.

Who says the poor don't get taken care of????

The poorest of the poor, get Medicaid, they pay for NOTHING, They have NO Insurance bill, They have NO Co Pays, Heck, they don't even pay taxes.....These are a large portion of the folks you see LOITERING around emergency rooms. With stumped toes and the like. These people seem to think they are entitled to it. but people that do not contribute to society as a whole tend to abuse it..

After all, to them, it is free.....

We all know, that if something is “free” it tends to be overused, and abused, this is what has happened to our hospitals. We have doctors afraid to turn anyone away, due to the very REAL threat of a lawsuit, and we all know that they “Medicaid” cases, tend to be, very VERY litigious.
And who do you think pays, when they win $100,000,000 because they have a scar where the doctor C-Sectioned baby #6 out of Momma?? The rest of us, in higher medical bills.

They call it “I'm gona gits mine”.. Why do you think they run all those “ambulance chasing lawyer TV spots in the early afternoon hrs?? It is because the welfare cases are sitting at home in front of the TV, feeling sorry for themselves, and blaming other people for their predicament, while, the productive citizens, and by implication, having common sense, are at work.

So the doctors practice defensive medicine, These means they will run EVERY test, at taxpayers expense, just so he can cover his own @ss in case of lawsuit.

Now some one will point out that all poor folks are NOT on “Medicaid” this is true, but have you EVER, EVER heard of a Hospital turning ANYONE AWAY???

NO, you haven't.... If you don't have insurance, and you get hurt, the hospital will treat you, and write it off of their taxes.

Next someone will point out “What about the “working poor”??? there are state programs, in EVERY STATE, that cover folks in that level..

And before I hear whining about drugs, let me point out that you can go to Walmart and get a huge list of generic drugs for about 2 or 4 dollars for a 30 day supply. EVERY DRUG MAKER, has programs, for the folks that cannot afford their drugs, to get them for free, or very inexpensively..

All it takes in half a brain, to find these programs, but alas, we are a nation of sheep, and our collective IQ is as low as “hippy music festival runoff”

Personal responsibility is dead in this nation. Hardly anyone is willing to even accept the responsibility of their own health care anymore....We are doomed...:thinking:

[rocksteady]

Problem is, we already HAVE that system, and it is rife with abuses..and outright STUPIDITY.

Who says the poor don't get taken care of????

The poorest of the poor, get Medicaid, they pay for NOTHING, They have NO Insurance bill, They have NO Co Pays, Heck, they don't even pay taxes.....These are a large portion of the folks you see LOITERING around emergency rooms. With stumped toes and the like. These people seem to think they are entitled to it. but people that do not contribute to society as a whole tend to abuse it..

After all, to them, it is free.....

We all know, that if something is “free” it tends to be overused, and abused, this is what has happened to our hospitals. We have doctors afraid to turn anyone away, due to the very REAL threat of a lawsuit, and we all know that they “Medicaid” cases, tend to be, very VERY litigious.
And who do you think pays, when they win $100,000,000 because they have a scar where the doctor C-Sectioned baby #6 out of Momma?? The rest of us, in higher medical bills.

They call it “I'm gona gits mine”.. Why do you think they run all those “ambulance chasing lawyer TV spots in the early afternoon hrs?? It is because the welfare cases are sitting at home in front of the TV, feeling sorry for themselves, and blaming other people for their predicament, while, the productive citizens, and by implication, having common sense, are at work.

So the doctors practice defensive medicine, These means they will run EVERY test, at taxpayers expense, just so he can cover his own @ss in case of lawsuit.

Now some one will point out that all poor folks are NOT on “Medicaid” this is true, but have you EVER, EVER heard of a Hospital turning ANYONE AWAY???

NO, you haven't.... If you don't have insurance, and you get hurt, the hospital will treat you, and write it off of their taxes.

Next someone will point out “What about the “working poor”??? there are state programs, in EVERY STATE, that cover folks in that level..

And before I hear whining about drugs, let me point out that you can go to Walmart and get a huge list of generic drugs for about 2 or 4 dollars for a 30 day supply. EVERY DRUG MAKER, has programs, for the folks that cannot afford their drugs, to get them for free, or very inexpensively..

All it takes in half a brain, to find these programs, but alas, we are a nation of sheep, and our collective IQ is as low as “hippy music festival runoff”

Personal responsibility is dead in this nation. Hardly anyone is willing to even accept the responsibility of their own health care anymore....We are doomed...:thinking:

so maybe a little overhaul is necessary, which I think most of us can agree with. The problem is that these problems you mention with our healthcare are all symptoms of a sick political system that has forgotten about the people. I hate to re-hash this idea, but to fix healthcare, we need to fix politics. There are prominent politicians taking steps to work towards this, it just takes time.

I personally think health care is a perfectly reasonable function of government, and if we put some thought into it, we could build a nice socialized system, we just have to get rid of the influence of lobbyists and insurance companies.

[Riverratt]

I personally think health care is a perfectly reasonable function of government, and if we put some thought into it, we could build a nice socialized system, we just have to get rid of the influence of lobbyists and insurance companies.

Lets see... Let me dust off the US Constitution...

Funny, I can't find the term "Health Care" anywhere?!?!

Odd...That must be one of those new fangled rights, that people THINK they have, you know, like the "right to vote", the "right to an education" etc etc....

Read it, you will find that many of the "rights" people cry about really do not exist.

And those that cry loudest for those non-existent rights, tend to try their best to ERASE a whole section of the Bill of Rights, namely the 2nd Amendment...what hypocrites

Do you realize, the ONLY thing our government is even remotely good at is fighting wars??

Do you REALLY, want to give the same people, power over who YOU, to tell you WHO will be your Doctor, and WHAT procedures they can preform on you in an life or death situation...

Is the same people that gave us the Department of Education, Social Security, the IRS and the TSA?

Have you ever had to deal with the DMV??? Or stood in line to board a flight?? How about those Tax forms???

Do you REALLY want to give the SAME PEOPLE the power of life or death over you???

Actually can you even name ONE government "social program" that has came anywhere close to doing what it was supposed to do?

If socialized medicine is so great, why are Canadians coming by the droves to the US, to have procedures done??

I don't want some butt-munch pencil pusher in Washington, to have say in what me, my wife, and my doctors says that needs to be done. NO WAY....

The only thing these "socialized programs" are good for is, breeding Democrats. Their is a reason, that once a new social program is started, it suddenly becomes an "entitlement"....and their is no way to ever stop it....

[Lights]

Who says the poor don't get taken care of????

I do. For just walking into an Emergency Room you will usually end up with a $500 bill. How long do you suppose it takes someone working at $7.25 an hour to pay off a bill like that? I grew up in a poor family and you can be damn well sure that if one of us kids got sick, we had to be on the verge of death before we were taken to the hospital. Medical emergencies are part of the reason there are working poor. Once you get sick you can never pay it off. As far as the state writing off expenses and other such completely unsubstantiated bull, I wonder what world you are living in. Medicaid puhleez :rolleyes:. Since you are clearly an expert, why don't you tell me the stipulations of Medicaid, who it covers, and what it covers? I mean, with the claims you make, it's obvious that you should know those details. I mean, obviously there are only 6.5 million poor people in this country, right? And how much does your state contribute to Medicaid? What does it take in your state to be deemed "cost effective"?

If socialized medicine is so great, why are Canadians coming by the droves to the US, to have procedures done??

I don't see droves of Canadians running across the border for better health care. But I do see droves of Americans running across the border for more affordable prescription drugs and medical services. I'm not saying that there aren't Canadians who do come here for better medical care, but they are certainly vastly outnumbered by the number of Americans who run the other way. But hey, clearly you have statistics or some evidence to actually back up your claims, right?


It's actually really amusing watching you folks pretend you know anything about health care just so you can push your political agendas. I would have figured INTJs would be out to objectively challenge their own beliefs and show a little human reason, but I'll just have to settle for the entertainment of listening to these little delusions. :thinking:

[Riverratt]

You proved my point for me....You evidently got the “care” you needed, if you ended up with a bill like that, and if it was only $500 bucks, you must not have been very sick. You should have taken your stumped toe or whatever, to the “urgent care” center. You know, those places that are open from like 6 AM till midnight, where folks without insurance can go for minor issues...


Went their once myself, walked in with a badly pulled back and leg, and walked out with a $30 dollar doctor bill and a handful of free “samples” of pain meds.... and NO, I did not have insurance at the time.


Okay... Since you asked about “medical help”.... (Virginia Specific)


First off...FREE BIRTH CONTROL....for EVERYONE.... They hand out birth control pills, and condoms like they where lolly pops, almost no questions asked, and they never ask for money, OR income information....They give out condoms by the bag, and birth control pills by the case.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


Here is a link to Virginia's WIC program...basically lots of good, free food for your wife, and baby, until they are 5 years old.... Eligibility...for a family of 4, an income under 38,000 a year..


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


Actually, they will supply so much baby food and milk, you will not NEVER, need to buy it.


Virginia's FAMAS Program.... Really good FREE insurance, (with small co pays) for those of LOW to moderate, income.. Here is a link to the Eligibility requirements Notice that it goes up to over 40,000 a year for a family of 4....


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Virginia's “Uninsured Medical Catastrophe Fund”..just what it says, I actully know several folks, who have used it.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


You wanted to know about Medicaid...FAMIS is listed their aswell


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Ahh, free, or extremely cheap drug information


Here is Walmart's $4 for a 30 day supply list...more than 360 scripts are available..


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


Pfizer...A LARGE drug company..nice little program they have their....


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


Glaxo Smith Kline.. Another large drug company...more free, or low cost drugs...


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


And yes, you could say that I am expert in this field, actully I am married to one.......The resources are their...you just must look for them. I swear sometimes it is like trying to teach Helen Keller how to speak. WATTTTERR...WATER...:suspicious: Feel it Helen!!!!

[rocksteady]

dude, i hate to say this, but your post are very annoyingly worded, and reek of fanboy spam.

I mentioned health care as a function of government...state level would be fine. Please quit with the huge posts, stick to the point.

rocksteady added 2 Minutes and 20 Seconds later...


It's actually really amusing watching you folks pretend you know anything about health care just so you can push your political agendas. I would have figured INTJs would be out to objectively challenge their own beliefs and show a little human reason, but I'll just have to settle for the entertainment of listening to these little delusions. :thinking:

I agree, something is out of place. Political spam has no place here.

[Riverratt]

dude, i hate to say this, but your post are very annoyingly worded, and reek of fanboy spam.

I mentioned health care as a function of government...state level would be fine. Please quit with the huge posts, stick to the point.



Actually I could be happy with the state programs, trimmed back a bit from where they are now. I would prefer the government completely out, of the health care business,(except for licensing) but that is never going to happen. I would agree that their is a need for the poor to have help....and they have it...

As for the long post, He made a few comments, asked a few questions so I answered his questions, even though "Google" would have sufficed for him.

[Henry]

You want the government telling you what is "necessary." I want the government out of the lives of citizens as much as possible. Draw all the graphs you want; you will have plenty of time when you're told to wait six months for your medical care.

...

That's nice that you want them out of "the lives of citizens as much as possible". I want everyone out of my life as much as possible, large corporations that function the same as governments included. The best way to achieve this is to minimize costs and maximize savings. I'd love to put another 6-10% of my income in my pocket, regardless of where that money is going to.

Six months for medical care? Substantiate that with data please. I've seen anecdote that high, but never data.

A Canadian Doctor Describes How Socialized Medicine Doesn't Work
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

HillaryCare in Tennessee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Those are wonderful abstractions, but you can't overcome the fact that Europe provides health care for every person for 33-60% of what we do. And they have longer life expectancy. And lower infant mortality rates. Its really sad that 200,000 incidents out of a least a hundred million incidents took over 6 months, but it doesn't warrant 3x's the cost for 80% of the care.

More to the point of this thread - history - the primary reason health care is an issue currently is an consequence of wage caps during WWII by the US federal government. Employers seeking to attract workers at the time couldn't offer higher wages, so they competed on the basis of benefits with health care being one of the most important.

It is well documented that price caps - "cost reductions" for the more politically naive - invariably lead to shortages and quality deterioration.


You really shouldn't be talking about economics when you can't distinguish between a supply or demand shift and a price cap.

I'm not talking about price caps. I'm talking about instituting policies that will place downward pressure on the market price of health care, or providing a public good in the same way roads and police and FDs are provided today. If you knew the first thing about economics, this would have been obvious.


As is often the case, the political system frets and the market is already in the process of solving the problem. If you live in the US, chances are there is a community health center - performing many of the services of physicians - located at a drug store near you.

A nice abstraction but you can't overcome the hard data on this issue - longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, greater levels of equality for 33-60% of the price.

Henry added 8 Minutes and 50 Seconds later...

Lets see... Let me dust off the US Constitution...

Funny, I can't find the term "Health Care" anywhere?!?!

Odd...That must be one of those new fangled rights, that people THINK they have, you know, like the "right to vote", the "right to an education" etc etc....

Read it, you will find that many of the "rights" people cry about really do not exist.

And those that cry loudest for those non-existent rights, tend to try their best to ERASE a whole section of the Bill of Rights, namely the 2nd Amendment...what hypocrites

Do you realize, the ONLY thing our government is even remotely good at is fighting wars??

I don't want some butt-munch pencil pusher in Washington, to have say in what me, my wife, and my doctors says that needs to be done. NO WAY....

The only thing these "socialized programs" are good for is, breeding Democrats. Their is a reason, that once a new social program is started, it suddenly becomes an "entitlement"....and their is no way to ever stop it....

Were you drunk when you wrote this? "Butt munch"? "me, my wife my doctors says"? Rebutting arguments that haven't been made? Random, ill-formed arguments that would make an ESFP blush for lack of coherence? Failing to consider that insurance companies fulfill most of the negative roles you ascribe to a hypothetical public system?

[Lights]

You proved my point for me....You evidently got the “care” you needed, if you ended up with a bill like that, and if it was only $500 bucks, you must not have been very sick. You should have taken your stumped toe or whatever, to the “urgent care” center. You know, those places that are open from like 6 AM till midnight, where folks without insurance can go for minor issues...

You misread my post as I very clearly said, "Just walking into the emergency room" resulted in $500. The one time I ended up in the emergency room, the actual sum was in the thousands. I also love how you included your "stumped toe" assessment which demonstrates your desire to generalize and simplify the argument for your own benefit. Actually, when I went I was 10 and had an appendicitis which I enjoyed for three days in complete agony because my family made just a little too much to qualify for Medicaid. But of course, details like those don't play nicely into your political ideologies so they must be overlooked for the sake of not conceding even an inch of your convictions. I find it very cute that you insist on playing up "minor issues" as one of your defenses. :thinking:

But I will give you credit for actually taking the time to look into special programs, although it is clear that you have still not got the point. There exists a realm between impoverished and just getting by where a good share of Americans live.


However, as I have found to be typical with these INTJ discussions, this is becoming circular and repetitive. INTJs want to argue, not to listen to reason or critique their own beliefs, so it is inevitable that such discussion will make absolutely 0 progress. I find it absolutely adorable that INTJs don't take too kindly to having their arguments scrutinized and prefer instead to raise countless unsubstantiated points in an attempt to drown out the "competition". It's a rather quaint style of debate. But my own personal belief is that anyone who gives into their convictions on this or any other issue is a fool. There lies a best fit solution for the current situation between the right and left ideologies expressed in this thread. It has become clear to me that INTJs care nothing for moderate truths when it is so much funner to joust on the abstract plane of political philosophy.

Edit: However, that may be me just generalizing the whole type based soley on what I have observed in some individuals on this forum. It would not be fair of me to criticize without critiquing my own beliefs. So I will just have to sit back and observe where this discussion and the others go.

[banzai]

No

[Riverratt]

...

Six months for medical care? Substantiate that with data please. I've seen anecdote that high, but never data.

Ahh, the infamous "wait times" How about 409 days for "hip joint replacement" at North East LHIN or how about 617 days at Hôpital régional de Sudbury Regional Hospital

Don't take my word for it, just look here at the OFFICIAL government ran "Ontario Wait time website"

You can check out some of the times yourself, Gee, I hope I never need an MRI in a hurry up their.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...
Were you drunk when you wrote this? "Butt munch"? "me, my wife my doctors says"? Rebutting arguments that haven't been made? Random, ill-formed arguments that would make an ESFP blush for lack of coherence? Failing to consider that insurance companies fulfill most of the negative roles you ascribe to a hypothetical public system?

Yea, but a person can "fire", their insurance compainy and get a new one.

I was exhausted when I was up posting last night, at 3 AM, I am much better now....When I am worn out, the old Appalachian hillbilly in me "comes out to play" :embarassed:

[Lights]

No

Come on, can't you summon up just a tad bit of Ti. :laugh:

[prometheus]

It's actually really amusing watching you folks pretend you know anything about health care just so you can push your political agendas. I would have figured INTJs would be out to objectively challenge their own beliefs and show a little human reason, but I'll just have to settle for the entertainment of listening to these little delusions. :thinking:

It's hillaryious watching you disregard RR's excellent arguments for individual responsibility, and constitutionality like they are some sort of "dated" concepts that have been replaced by your version of glorified socialism.

[Lights]

It's hillaryious watching you disregard RR's excellent arguments for individual responsibility, and constitutionality like they are some sort of "dated" concepts that have been replaced by your version of glorified socialism.

You assume much, but read little.

But my own personal belief is that anyone who gives into their convictions on this or any other issue is a fool. There lies a best fit solution for the current situation between the right and left ideologies expressed in this thread. It has become clear to me that INTJs care nothing for moderate truths when it is so much funner to joust on the abstract plane of political philosophy.

Though I do much appreciate you proving my point.

[Riverratt]

But my own personal belief is that anyone who gives into their convictions on this or any other issue is a fool. There lies a best fit solution for the current situation between the right and left ideologies expressed in this thread. It has become clear to me that INTJs care nothing for moderate truths when it is so much funner to joust on the abstract plane of political philosophy.


Between the right and left?? You mean in the middle??

Phooy, anit nothing in the "middle", but ROAD KILL, if you have an belief, at least have the fortitude to back it up...

I refer to our founders.....

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783


A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

[Henry]

Ahh, the infamous "wait times" How about 409 days for "hip joint replacement" at North East LHIN or how about 617 days at Hôpital régional de Sudbury Regional Hospital

Don't take my word for it, just look here at the OFFICIAL government ran "Ontario Wait time website"

You can check out some of the times yourself, Gee, I hope I never need an MRI in a hurry up their.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are extremes, no doubt, and Canada's system is clearly the worst of the government systems. Still, I'd prefer to put another 6-9% of my income in my pocket and wait for non-emergency services like a hip joint replacement. On this point, I suppose it comes down to a matter of preference, although its really a shared risk whether public or private so should be a shared decision.



Yea, but a person can "fire", their insurance compainy and get a new one.

Except insurance companies are virtually identical and you can't very well fire them if you can't afford the care in the first place. In personal lines, its very common for every company to use the same policy and just add endorsements to make minor changes to a state's standard policy.




t's hillaryious watching you disregard RR's excellent arguments for individual responsibility, and constitutionality like they are some sort of "dated" concepts that have been replaced by your version of glorified socialism.

I don't think either Light or I are ignoring the points, but recognizing that social responsibility is as important as individual responsibility, and that the constitution is a framework, not textbook, for government and is subject to change when not working as well as alternatives.

[prometheus]

You assume much, but read little.



Though I do much appreciate you proving my point.

Socialism like a poison isn't something you should take even in small amounts.

Socialism is supported by taxes which are theft, how much theft is acceptable?

Any infringements upon natural rights has always led to loss of liberty. It is indeed a slippery slope. I'm reminded of the boiling a frog analogy.

I'm just some sort of redneck in the woods with too many guns, I can't quote the classical school, the monetarist school, the Keynesian school, or Austrian economics (though, I have read quite a bit of this one) schools of thought off the top of my head. But, I do know what theft is, and understand my rights.

What socialist countries have worked?

CCCP: Nope
Albania: Nope.
(National Socialist) Germany: Nope
Angola, Congo, Bulgaria, Czech, Ethiopia, Poland, Romania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, East Germany: Nope

China, Cuba, N. Korea, Laos, Vietnam: Still playing around with it, but would you want to live there?

Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have been able to adopt some socialist platforms, this acceptance I think is more ethnically based and this theory is backed by the fact that in all other geographic areas socialism has failed.

TANSTAAFL

[Henry]

Socialism like a poison isn't something you should take even in small amounts.

Socialism is supported by taxes which are theft, how much theft is acceptable?

Any infringements upon natural rights has always led to loss of liberty. It is indeed a slippery slope. I'm reminded of the boiling a frog analogy.

I'm just some sort of redneck in the woods with too many guns, I can't quote the classical school, the monetarist school, the Keynesian school, or Austrian economics (though, I have read quite a bit of this one) schools of thought off the top of my head. But, I do know what theft is, and understand my rights.

What socialist countries have worked?

CCCP: Nope
Albania: Nope.
(National Socialist) Germany: Nope
Angola, Congo, Bulgaria, Czech, Ethiopia, Poland, Romania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, East Germany: Nope

China, Cuba, N. Korea, Laos, Vietnam: Still playing around with it, but would you want to live there?

Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have been able to adopt some socialist platforms, this acceptance I think is more ethnically based and this theory is backed by the fact that in all other geographic areas socialism has failed.

TANSTAAFL

I don't think that he or I are advocating socialism. We're advocating government run health care, which works in every developed country except the US and Japan.

[Lights]

Between the right and left?? You mean in the middle??

Phooy, anit nothing in the "middle", but ROAD KILL, if you have an belief, at least have the fortitude to back it up...

Yes, we should all have unsubstantiated beliefs that are passed down by tradition and that we follow without question and despite the circumstances of each situation. Religio...er...political philosophy is very important.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson

That quote has nothing to do with compromising your political ideologies. Even in the health care discussion it has no merit since most of the people who would benefit from having an effective health care system are those who are working. And to be frank, it's taken completely out of context the way you have used it here. I could just as easily make the same argument against giving tax breaks to the rich.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

Interesting opinion from the man who introduced Great Britain's first ever income tax. Anyways, I don't particularly understand the merit in quoting someone's subjective argument in order to argue against objectivity and open mindedness.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

I'm enjoying the fact that you continue to quote a known INTJ's subjective beliefs as an argument for you own. Should I go back and start quoting Gandhi to support all my beliefs?

All this fluff and still not a single objective argument about why choosing the "middle" would be bad. What a waste of time even replying.

...

I'm not a socialist and all I have suggested is looking for a compromise between socialistic and conservative ideologies in order to get a "best fit" solution. But I must say, you practice your religion very well. Believing in the absolution of your ideology is almost as admirable as it is foolish.

[prometheus]

I don't think that he or I are advocating socialism. We're advocating government run health care, which works in every developed country except the US and Japan.

...But, you see it is socialism, hence the name Socialized Medicine.

Well, actually thinking about it, it is actually more Fascist Medicine (seriously) since the means of production are still privately owned, but uber-regulated and their profits are taken to support the social program.


Damn that would be a tough sell.........can't you just see Hillary at the podium speaking of the benefits of FASCIST MEDICINE. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

prometheus added 20 Minutes and 20 Seconds later...

They might have just (wisely) chosen to leave off the NATIONAL before the SOCIALIZED MEDICINE part.

Still giggling.

[Lights]

I don't think that he or I are advocating socialism. We're advocating government run health care...


I'm not advocating government run health care or socialism. I'm advocating two separate systems, one government and one private, or a comparable situation in which each side gets most of what it wants. If you haven't figured it out yet, I have absolutely no interest in arguing normative causes or political ideologies, only what is the most practical and intelligent decision with the current situation. It's sad that as the idealist of this thread, I'm the one with the foot in reality.

I believe the best results are achieved through compromise and collaboration, you know the kind of skills that went into the drafting of the Constitution, but which are evidently skills well beyond the typical INTJs mental capacity. Those skills require that you have to be able to concede some ground in your beliefs without feeling like you are losing integrity or pride. I don't think a single INTJ (save one) in this thread is capable of separating themselves from their political ideologies in order to objectively understand the situation well enough to make effective proposals for solutions.

I've simply made that observation and am now poking the beehive and watching the predictable behavior play out again and again. It's most amusing.

[prometheus]

I'm not advocating government run health care or socialism. I'm advocating two separate systems, one government and one private, or a comparable situation in which each side gets most of what it wants.

It might be predictable because it is still relavent. If this program is government run who will be paying for it? The government doesn't produce anything, the funds will be coming from stolen monies from the individuals who produce. This pie in the sky theory that the government will just magically make this appear doesn't wash. Even if they could fire up the presses faster, it would still be stealing the individual's wealth through inflation. [minor threadjack] Which is currently at 11% using the 1980's calculation methods.

And the worst news is that it is going to get worse, as John Williams' of shadowstats.com reports, "The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported the seasonally-adjusted CPI-U" in October was a reading 3.5% inflation in prices, but Mr. Williams figures that "Adjusted to pre-Clinton (1990) methodology, annual inflation was about 6.9%, up from 6.1% in September, while the SGS-Alternate Consumer Inflation Measure (1980 methodology) showed October's annual inflation at roughly 11.1%." Eleven freaking percent inflation!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[/end threadjack]

prometheus added 11 Minutes and 8 Seconds later...

[quote]I don't think either Light or I are ignoring the points, but recognizing that social responsibility is as important as individual responsibility,[quote]

I have no desire to watch people starve or die from illness on the street. That is why I volunteer my EMT skills FOR FREE. My problem is when my wealth is stolen from me to provide these same services I would VOLUNTARILY provide (with 0 bureaucratic waste) for free. It all comes down to who owns me....ME!

[Lights]

It might be predictable because it is still relavent. If this program is government run who will be paying for it? The government doesn't produce anything, the funds will be coming from stolen monies from the individuals who produce. This pie in the sky theory that the government will just magically make this appear doesn't wash. Even if they could fire up the presses faster, it would still be stealing the individual's wealth through inflation. [minor threadjack] Which is currently at 11% using the 1980's calculation methods.

:laugh: You are not making INTJs look very good. I just made the direct challenge that INTJs aren't capable of backing down from their political ideologies long enough to even think about compromise. I even left it open to a comparable situation that did not necessarily entail government run heath care. And like a rat running for cheese, you continue to prove my point by arguing your ideology instead of making non-normative arguments of why a compromised solution would be anymore ineffective than our current situation. You have made my afternoon my little mouse.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[prometheus]

[QUOTE=Lights;18794]:laugh: You are not making INTJs look very good. I just made the direct challenge that INTJs aren't capable of backing down from their political ideologies long enough to even think about compromise. I even left it open to a comparable situation that did not necessarily entail government run heath care. And like a rat running for cheese, you continue to prove my point by arguing your ideology instead of making non-normative arguments of why a compromised solution would be anymore ineffective than our current situation. You have made my afternoon my little mouse.

Ah, but you missed the merged post. Note the date stamp shows it was there prior to your last post.

I showed my compromise I voluntarily help. See, O' Great Puddy Cat, I won't steal from others. How would you, O' Wise One, set up a government medical program without stealing from individuals?

[Lights]

Ah, but you missed the merged post. I wish there was a date stamp to show it was there prior to your last post, but.............

I showed my compromise I voluntarily help. See, O' Great Puddy Cat, I won't steal from others. How would you, O' Wise One, set up a government medical program without stealing from individuals?

Now you are talking. Nice to hear that you can at least be solution oriented.

I mentioned one already. A government ran health care program with limited capacity and a private health care system not unlike we have now. The government care could be funded by donations while giving tax breaks to contributors as well as whatever each state wanted to contribute. The private sector could contribute supplementary insurance to go along with the basic government package provided by each state. That would provide some competition between states to provide effective health care at the government level. But that was just one possible situation off the top of my head. I'm sure if people who actually knew the system inside and out were to get together and compromise then they could come up with much more attractive looking compromises.

[prometheus]

Now you are talking. Nice to hear that you can at least be solution oriented.

I mentioned one already. A government ran health care program with limited capacity and a private health care system not unlike we have now. The government care could be funded by donations while giving tax breaks to contributors as well as whatever each state wanted to contribute. The private sector could contribute supplementary insurance to go along with the basic government package provided by each state. That would provide some competition between states to provide effective health care at the government level. But that was just one possible situation off the top of my head. I'm sure if people who actually knew the system inside and out were to get together and compromise then they could come up with much more attractive looking compromises.

Why even have the government involved if it was fully funded by donations? Why not a 501(c)(3) charitable organization like a lot of clinics now are?
Your solutions seems to be just shifting titles and words...unless you are proposing even more regulatory noseyness in these already over regulated clinics. No good deed......................You know as a (state not national cert) EMT unlike anyone else, I cannot help someone bleeding out on the road if I am in another state. :yuck:

Less laws and regulations, not more.

[Riverratt]

There are extremes, no doubt, and Canada's system is clearly the worst of the government systems. Still, I'd prefer to put another 6-9% of my income in my pocket and wait for non-emergency services like a hip joint replacement. On this point, I suppose it comes down to a matter of preference, although its really a shared risk whether public or private so should be a shared decision.

6% or 9% of income huh?!?!

Lets compare the data....

Here is the tax rates for a Single Person, of AVERAGE means, and the tax rate for a Couple, and one child, of AVERAGE MEANS...

The columns will read like this...

Nation---single rate----married with child rate

USA---29.1 %----11.8%
Canada-- 31.6%---21.5%
France--50.1%---41.7%
Germany---51.8%--35.7%
UK---33.5%--27.1%


Source: OECD, 2005 data

Socialized medicine WILL, make us all equal....by dragging us ALL, down to the lowest common denominator. Not by lifting the poor up...

[banzai]

Come on, can't you summon up just a tad bit of Ti. :laugh:

I just can't waste the time studying history when its affects seem to be so apparent in the present. ;D

I see a rock on the ground, I do not really care for the history of the rock, because it's quite obvious that now, here, the rock is in front of me and I can either integrate said rock into my future by interacting with it somehow, or the rock and I can go our separate ways.

Unless I can specifically see how a given piece of past information would be helpful in the future then I consider it completely useless.

[Lights]

Why even have the government involved if it was fully funded by donations? Why not a 501(c)(3) charitable organization like a lot of clinics now are?
Your solutions seems to be just shifting titles and words...unless you are proposing even more regulatory noseyness in these already over regulated clinics. No good deed......................You know as a (state not national cert) EMT unlike anyone else, I cannot help someone bleeding out on the road if I am in another state. :yuck:

Less laws and regulations, not more.

I'll clarify it for you then. My little guess work proposition is a mixture of liberal, conservative, and libertarian ideals that works on three levels.

1. Federal level government health care- private contributors donate to health care and get tax breaks from the government. In essence, they get to choose where their tax dollars are going. This federal money is then distributed between the states. This system is so the private sector doesn't get too much influence over health care. This is my liberal/conservative compromise, where the rich who pay the majority of the taxes get the benefit of choosing whether or not they contribute but are limited at the federal level at influencing the system.

2. State level government health care- each state can then choose how to distribute the federal money. Perhaps they will do as you suggest and set it up through a charity, or maybe they will choose direct state government control. The state will then decide how much to tax its particular populace for it's health care. This is beneficial because it allows individuals in the state to effectively decide how much they are willing to be taxed for health care. Conservative and Libertarian states may have little or no taxes, whereas Liberal states may have substantially higher taxes. Of course the populace can move between the states and pick the health care package they like best, and that provides competition between states to provide for the best basic health care. This is my libertarian/liberal compromise where the individual has the far more control over how they are taxed while providing for the best free market opportunity. However, everyone will have the benefit of the money contributed to the state by the federal government.

3. Private level health care- provides supplementary insurance (and full package insurance if need be) so that people can get higher quality health care. In states where they choose not to tax the populace, there will be more demand for private insurance. In states where they do tax and provide more state level insurance, the demand will be lower for private insurance. If state level care begins to become ineffective, then voters will move toward private care. If private care becomes too expensive, then voters will move toward acquiring more state care. This is my libertarian/conservative compromise.

So I set up three levels with my compromises to allow for a check and balances system between the federal, state, and private levels. But of course, this is a proposed system that requires stepping away from your ideology in order to get the "best fit" situation. I don't think INTJs are very adept at that from what I have seen.

[prometheus]

I'll clarify it for you then. My little guess work proposition is a mixture of liberal, conservative, and libertarian ideals that works on three levels.

1. Federal level government health care- private contributors donate to health care and get tax breaks from the government. In essence, they get to choose where their tax dollars are going. This federal money is then distributed between the states. Bureaucratic waste This system is so the private sector doesn't get too much influence over health care. This is my liberal/conservative compromise, where the rich who pay the majority of the taxes get the benefit of choosing whether or not they contribute but are limited at the federal level at influencing the system.

2. State level government health care- each state can then choose how to distribute the federal money. Bureaucratic waste Perhaps they will do as you suggest and set it up through a charity, or maybe they will choose direct state government control. The state will then decide how much to tax its particular populace for it's health care. Bureaucratic waste This is beneficial because it allows individuals in the state to effectively decide how much they are willing to be taxed for health care. Conservative and Libertarian states may have little or no taxes, whereas Liberal states may have substantially higher taxes. Of course the populace can move between the states and pick the health care package they like best, and that provides competition between states to provide for the best basic health care. This is my libertarian/liberal compromise where the individual has the far more control over how they are taxed while providing for the best free market opportunity. However, everyone will have the benefit of the money contributed to the state by the federal government.

3. Private level health care- provides supplementary insurance (and full package insurance if need be) so that people can get higher quality health care. In states where they choose not to tax the populace, there will be more demand for private insurance. In states where they do tax and provide more state level insurance, the demand will be lower for private insurance. If state level care begins to become ineffective, then voters will move toward private care. If private care becomes too expensive, then voters will move toward acquiring more state care. This is my libertarian/conservative compromise.

So I set up three levels with my compromises to allow for a check and balances system between the federal, state, and private levels. But of course, this is a proposed system that requires stepping away from your ideology in order to get the "best fit" situation. I don't think INTJs are very adept at that from what I have seen.


I aint too adept at having my wealth stolen to support others. This could be why I have John Galt'ed and no longer produce any. When I owned my own business one year I worked 40hr weeks and made 48K. The next year I got a huge contract and worked 100hr weeks and made 53K. WTF Where is the incentive for hard work and innovation that built this country. (From what I've seen) the generation after me instinctively knows this and they just want to get on welfare have babies, and play video games. We no longer produce anything in this country, our economy is circling the drain, I don't know why I even bother with pointless arguments like this.......:irked: [/rant]

[Lights]

I aint too adept at having my wealth stolen to support others. This could be why I have John Galt'ed and no longer produce any. When I owned my own business one year I worked 40hr weeks and made 48K. The next year I got a huge contract and worked 100hr weeks and made 53K. WTF Where is the incentive for hard work and innovation that built this country. (From what I've seen) the generation after me instinctively knows this and they just want to get on welfare have babies, and play video games. We no longer produce anything in this country, our economy is circling the drain, I don't know why I even bother with pointless arguments like this.......:irked: [/rant]

There was never anything stolen in my proposition. The individual had the opportunity to decide throughout every level what they would be willing to contribute to health care one way or another. I'm sorry that you can't let go of your ideology and prefer to simplify it for yourself. I guess that is why INTJs just aren't a solution oriented type. But you did confirm for me that I am absolutely, positively not an INTJ. I thank you for that.

[Riverratt]

Bureaucratic waste Bureaucratic waste Bureaucratic waste


I aint too adept at having my wealth stolen to support others. This could be why I have John Galt'ed and no longer produce any. When I owned my own business one year I worked 40hr weeks and made 48K. The next year I got a huge contract and worked 100hr weeks and made 53K. WTF Where is the incentive for hard work and innovation that built this country. (From what I've seen) the generation after me instinctively knows this and they just want to get on welfare have babies, and play video games. We no longer produce anything in this country, our economy is circling the drain, I don't know why I even bother with pointless arguments like this.......:irked: [/rant]


Well, the newer generations, realize, that we are doomed to have socialized medicine and with the other programs in place...

WHY WORK? Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free??

You can sit on your laurels your whole life, barely get by, and when you reach retirement age, live off of welfare...

Free, food, utilities, health care, etc etc...

While the folks that worked hard and saved, are struggling from month to month with never ending bills, taxes, home repairs, etc..etc...

While the folks that did NOTHING, life for free, on government assistance.

Your absolutely correct, that all these "programs" have taken the incentive away for many folks. The way it stands now their is "GREAT INCENTIVE" to be totaly destitute and not own anything, when you hit retirement age...and get on the welfare.

[prometheus]

There was never anything stolen in my proposition. How are tax write off donations not directly related to taxes?

But you did confirm for me that I am absolutely, positively not an INTJ.

Glad to hear it.

[Lights]

How are tax write off donations not directly related to taxes?

Well if the big companies and private contributors still want to pay taxes on top of their donation then I guess they can. Would that make you happy? :rolleyes:

[prometheus]

Well, the newer generations, realize, that we are doomed to have socialized medicine and with the other programs in place...

WHY WORK? Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free??

You can sit on your laurels your whole life, barely get by, and when you reach retirement age, live off of welfare...

Free, food, utilities, health care, etc etc...

While the folks that worked hard and saved, are struggling from month to month with never ending bills, taxes, home repairs, etc..etc...

While the folks that did NOTHING, life for free, on government assistance.

Your absolutely correct, that all these "programs" have taken the incentive away for many folks. The way it stands now their is "GREAT INCENTIVE" to be totaly destitute and not own anything, when you hit retirement age...and get on the welfare.

Yup, that is why I Gulch. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

No matter what Lights or any other snake skin oil bureaucrat pushes through I will not be a cash participant. I also have turned down the "free" health care my new low income "entitles" me to. I just hope the end isn't too bloody and we can rise in liberty from the ashes.

[Lucid]

I love to debate, but sometimes it's enjoyable to be able to sit back and watch other people do it. Especially about politics.... provided that everyone involved remains (mostly) civil.

[Lights]

No matter what Lights or any other snake skin oil bureaucrat pushes through I will not be a cash participant. I also have turned down the "free" health care my new low income "entitles" me to. I just hope the end isn't too bloody and we can rise in liberty from the ashes.

Dude, if I had known you were a fricken radical then I wouldn't have wasted my time. It's one thing to be a closed minded INTJ, it's quite another to have absolutely no basis for your fundamentalist political ideology aside from your paycheck. Obviously, would be terrorists are not the types you can use diplomacy with. :rolleyes:

[prometheus]

Well if the big companies and private contributors still want to pay taxes on top of their donation then I guess they can. Would that make you happy? :rolleyes:

What would really make me happy is if you and others with your ideology would stop using the government machine to steal at the point of a swat team gun.


Not seeing that happening, and sensing you are intelligent (albeit too much of a "feely" do gooder) I would be tickled if you expanded your point of view by reading this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Riverratt]

Dude, if I had known you were a fricken radical then I wouldn't have wasted my time. It's one thing to be a closed minded INTJ, it's quite another to have absolutely no basis for your fundamentalist political ideology aside from your paycheck. Obviously, would be terrorists are not the types you can use diplomacy with. :rolleyes:

What is radical about wanting to keep your own money? What is radical about wanting to NOT, rely on others for your health care?
What is radical about wanting to be an "individual"?
Why would you compare a person that wants to be left alone as a terrorist??

Who really is the irrational one here??

[prometheus]

Dude, if I had known you were a fricken radical then I wouldn't have wasted my time. It's one thing to be a closed minded INTJ, it's quite another to have absolutely no basis for your fundamentalist political ideology aside from your paycheck. Obviously, would be terrorists are not the types you can use diplomacy with. :rolleyes:

:furious: What a dumbass statement, how many Fundies, or "terrorists" would proudly march with you (OK maybe not you, but your type) to protect your "backside fun" lifestyle. :devilish: especially if they never had any intention of doing anything like it themselves.


You have no idea who I am. I am probably best described as an Individualist or anarchist. I was a very active libertarian activist in the past.

[Lights]

What would really make me happy is if you and others with your ideology would stop using the government machine to steal at the point of a swat team gun.


Not seeing that happening, and sensing you are intelligent (albeit too much of a "feely" do gooder) I would be tickled if you expanded your point of view by reading this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I've read The Fountainhead, and I am well aware of objectivism. It's completely normative as is most of your arguments. The sad thing is that I have read many, many political ideologies and have learned the benefits and faults of each, whereas you are clearly limited to one. Why don't you pick up a copy of the Communist Manifessto, and read some Mein Kampf, or even read a little of Plato's Republic. There is a little to learn in everything if you could ever bring yourself to open up your little mind.

[Riverratt]

I love to debate, but sometimes it's enjoyable to be able to sit back and watch other people do it. Especially about politics.... provided that everyone involved remains (mostly) civil.


Agree, but some folks tend to use "feelings" instead of "logic" when discussing proposed laws and incredibly bad legislation is usually the result.

[Lights]

:furious: What a dumbass statement, how many Fundies, or "terrorists" would proudly march with you (OK maybe not you, but your type) to protect your "backside fun" lifestyle. :devilish: especially if they never had any intention of doing anything like it themselves.


You have no idea who I am. I am probably best described as an Individualist or anarchist. I was a very active libertarian activist in the past.

Backside fun lifestyle? :laugh:

I'll buy anarchist and offer my apologies for the offense.

[Lucid]

Agree, but some folks tend to use "feelings" instead of "logic" when discussing proposed laws and incredibly bad legislation is usually the result.

Agreed, but I just meant to say that I was enjoying reading this thread. Not making a statement about politics in general.

[Lights]

Agree, but some folks tend to use "feelings" instead of "logic" when discussing proposed laws and incredibly bad legislation is usually the result.

Kinda like you are doing when you stick to your ideology instead of objectively reasoning out the best fit situation in reality?

[prometheus]

I've read The Fountainhead, and I am well aware of objectivism. It's completely normative as is most of your arguments. The sad thing is that I have read many, many political ideologies and have learned the benefits and faults of each, whereas you are clearly limited to one. Why don't you pick up a copy of the Communist Manifessto, and read some Mein Kampf, or even read a little of Plato's Republic. There is a little to learn in everything if you could ever bring yourself to open up your little mind.


Yup, read them and Social Contract, Utopia, New Atlantis, City of the Sun and many more. Except for The Fountainhead all of these (you and I both mentioned) are utopias (except maybe Mein Kampf I didn't read enough before vomiting) based on communism (which is an ethos of theft and force). Atlas Shrugged is a non-communist "utopia".

[Lights]

Well why you would limit yourself to any utopian idea is beyond me. But I'm a moderate and you are an extremist so there isn't really any common ground for us to build on.

[prometheus]

Well why you would limit yourself to any utopian idea is beyond me. But I'm a moderate and you are an extremist so there isn't really any common ground for us to build on.

I'M A GOD DAMNED INDIVIDUAL, STOP TRYING TO SHOVE ME IN SOME MOLD TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND ME!

I don't picture you prancing around in Red Dorthy shoes saying "fabulous", or think you have a Soviet flag tacked to your ceiling, or shopping at the natural foods store based on what little I know about you.


I'm not limiting myself to one "utopian idea", after almost two decades of evaluating political systems, ideologies, ethoses etc, (incidentally Plato's was the first) anarcho-capitolist is the only one that seems to support the individual.

[Lights]

I'M A GOD DAMNED INDIVIDUAL, STOP TRYING TO SHOVE ME IN SOME MOLD TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND ME!

Okay, Mr. INTJ. :p I figured I would just get a jump on it before you did.

I don't picture you prancing around in Red Dorthy shoes saying "fabulous", or think you have a Soviet flag tacked to your ceiling, or shopping at the natural foods store based on what little I know about you.

Nope, I'm a Wyoming bred, steak eating, hiking boots wearing, all around American guy. Why do you put me so far on the left though? Is it my sexuality? It seems you've done some forum searching to load up on ammo. :evil:


I'm not limiting myself to one "utopian idea", after almost two decades of evaluating political systems, ideologies, ethoses etc, (incidentally Plato's was the first) anarcho-capitolist is the only one that seems to support the individual.

I value the individual as well. Funny how we have come to such different conclusions. It must be the personality difference.

[prometheus]

Okay, Mr. INTJ. :p I figured I would just get a jump on it before you did.



Nope, I'm a Wyoming bred, steak eating, hiking boots wearing, all around American guy. Why do you put me so far on the left though? Is it my sexuality? It seems you've done some forum searching to load up on ammo. :evil:
As SunTzu said "If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt"



I value the individual as well. Funny how we have come to such different conclusions. It must be the personality difference.

Damn F's

[Lights]

As SunTzu said "If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt"

Wow, no shame within you INTJs at all.

Damn F's

"I understand your logic but somehow it seems so...heartless." -Sunny from I Robot.

Edit: In fact, I think I'll try an avatar change.

[prometheus]

Wow, no shame within you INTJs at all.



"I understand your logic but somehow it seems so...heartless." -Sunny from I Robot.

Edit: In fact, I think I'll try an avatar change.

Charity must be voluntary. Forced redistribution will result in the curtailment of effort of the productive and a decrease in the amount of real wealth ...
AYN RAND

[Lights]

Charity must be voluntary. Forced redistribution will result in the curtailment of effort of the productive and a decrease in the amount of real wealth ...
AYN RAND

Ayn Rand sucks! -LIGHTS

[prometheus]

Belittling things one doesn't understand is equal to waving a flag of ignorance.- PROMETHEUS

[Lights]

Belittling things one doesn't understand is equal to waving a flag of ignorance.- PROMETHEUS

I already said I understand it so how does that quote apply? :p

[prometheus]

I already said I understand it so how does that quote apply? :p

But your actions (posts) say different. How do you expect the already super heavily taxed producers in this country to carry the extra load of "free" health care. If you had read AS you would be able to fathom exactly how screwed we are, and how much worse it will be getting. Do you know what is happening in Detroit and much of the midwest? This was the production nexus of america, now it is a rusting wasteland. These local governments can't bribe producers to return.

Our whole economy is now one giant debt kiting fraud.

If you disagree with any of these statements, point it out and I'll prove it.

[Lights]

But your actions (posts) say different. How do you expect the already super heavily taxed producers in this country to carry the extra load of "free" health care. If you had read AS you would be able to fathom exactly how screwed we are, and how much worse it will be getting. Do you know what is happening in Detroit and much of the midwest? This was the production nexus of america, now it is a rusting wasteland. These local governments can't bribe producers to return.

Our whole economy is now one giant debt kiting fraud.

If you disagree with any of these statements, point it out and I'll prove it.

I offered my proposed solution. You chose to ignore it's merits because you are anti government.

[prometheus]

I offered my proposed solution. You chose to ignore it's merits because you are anti government.

No, I read it, evaluated it, discussed it with you, and dismissed it because of its demerits. Namely, it is a taxpayer funded big government program.

[Lights]

No, I read it, evaluated it, discussed it with you, and dismissed it because of its demerits. Namely, it is a taxpayer funded big government program.

You stamped "Bureaucratic Waste" under each position and then made incorrect assertions in your next few posts about what I had proposed, proving that you had not even bothered to truly evaluate what I had written. Then you made it clear that any proposal that involved the government in any capacity would have been unsuitable for you because you refused to compromise even an inch from your ideology. Thereby proving me right all along. :thumbsup:

[prometheus]

You stamped "Bureaucratic Waste" under each position and then made incorrect assertions in your next few posts about what I had proposed, proving that you had not even bothered to truly evaluate what I had written. Then you made it clear that any proposal that involved the government in any capacity would have been unsuitable for you because you refused to compromise even an inch from your ideology. Thereby proving me right all along. :thumbsup:

:thumbsup: OK, so you want Big Brother involved in any problem you encounter, and I don't. I think we can agree to disagree, especially since your "solutions" are ethically wrong and ultimately will require you to use your hired government thugs to enforce them on me. :yuck:

Where as my solutions will just leave you the hell alone. :nono:

[Lights]

:thumbsup: OK, so you want Big Brother involved in any problem you encounter, and I don't. I think we can agree to disagree, especially since your "solutions" are ethically wrong and ultimately will require you to use your hired government thugs to enforce them on me. :yuck:

Where as my solutions will just leave you the hell alone. :nono:

"Ethically" wrong by your ethics. You are the one with the problem, not me. I'm looking for amiable solutions in a society that functions under a government. You are dreaming about anarchy and ideals that are as unrealistic as the perfect communism. As long as there are people who will congregate together, there will be government, and that is the fundamental flaw in your ideology. People will always come together so they can better compete and leadership will always naturally emerge either by election or force. This is an undeniable evolutionary fact of humanity.

[prometheus]

"Ethically" wrong by your ethics. You are the one with the problem, not me. I'm looking for amiable solutions in a society that functions under a government. You are dreaming about anarchy and ideals that are as unrealistic as the perfect communism. As long as there are people who will congregate together, there will be government, and that is the fundamental flaw in your ideology. People will always come together so they can better compete and leadership will always naturally emerge either by election or force. This is an undeniable evolutionary fact of humanity.


Your view of history is as scary, as your need for a government nanny. The most often sourced examples of working Anarch-Capitolism are America's "wild" west, and Viking age Iceland. Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is a site with hundreds of examples. I even belong to this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) message board set up in the A-C style. I'll give you a fair warning that board isn't moderated at all and if you wanted to play there there would be no skirts to hide under, or safety net.

[Lights]

Your view of history is as scary, as your need for a government nanny. The most often sourced examples of working Anarch-Capitolism are America's "wild" west, and Viking age Iceland. Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is a site with hundreds of examples. I even belong to this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) message board set up in the A-C style. I'll give you a fair warning that board isn't moderated at all and if you wanted to play there there would be no skirts to hide under, or safety net.

Yeah, wild hanging mobs and raiding parties...ideal. :laugh:

No, I never said I needed a government. I said government is a reality. You know, as in the real world which exists outside your mind with people in it who come together on their own and decide to form governments. There is a big difference between needing something and accepting it as a part of the current reality. I value individuality also, but I like to be somewhat practical so that I can actually think up realistic solutions to the current reality.

[prometheus]

Yeah, wild hanging mobs and raiding parties...ideal. :laugh:

No, I never said I needed a government. I said government is a reality. You know, as in the real world which exists outside your mind with people in it who come together on their own and decide to form governments. There is a big difference between needing something and accepting it as a part of the current reality. I value individuality also, but I like to be somewhat practical so that I can actually think up realistic solutions to the current reality.

:suspicious: It is obvious you didn't read anything from the link, or you wouldn't have made that statement. A-C societies have worked, in most cases better and longer than your nanny-state socialist ideals. Since you have no intention of considering /looking at my arguments I'm off to find the Troll Ignore Button. You can keep blathering away about how you will swoop in wearing your superman tights and save the masses through you unique brand of fascism.
:yuck:

[Lights]

:suspicious: It is obvious you didn't read anything from the link, or you wouldn't have made that statement. A-C societies have worked, in most cases better and longer than your nanny-state socialist ideals. Since you have no intention of considering /looking at my arguments I'm off to find the Troll Ignore Button. You can keep blathering away about how you will swoop in wearing your superman tights and save the masses through you unique brand of fascism.
:yuck:

Sigh...well that ended as well as I could have expected. But for the record..

1. I made my comment in jest and I'm sure that A-C societies have worked in the past, but I don't know how applicable they are to our current situation.
2. I'm not a socialist, but to an anarchist, I imagine anyone who would practice democracy would be.
3. I look too damn good in tights to be swooping around in them. I would be mobbed if I did.

Too bad you won't see my parting comments but it was an interesting discussion nonetheless.

[Bossy Mom]

Some people here think I judge more than think and I also throw up unsubstantiated b.s. My experience with the health care system is vast, and I also have something called principles. Some people here don't use logic! Here's some logic - if the government is supposed to control health care and everyone has a "right" to it, why doesn't the government also control housing, food, transportation - everything! If we must have health care, what about a roof over our heads, food, and a right to transportation, theater tickets, sofas, beds, sheets, towels, pictures to place on our walls, etc. No one has the right to control the life of another person. No one has the right to one minute of my life any more than I have the right to one minute of another person's life. And no one can dictate to me what I can feel compassionate about!

[Lights]

Some people here think I judge more than think and I also throw up unsubstantiated b.s. My experience with the health care system is vast, and I also have something called principles. Some people here don't use logic! Here's some logic - if the government is supposed to control health care and everyone has a "right" to it, why doesn't the government also control housing, food, transportation - everything! If we must have health care, what about a roof over our heads, food, and a right to transportation, theater tickets, sofas, beds, sheets, towels, pictures to place on our walls, etc. No one has the right to control the life of another person. No one has the right to one minute of my life any more than I have the right to one minute of another person's life. And no one can dictate to me what I can feel compassionate about!

Interesting line of reasoning. What makes you assume you have rights at all? Some religious text, the Constitution, or your own personal philosophy? Obviously not the first two since they "dictate" how you are suppose to live your life. I'm not disagreeing with you, but since you brought logic into the equation, I'm curious as to the logic behind your "rights". What determines what "rights" people should and shouldn't have? Why shouldn't people have a right to health care? People believe they have a right to an education in this country, so should we eliminate public schools because they are "controlling" people's lives?

[prometheus]

Some people here think I judge more than think and I also throw up unsubstantiated b.s. My experience with the health care system is vast, and I also have something called principles. Some people here don't use logic! Here's some logic - if the government is supposed to control health care and everyone has a "right" to it, why doesn't the government also control housing, food, transportation - everything! If we must have health care, what about a roof over our heads, food, and a right to transportation, theater tickets, sofas, beds, sheets, towels, pictures to place on our walls, etc. No one has the right to control the life of another person. No one has the right to one minute of my life any more than I have the right to one minute of another person's life. And no one can dictate to me what I can feel compassionate about!

Well put. All rights, or infringements of them are fundamentally a question of who owns you, or the fruits of your labors.

[rocksteady]

Some people here think I judge more than think and I also throw up unsubstantiated b.s. My experience with the health care system is vast, and I also have something called principles. Some people here don't use logic! Here's some logic - if the government is supposed to control health care and everyone has a "right" to it, why doesn't the government also control housing, food, transportation - everything! If we must have health care, what about a roof over our heads, food, and a right to transportation, theater tickets, sofas, beds, sheets, towels, pictures to place on our walls, etc. No one has the right to control the life of another person. No one has the right to one minute of my life any more than I have the right to one minute of another person's life. And no one can dictate to me what I can feel compassionate about!

I believe this is an argument for anarchy. I'm willing to bet you aren't consistent on this stance.

[Bossy Mom]

I believe in as little government as possible. The natural tendency of government is to grow. And the form of government that I advocate is not anarchy at all. I think anarchy is as destructive as communism. Under anarchy, bullies rule. Under communism, bullies rule.The main purposes of government is to protect the rights of each individual and his or her safety, to see that contracts are kept, and also to keep foreign invaders out. The free market can do the rest (and each state can test ideas to see if they work). Our constitution is a remarkable document; it is too bad that modern day liberals choose to ignore it.

It is interesting to me that people on the right (like myself) are often attacked as being stupid, illogical, not factual, etc., so that the attacker appears to be the opposite. I have not seen any convincing "arguments" from the lefties here. Each time a lefty argues, they want to attack the "compassion" of others to hopefully someday use the brute force of government to enforce their "compassion of the day." Using logical arguments, such as, "If a person has a right to health care, doesn't that same person have the right to food, clothing, housing, etc.?" are ignored by the lefties, because if they have to actually think about them, these logical statements would shatter their illusions.

[prometheus]

I believe in as little government as possible. The natural tendency of government is to grow. And the form of government that I advocate is not anarchy at all. I think anarchy is as destructive as communism. Under anarchy, bullies rule. Under communism, bullies rule.

Are you thinking about leftist anarchy. You know the cartoon characters with the bowling ball bombs, and grungy kids shouting about big corporations?

All the anarchists I've seen here and myself are market or anarcho-capitolist. This is the form of government where the individual rules. If you are interested in it. You might try reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, is a great short Scifi book that shows how A-C could work.

[Lights]

I believe in as little government as possible. The natural tendency of government is to grow. And the form of government that I advocate is not anarchy at all. I think anarchy is as destructive as communism. Under anarchy, bullies rule. Under communism, bullies rule.The main purposes of government is to protect the rights of each individual and his or her safety, to see that contracts are kept, and also to keep foreign invaders out. The free market can do the rest (and each state can test ideas to see if they work). Our constitution is a remarkable document; it is too bad that modern day liberals choose to ignore it.

It is interesting to me that people on the right (like myself) are often attacked as being stupid, illogical, not factual, etc., so that the attacker appears to be the opposite. I have not seen any convincing "arguments" from the lefties here. Each time a lefty argues, they want to attack the "compassion" of others to hopefully someday use the brute force of government to enforce their "compassion of the day." Using logical arguments, such as, "If a person has a right to health care, doesn't that same person have the right to food, clothing, housing, etc.?" are ignored by the lefties, because if they have to actually think about them, these logical statements would shatter their illusions.

I seriously pity both the right and left. They both ignore the Constitution and put all their faith in their respected ideologies. If you think otherwise, being a right leaner, then you have been asleep through most of the Bush Administration. I think anarchy has a lot of merit, but you are right in that it, like all forms of government, eventually deteriorates into where the "strong, wealthy, elite" rule over the "stupid and weak".

Now I have no problem with that. I'm not stupid or weak. It isn't compassion that keeps me from doing so, but common sense. Why would I need to or even want to rule over a bunch of mindless sheep?

So why do I believe in diplomacy? Because it keeps the peace. Peace may mean nothing to you, being a right leaning American who likes to piss of the world in the name of your "security and safety" but whatever. I like knowing that I'm not supporting the killing of people so that their angry relatives come over and kill me. But I'm sure there is no logic behind that argument, it's pretty much all compassion. :rolleyes: But I like what works, and ideology doesn't work, as it just pushes for retaliation and war. Compromise and collaboration does work, if you are willing to be open minded, which requires not being one of the stupid and weak.

I've noticed you have brought up "compassion" in every argument you have made in this thread even though no one has really appealed to that in the entire thread. Makes me think you have a personal issue with "compassion" more than anything else.

[Angothoron]

I am pro-government in the worst way,

However this government wouldn't even be close to a democracy, where the charismatic, rule, and damn their abilities. There aren't enough intelligent and charismatic people in the world to overturn stupid ideas, and thereby a democracy, which is based on majority will always return an idea which is not well thought out, or is a good idea ripped apart by compromise.

Granted there isn't another system out there which addresses all these problems, but the idea, of a democracy of the intelligent, (eg in order to vote and to run you have to have knowledge of the issues involved) , acting as a check and balance, with constitutional power to overthrow and oligarchy of people voted from within their own midst, would have merit. In so far that the Oligarchy would refrain from making any fool moves for fear of repercussions, but something would get done. And idiot ideas, coming from over supported, but ultimately uninformed lobby groups could be stifled and either made to work or cast off.

As Light said, the idea here is diplomacy, both groups fill the gap that the other leaves, democracy's tendency to bog down into endless arguments about nothing, and a oligarchy's tendency to bring all power to itself. Like 2 stars orbiting each other, preventing each from being cast off into the void. In order for this to work both sides have to talk to each other and work together.

[Bossy Mom]

I believe the word "compassion" is used to intimidate people. I will not give all to a stranger and allow my own child to starve.

There's no such thing as a free lunch - "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."

[Lights]

I believe the word "compassion" is used to intimidate people. I will not give all to a stranger and allow my own child to starve.

There's no such thing as a free lunch - "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."

Compassion - a deep awareness of and sympathy for other's suffering, the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it, a sense of shared suffering, understanding without judgement.

Yeah, I can tell how an INTJ would be very afraid of sympathy and understanding other's suffering. I mean, danm, sharing feelings, that's fricken intimidating! :rolleyes:

[Henry]

I believe the word "compassion" is used to intimidate people. I will not give all to a stranger and allow my own child to starve.

There's no such thing as a free lunch - "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."

You brag about your pesonal weaknesses, but tell your ESFP daughter she needs to use more "big words" and "read books". Your arguments range from incoherent to self-rationalizing. Your personal study is apparently isolated to materials that validate your own opinions.

And then you hand out reading lists for everyone !? WTF?

[Lights]

You brag about your pesonal weaknesses, but tell your ESFP daughter she needs to use more "big words" and "read books". Your arguments range from incoherent to self-rationalizing. Your personal study is apparently isolated to materials that validate your own opinions.

And then you hand out reading lists for everyone !? WTF?

I'm voting ISTJ. Her grasp of the abstract leaves much to be desired. In fact, she seems to narrow everything down to duty and obligation for her own benefit.

[Bossy Mom]

A few people here believe they wrote the book on "compassion," but don't practice it personally. "Do as I say, not as I do"? Think you can "pigeonhole" others on their type? I think like Ayn Rand, a famous INTJ. You are not omniscient.

By the way, when I give to charities and do volunteer work, they are the charities and work I believe in -- not the charities and work others think I should believe in and work for because these others believe their "compassionate causes" are more important than mine.

[rocksteady]

A few people here believe they wrote the book on "compassion," but don't practice it personally. "Do as I say, not as I do"? Think you can "pigeonhole" others on their type? I think like Ayn Rand, a famous INTJ. You are not omniscient.

By the way, when I give to charities and do volunteer work, they are the charities and work I believe in -- not the charities and work others think I should believe in and work for because these others believe their "compassionate causes" are more important than mine.

who's saying they wrote a book?

what are you talking about exactly?

[Henry]

A few people here believe they wrote the book on "compassion," but don't practice it personally. "Do as I say, not as I do"? Think you can "pigeonhole" others on their type? I think like Ayn Rand, a famous INTJ. You are not omniscient.

Well typecasting aside, I can assure you of one thing: You do not think like Ayn Rand. You may like her books or share her ideology or even have a similar overall temperament, but that's a very bold statement and I can assue you that its inaccurate.

By the way, when I give to charities and do volunteer work, they are the charities and work I believe in -- not the charities and work others think I should believe in and work for because these others believe their "compassionate causes" are more important than mine.

I think you may have some issues with the word "compassion".



Let me again reference one of your other posts:

I always have a book going. My daughter won't read unless it's a fashion magazine. She is always asking what a word means that I am saying. I tell her if she would read, her vocabulary would improve. I find it difficult to discourse with individuals who cannot express themselves well.

Or, in short, my personal "issues" are parts of me being INTJ. My daughter's problems stem from the fact that she is lazy and needs to be more like me.

[Bossy Mom]

My daughter is a lovely girl and socializer, and will admit to being lazy and non-academic.

As for Ayn Rand, you've probably never read her.

[rocksteady]

does anyone else have a headache?

[Lucid]

does anyone else have a headache?

Yup

[xanodel]

*sits on sidelines and watches some INTJs get pwned* Keep at it Lights! The political science/economics/law major person here is cheering for ya. And based on my own studies, here in US and abroad, I think your points have more validation.

And seriously, Prometheus, I wonder if you've ever considered why it's good law and rights are flexible. You know, technically in a legal standpoint,the entire right to privacy, and every other "right" amendment do not exist. If you want to government to stick to the strictest, doctrinal, inflexible reading of rights, the government would have few barriers before they can put a video camera in your house to record your every action. Scary indeed?

[Aestheticbend]

*sits on sidelines and watches some INTJs get pwned* Keep at it Lights! The political science/economics/law major person here is cheering for ya. And based on my own studies, here in US and abroad, I think your points have more validation.

And seriously, Prometheus, I wonder if you've ever considered why it's good law and rights are flexible. You know, technically in a legal standpoint,the entire right to privacy, and every other "right" amendment do not exist. If you want to government to stick to the strictest, doctrinal, inflexible reading of rights, the government would have few barriers before they can put a video camera in your house to record your every action. Scary indeed?

Legal positivism which you are espousing is dangerous if not supplemented with a view of justice prior to law. If there is no justice absent of law, if all that justice is, is convention, than certainly law simply reflects might makes right, although wrapped in legal procedural rhetoric. It is rather barbaric to say that if a government declares the right to life as conditional, that killing someone in that particular State is not unjust, due to the fact that the right to life did not exist in that region. But this is what legal positivism necessarily is, ultimately it is just modern day sophistry.

Your example presupposes that law reflects the general sentiments of people and thus a more flexible approach is better. But this is simply an ad populum fallacy, what is correct is not what is generally approved of. You are confusing the social phenomenon of right in a particular context, with a specific proposition. Democracy is might makes right wrapped in egalitarian rhetoric.

By the way I am a political science/philosophy major myself.

[Lights]

Legal positivism which you are espousing is dangerous if not supplemented with a view of justice prior to law. If there is no justice absent of law, if all that justice is, is convention, than certainly law simply reflects might makes right, although wrapped in legal procedural rhetoric. It is rather barbaric to say that if a government declares the right to life as conditional, that killing someone in that particular State is not unjust, due to the fact that the right to life did not exist in that region. But this is what legal positivism necessarily is, ultimately it is just modern day sophistry.

Your example presupposes that law reflects the general sentiments of people and thus a more flexible approach is better. But this is simply an ad populum fallacy, what is correct is not what is generally approved of. You are confusing the social phenomenon of right in a particular context, with a specific proposition. Democracy is might makes right wrapped in egalitarian rhetoric.

By the way I am a political science/philosophy major myself.

Wow! That's a lot of big words. I'm no political science major of any sort, but my experience has taught me much about justice. Justice is an individual perspective. It's completely subjective. Every individual has their own justice. Law is the convention. There are no absolute truths in this world, only best fit truths that are suitable for certain situations and points in time. People and society are always changing and evolving. Justice and laws inevitably change and evolve with them.

[prometheus]

*sits on sidelines and watches some INTJs get pwned* Keep at it Lights! The political science/economics/law major person here is cheering for ya. And based on my own studies, here in US and abroad, I think your points have more validation.

And seriously, Prometheus, I wonder if you've ever considered why it's good law and rights are flexible. You know, technically in a legal standpoint,the entire right to privacy, and every other "right" amendment do not exist. If you want to government to stick to the strictest, doctrinal, inflexible reading of rights, the government would have few barriers before they can put a video camera in your house to record your every action. Scary indeed?


Can I have a hit off your bong? This government is (supposedly, at least it's never official been changed from) a constitutionally limited republic. Do you understand what that means? If an action is not specifically allowed in the constitution it is illegal for the government to commit it. Remember prohibition, any kind of federal law making requires a constitutional amendment. The fact the Gov has sneaked all kinds of illegal laws (drug and gun just to mention a few) through the "Interstate Commerce Clause" does not make them valid. There is a supreme court ruling that every individual has the right, nay the duty, to ignore unconstitutional laws.

* prometheus added to this post, 14 minutes and 21 seconds later...

Justice is an individual perspective. It's completely subjective. Every individual has their own justice. Law is the convention. There are no absolute truths in this world, only best fit truths that are suitable for certain situations and points in time. People and society are always changing and evolving. Justice and laws inevitably change and evolve with them.

Holy, jumped up, screaming, blue Jesus's. I knew better than to look at your post. Where did you get that from Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot?

This sounds just like the propaganda that was used to sway public opinion when the SS started rounding up the jews. Laws change, truths change, society is changing, justice is changing, we must evolve. Now, step zis vay into the showers.

Seeing as we are almost there, have you applied to the modern day version of The Ministry of Truth.

:stunned:Let this be a lesson to me, back to completely ignoring you.

[Lights]

Holy, jumped up, screaming, blue Jesus's. I knew better than to look at your post. Where did you get that from Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot?

This sounds just like the propaganda that was used to sway public opinion when the SS started rounding up the jews. Laws change, truths change, society is changing, justice is changing, we must evolve. Now, step zis vay into the showers.

Seeing as we are almost there, have you applied to the modern day version of The Ministry of Truth.

:stunned:Let this be a lesson to me, back to completely ignoring you.

:laugh:

So even though you think every individual deserves to judge what is right and wrong for themselves, you laugh at the idea that every individual has the capacity to do so? [Edited by Lights]

To be blunt, that idea is progressive libertarian.

[prometheus]

:laugh:

You are an idiot.

Since you feel the need to fall back on personal insults, and I won't lower myself to that level, and can't reach out and thump you upside the head. Some moderation here wouldn't be out of place.


For the record: I never said anything against individuals making judgment calls for themselves. I'm against the state making decisions for me, or more properly against me on your behalf.

[Lights]

Since you feel the need to fall back on personal insults, and I won't lower myself to that level, and can't reach out and thump you upside the head. Some moderation here wouldn't be out of place.


For the record: I never said anything against individuals making judgment calls for themselves. I'm against the state making decisions for me, or more properly against me on your behalf.

Nope, you said it, I quoted it. I suggested that individuals have their own justice and you said it was nothing but propaganda. Anyone can read that.

And now who is running to the man? :laugh: Big Brother come smite he who dared call me a name!

[prometheus]

And now who is running to the man? :laugh: Big Brother come smite he who dared call me a name!


Unlike you I understand self responsibility and the law of contract. I entered into a contract here that stated I agreed to:

"1. No Ad Hominem Posts
Personal attacks, harassment, name calling, and posts which serve no purpose other than to flame other members will not be tolerated. Do not troll, bait members, or purposefully cause annoyance and disharmony."

If you wish to duel come here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Where there is no moderation or rules to stand in the way of your much deserved smack down. If you have the masculine reproductive organs to back it up, I'll see you there.

[brewmaster]

Can I have a hit off your bong? This government is (supposedly, at least it's never official been changed from) a constitutionally limited republic. Do you understand what that means? If an action is not specifically allowed in the constitution it is illegal for the government to commit it. Remember prohibition, any kind of federal law making requires a constitutional amendment. The fact the Gov has sneaked all kinds of illegal laws (drug and gun just to mention a few) through the "Interstate Commerce Clause" does not make them valid. There is a supreme court ruling that every individual has the right, nay the duty, to ignore unconstitutional laws.



So very very true. Unfortunately, most people seem to miss this point. And trying to explain it to them is not nearly as efficient as hitting them in the head with a 2 X 4.

[prometheus]

And trying to explain it to them is not nearly as efficient as hitting them in the head with a 2 X 4.

I've been having a desire to do just that of late, do you have one handy?

[Lights]

Unlike you I understand self responsibility and the law of contract. I entered into a contract here that stated I agreed to:

"1. No Ad Hominem Posts
Personal attacks, harassment, name calling, and posts which serve no purpose other than to flame other members will not be tolerated. Do not troll, bait members, or purposefully cause annoyance and disharmony."

If you wish to duel come here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Where there is no moderation or rules to stand in the way of your much deserved smack down. If you have the masculine reproductive organs to back it up, I'll see you there.

Justify it however you want. You started asking for an authority figure for just one insult after spending post after post talking about how you don't need one. Then you suggested that you would use personal violence. Which would be a great way to escalate the situation in real life. So no matter how you look at it, you aren't making a very good argument. And you have made plenty of ad hominem attacks on me over the course of this thread, insinuating all sorts of rude things in order to insult my position. But since it seemed to sincerely hurt your feelings, I will remove it.

[prometheus]

Justify it however you want. You started asking for an authority figure for just one insult after spending post after post talking about how you don't need one. Then you suggested that you would use personal violence. Which would be a great way to escalate the situation in real life. So no matter how you look at it, you aren't making a very good argument. And you have made plenty of ad hominem attacks on me over the course of this thread, insinuating all sorts of rude things in order to insult my position. But since it seemed to sincerely hurt your feelings, I will remove it.

I asked for enforcement of the contract that you voluntarily entered into. There is a HUGE difference between this and the use of majority sponsored authority figures such as LEOs that we have been discussing.


There is a difference in "innuendo of rude things in order to insult your position" and an attack on someone's character

Modify to add: I also consider an attack on my integrity, an act of force. Which even under the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) allows a return of force as ethical self-defense.

[Lights]

Modify to add: I also consider an attack on my integrity, an act of force. Which even under the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) allows a return of force as ethical self-defense.

And he puts the final nail in his own coffin. :rolleyes:

I couldn't have orchestrated a better execution for your argument than this.

[feralfae]

Writing of SCOTUS and disobeying bad laws:
Most if not all of you already know that jurors have the authority to veto any bad or misapplied or unconstitutional law that is being used to prosecute anyone. Just say not guilty.

For more information, visit the web site at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Or call 1-800-TEL-JURY and a free information packet will be mailed to you.

There are about 100 SCOTUS and founders' quotes on this authority of the juror on the web site, by the way, so if you want to argue about this authority of the individual juror, you might want to check the citations on the web site first.

[rocksteady]

And he puts the final nail in his own coffin. :rolleyes:

I couldn't have orchestrated a better execution for your argument than this.

are you insinuating that believing in self-defense somehow lost him an argument?

[prometheus]

Good link FF.

Yup, one of the four boxes securing our liberty.

The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

Arguably, the first two have been made completely useless.
They have been working really hard on the second two. Secret military tribunals, tax courts (with no jury, and several others juryless courts I can't remember),and victim disarmament laws.

* prometheus added to this post, 5 minutes and 22 seconds later...

are you insinuating that believing in self-defense somehow lost him an argument?


My guess is he is saying an attack on someones character isn't force. But, I bet he'd reconsider that if I went into where he worked screaming he was a thief.

Modify to add: But I have problems following a lot of his arguments.

[Lights]

are you insinuating that believing in self-defense somehow lost him an argument?

He thinks he would have the right to hit me because I called him an idiot. Yes, that lost his argument.

Attack on integrity = Name Calling

[xanodel]

If you're asking whether or not an objective, "true" law exists, that in the legal circles as much as I'm aware of, is completely debatable.

The question of whether or not a law is constitutional, may I ask, who determines that? Common law in the US, especially federal law, rests upon statutes, which are formed by Congress. Which begs the question, what is constitutional and what is not?

[prometheus]

Which begs the question, what is constitutional and what is not?


I will skip the first part for fear of a circular reasoning argument. (maybe someone else wants this fish).

But, as to the part I quoted, here is the constitution. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I was sorely tempted to post the whole thing verbatim, to show how short and simple it is. But figured you already know that. If you are smart enough to be arguing about it you are smart enough to read and comprehend it.

So.......you tell me what is constitutional. Remember this document is the "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND" this is the compact that any other 10th amendment based laws are seated on, so no statutes, what is constitutional?

* prometheus added to this post, 10 minutes and 11 seconds later...

Here are the powers outlined in the constitution:

The Congress shall have power

1 To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

3 To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4 To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5 To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of weights and measures;

6 To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

7 To establish post offices and post roads;

8 To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

9 To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10 To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of Nations;

11 To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two years;

13 To provide and maintain a Navy;

14 To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

15 To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

16 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings; --And

18 To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

[xanodel]

If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that natural law is the founding law of US. In theory, you are actually correct. In application though, the existence of natural law is in fact debatable. For that I would suggest you to search up the Erie cases.

In practice, the supreme court usually doesn't overturn statutes made by Congress. For example federal government immunity. Another is tort law.

By the way, it'd be nice if you could give me the name of that Supreme Court case you mention. I'd like to read it.

"18-To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Maybe it's just me, but I can see way too many ways to dive through that. For example, define "necessary" or "execution" or "powers" or "vested." Words are generally later defined by cases and statutes, the former when a statute fails to clearly define a word. Then there's Chevron which governs government agencies in defining statutory application.

And also, I'm curious how you believe this ties into the issue of constitutional rights? Since they actually need statutes too for them to be applied.

[prometheus]

If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that natural law is the founding law of US. In theory, you are actually correct. In application though, the existence of natural law is in fact debatable. For that I would suggest you to search up the Erie cases.

In practice, the supreme court usually doesn't overturn statutes made by Congress. For example federal government immunity. Another is tort law.

By the way, it'd be nice if you could give me the name of that Supreme Court case you mention. I'd like to read it.


Actually the Constitution was based on English Common law.

And, as I said the constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. It was the original compact, and it says that it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND until there is an amendment that adds more powers, all they legitimately have are listed above. I'm tempted to post it again.................But, anyways, those powers I just posted are the ONLY powers vested in the FEDERAL government. The states and the people had more powers, via the tenth amendment.........but we are talking federal here. Anything coming out of SCOTUS and congress is null and void if it's not in compliance with the powers listed above.

Here is the case I referred to earlier, that also supports this argument.

Marbury vs. Madison
The text of the decision that clarified the
U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.


The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles, as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if those limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

This theory is essentialy attached to a written constitution, and, is consequently, to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamentals of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law is in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions, a written constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that in using it the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases, then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported for any state." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought a judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law?

The constitution declares "that no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

If, however, such a bill should be passed, and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavours to preserve?

"No person," says the constitution, "shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

[prometheus]

Part II


Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as ------, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States."

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government -- if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged.

* prometheus added to this post, 6 minutes and 10 seconds later...


"18-To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

[xanodel]

Well then I stand corrected. Though Marbury itself has received criticism.

But back to the original OP. What I don't get about the entire debate that followed is this: in practicality, the president is constrained by Congress in the domestic policies. The area where the president has the broadest powers is foreign policy, and secondarily trade. Foreign policy because of executive power (though limited) and trade because of fast track. Hence I don't get the entire bruhaha over Hilary's national health care plan, simply because as DC is today, I don't think it will make it through Congress, and if it does, most certainly not in the way she envisioned it. If I were to vote (since I can't) I'd vote for a president based on their foreign policy, since that is where they are least constrained.

[prometheus]

Well then I stand corrected. Though Marbury itself has received criticism.

But back to the original OP. What I don't get about the entire debate that followed is this: in practicality, the president is constrained by Congress in the domestic policies. The area where the president has the broadest powers is foreign policy, and secondarily trade. Foreign policy because of executive power (though limited) and trade because of fast track. Hence I don't get the entire bruhaha over Hilary's national health care plan, simply because as DC is today, I don't think it will make it through Congress, and if it does, most certainly not in the way she envisioned it. If I were to vote (since I can't) I'd vote for a president based on their foreign policy, since that is where they are least constrained.


Hell, there is so much in the way of things "not to get" I don't know where to start. Just because they should/shouldn't be doing something doesn't mean the Federal government is/isn't. So few people really give a shit anymore we are being run roughshod over. The checks and balances that were once in place are in shambles. The abuse of the interstate commerce clause, emergency powers, executive orders, is so bad I don't honestly think we will be able to salvage the freedoms (and the prosperity they provided) that this country was based on.

I guess in a sense there is no way for me to win this debate because all I need to do look at real life and I'm defeated.

But, with the failing economy, maybe, just maybe, we will have a chance to resurrect something from the ashes.

[xanodel]

Well, in that sense I do agree with you. But I don't think the US economy will in fact fail, not to the degree that will promote rapid change. However I do see some things changing, starting with some new legislature about reducing lobbying power (which I think is the central problem).

However back to the problem of the constitution. I did read Marbury, however I would like to know the case where an individual has the duty to resist unconstitutional laws? That to me seems problematic, since the only body that has the ability to determine if a law is or isn't constitutional is the supreme court. And while statutes themselves can be challenged over their constitutionality, I don't think courts usually go against Congress too much, and then there's federal immunity. Even with the case of privacy, the question that then arises, is privacy a natural right that warrants protection? Are there further conditions that constrain such a natural right due to other natural rights? Hence, I think there are many ways which Congress can limit constitutional rights or even "natural rights", though usually they don't try too hard.

However I'm going to lay off on the constitutional law since I'm actually going to study that next month (yay) and this certainly has piqued my interest (and I thought it'd be boring with a really tough professor). And I need to study for finals. However I do want to hear more of what others suggest, if nothing else, simply to grill my law professors. n_n

[prometheus]

I did read Marbury, however I would like to know the case where an individual has the duty to resist unconstitutional laws?

There is no case law or constitutional clause to back up the duty to oppose it. But anyone who really gives a shit should.

We spoke a little about FIJA earlier in this thread, here is the other civil disobedience option. If everyone who thought a law was bullshit, intentionally and blatantly broke it and then demanded a jury trial it would be the end of "the system" or at least that law.

Privacy is tricky, since so many citizens roll over and piss themselves at the first sign of government threat. I have several friends who are "ghosts" these are people who refuse to comply with the system. The have/use no SS#, work the underground economy, pay cash for everything, change names frequently (do you know that common law name changes i.e. just start using it, are still legal for everything but ID's, and fraudulent purposes) I don't go this far, but I do change names every now and then (and back to my birth name between) and have "value cards" for most of them. I'm not religious and don't buy the whole number of the beast argument, but hate the idea of data mining and what DHS is using it for scares the shit outa me.

Congress has no proper way to limit constitutional rights without holding a Constitutional Convention, and amending the constitution. This action would set off more warning bells than the recent SCOTUS second amendment DC case. I don't think they (TPTB) would dare do this yet.

Good luck next month. Ask the tough questions, and give 'em hell.

* prometheus added to this post, 15 minutes and 32 seconds later...

Well, in that sense I do agree with you. But I don't think the US economy will in fact fail, not to the degree that will promote rapid change. However I do see some things changing, starting with some new legislature about reducing lobbying power (which I think is the central problem).



The central economic problem is we no longer produce hardly anything. Have you ever heard the quote "We can't all get rich by doing each others laundry" Von Mises (maybe?) Our whole economy is a huge debt kiting fraud barely being kept aloft by the petrodollar breeze. Things are changing, and fast.

[xanodel]

I looked at the FIJA website and there is a line I do have to disagree. "The recognition of the authority and right of jurors to weigh the merits of the law and to render a verdict based on conscience," if an issue of law (and not of fact) was given to the jury it will be considered a legal error (that is a mistake that warrants a reversal of the jury verdict) later in appeals. And I fully disagree with jurors being the "only objective" agents in the courtroom. Layers and layers of laws were designed to ensure it, but never full rid the jury system of inherent bias, if nothing else simply because legal language definitions themselves are different from common language meaning (which I think is something the law should address). Lastly, a jury renders a jury verdict, but not a judgment-the judge renders the judgment and is fully allowed to null the jury verdict if there are grounds warranting so (such as legal issues, biases etc). While not frequently heard of, I've stumbled upon my fair share in classes. More commonly, people will try to move for summary judgment which skips the jury process altogether. While I think the FIJA itself has wonderful ideals, I think the very system of the US courts render such a movement null.

And the example you gave of civil disobedience, I can see why it could work, but also why it would fail. It fully depends on if you reach the Supreme Court, or if you use state or federal court systems. The Supreme Court could very well dismiss the case. Furthermore, it's not determined based on what one's subjective thinking is to a law, but what a "reasonable" person's thinking is to that law in jury trial. And later in appeal the appeals court can decide if that verdict was right or not, even if the question should have gone to the jury.

Back to the topic if economics. Actually we do produce goods, and while US is a net importer of basic lower manufactured goods, it actually is a net exporter (and I think top in the world) in more expensive goods, such as computer software, technology etc, the IP protected stuff (which is why we harp so much about IP protection overseas).

[Henry]

The central economic problem is we no longer produce hardly anything. Have you ever heard the quote "We can't all get rich by doing each others laundry" Von Mises (maybe?) Our whole economy is a huge debt kiting fraud barely being kept aloft by the petrodollar breeze. Things are changing, and fast.


Questionable? Check. Contradictory? Check. Charlatanism or ignorance? Unknown.

1. A service has no more or less inherint value than a good. People ascribe a value to a good or service, and that's the only reason either are produced. The only real advantage of a good over a service is that a good is storable. Everywhere else, its a wash. Moot point.

2. Debt is a prerequisite of growth. No way around this; it either has to be domestic debt or foreign debt that fuels the financing of a new factory or expanded set of consumption.

US has almost always, with a few brief periods, been an international debtor. Want to become net creditor again? Throw the economy into a deep recession and let prices fall through the floor. Then exports boom and net credit rises.

3. The "petrodollar breeze" and Asian currency manipulations are largely causing the current low rate of savings and high rate of investment in the country, because they've pushed real interest rates to .5-1% and the real exchange rate so low. Remove this, real interest rates rise, consumption and investment drops, recession and then exports. Not brain surgery.

4. As for this "apocalypse now" malarkey, US over the past 12 years has been expanding per hour productivity at about 2.5% per annum, rest of the world its much lower. That's blazing fast, as historically its been 1.4-1.7% per annum in the states, and far lower in most other parts of the world.

[prometheus]

Questionable? Check. Contradictory? Check. Charlatanism or ignorance? Unknown.

1. A service has no more or less inherint value than a good. People ascribe a value to a good or service, and that's the only reason either are produced. The only real advantage of a good over a service is that a good is storable. Everywhere else, its a wash. Moot point.

2. Debt is a prerequisite of growth. No way around this; it either has to be domestic debt or foreign debt that fuels the financing of a new factory or expanded set of consumption.

US has almost always, with a few brief periods, been an international debtor. Want to become net creditor again? Throw the economy into a deep recession and let prices fall through the floor. Then exports boom and net credit rises.

3. The "petrodollar breeze" and Asian currency manipulations are largely causing the current low rate of savings and high rate of investment in the country, because they've pushed real interest rates to .5-1% and the real exchange rate so low. Remove this, real interest rates rise, consumption and investment drops, recession and then exports. Not brain surgery.

4. As for this "apocalypse now" malarkey, US over the past 12 years has been expanding per hour productivity at about 2.5% per annum, rest of the world its much lower. That's blazing fast, as historically its been 1.4-1.7% per annum in the states, and far lower in most other parts of the world.

OK, Mr. economist, what are we producing besides worthless pieces of fiat paper?

What is your take on 11% inflation?

And the worst news is that it is going to get worse, as John Williams' of shadowstats.com reports, "The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported the seasonally-adjusted CPI-U" in October was a reading 3.5% inflation in prices, but Mr. Williams figures that "Adjusted to pre-Clinton (1990) methodology, annual inflation was about 6.9%, up from 6.1% in September, while the SGS-Alternate Consumer Inflation Measure (1980 methodology) showed October's annual inflation at roughly 11.1%." Eleven freaking percent inflation!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

* prometheus added to this post, 8 minutes and 25 seconds later...



And the example you gave of civil disobedience, I can see why it could work, but also why it would fail. It fully depends on if you reach the Supreme Court, or if you use state or federal court systems. .


I don't think you see it. You are in college, right. How many people there smoke weed. How many of the smokers think laws against weed are wrong. Now, if all those people, and the rest agreeing with them in your town were cited in the same month and showed up for court to fight it, demanding a jury trial. What would happen?

* prometheus added to this post, 7 minutes and 44 seconds later...



1. A service has no more or less inherint value than a good. People ascribe a value to a good or service, and that's the only reason either are produced. The only real advantage of a good over a service is that a good is storable. Everywhere else, its a wash. Moot point.



I'm not an economist. But here is what I see as the key issue of the question: What percent of these services are exported. Just for arguments sake lets say not many.....and services such as Macdonald's, city cleaners, H&R Block etc. make up the bulk. How are they going to support the huge non-producing bureaucracy, without pushing inflation through the roof?

* prometheus added to this post, 13 minutes and 43 seconds later...

Flounces in like he is god himself gracing us peons with his presence? Check. Uses fancy economic catch phrases to prove he studied economics in college? Check. Federal Reserve agent or economist in denial over what happened to his 401K? Unknown. :P

[feralfae]

Xanodel, you will want to read Suja A. Thomas, the Dougherty decision, several recent SCOTUS decisions regarding the role and function of the jury, including, in one case, Ring v Arizona, the exquisite majority opinion by Scalia, and in another case (someone) v. State of Washington, a likewise exquisite majority opinion.

As well, you may want to review the cases on the FIJA website, as well as the published quotes in a recent issue of the newsletter which is available as a pdf on their site.

I am sure you understand the intent of the inclusion of the jury in the Constitution and most especially the jury guarantees of protection from usurpation of rights in the Bill of Rights: and I am sure you understand the traditional role of the jury as the jury was defined at the time of the writing of the Constitution, yes?

[prometheus]

OK, I did some import/export research for you two. According to the US Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. The most recent data (2006)our trade balance was: $-758,522,000,000.00 This was a government agency supplied number, and by looking at the calculation methods for inflation, you have to wonder what it could possibly really be?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What about being a net exporter?

According to the US Census:

in 1999(the most recent year) $-330,000,000,000.00 * :stunned:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

*Includes nonmonetary gold, military grant aid, special category shipments, trade between the U.S. Virgin Islands and foreign countries and undocumented exports to Canada. Adjustments were also made for carryover. Import values are based on transaction prices whenever possible ("f.a.s." for 1974-1979 and Customs value thereafter). Import data before 1974 do not exist on a transaction price valuation basis.

Do you guys want me to do the algebra, and calculate the census data to 2006 by using the growth rate on the US Commerce Dept. numbers?

[Henry]

OK, Mr. economist, what are we producing besides worthless pieces of fiat paper?


Houses, medical care, law enforcement, financial services, legal services...its the world's most productive and diverse economy...look around. About 94% of what's consumed here is either produced here or paid for with same-year exports.

What is your take on 11% inflation?

Don't know where you got this figure. I've seen M2 growth at this rate, but not inflation. Are you including housing prices in this figure?


I'm not an economist. But here is what I see as the key issue of the question: What percent of these services are exported. Just for arguments sake lets say not many.....and services such as Macdonald's, city cleaners, H&R Block etc. make up the bulk. How are they going to support the huge non-producing bureaucracy, without pushing inflation through the roof?

Who cares. Under a fiat system, you're very likely to eventually have a real balance of goods and services, and deficits are not, in and of themselves, problems. So today's deficit is likely to be tomorrow's surplus. And deficits do not, as in most commodity systems, cramp M2 growth.

At the moment, we happen to be running sizeable trade deficits. That's being driven by 3 factors:
1. Significant federal budget deficits, leading to imbalances
2. Significant "propping up" from Asian countries who want the dollar as a reserve currency and who want to export their goods here.
3. Positive investment environment, attracting significant FDI.


I can assure you that it has nothing to do with "the US worker" and little to do with the Fed. It has a lot to do with fiscal policy at home and monetary policy in Asia.

Only real way to correct the trade imbalance would be to hike taxes by about 30% from where they are, which would increase domestic savings, crap investor sentiment, and throw the economy into reverse.



Flounces in like he is god himself gracing us peons with his presence? Check. Uses fancy economic catch phrases to prove he studied economics in college? Check. Federal Reserve agent or economist in denial over what happened to his 401K? Unknown. :P

Don't mean to be a dick but I do know what I'm talking about here and its somewhat apparent that you do not.

[prometheus]

I was going to address all the "production" you claimed. But there is no point if there isn't comprehension about production.

Mary has an unlimited free supply of hazelbeans and suckers Bob, Henry, Bill and Jack into thinking they are rare and valuable, since she made it illegal to make their own hazelbeans.

Now Jack is a doctor and receives hazelbeans for treating Mary, Bob, Bill and Henry.
Bob is a lawyer and recieves Hazelbeans for defending Jack, Mary, Bill and Henry.
Henry is a policeman and receives hazelbeans for protecting Mary, Jack, Bob and Bill.
Bill is a farmer and grows all the food for everyone.


Bill is the only non-service producer. One day bill gets sick and tired of receiving hazelbeans for his efforts (partly because his savings of hazelbeans lose value every time Mary spends any). Partly because he wants to move somewhere he can just defend himself and not have deal with arbitrary laws whose only purpose is to provide work to support Bob and Henry.

What happens when Bill moves.........


MTA:

11% inflation calculation by using the SGS-Alternate Consumer Inflation Measure (1980 methodology) Link was provided in my original post........If you don't want to at least attempt to look at what I post, and would prefer to just go stare into a mirror and think how wonderful you are let me know.

Quick question: What is the current M3?

[xanodel]

Feralfae, I'm not disputing that the jury has a right to exist, however I do not agree with the statements that the jury decides the matters of the law/disputes of law. The jury's role is to decide whether or not someone violated an issue of the law, which is further defined by the law. A jury verdict determines whether something is right or wrong based on what the law "is" already, not "is the law right or wrong." Other than the fact I think an activist juror would get eliminated in jury selection.

I read the one of Ring v. Arizona (which got criticized or overturned or something later on). The right to trial by jury is considered an unalienable right, however no single supreme court case states that the jury is the one who decides "issues of law." If that were the case, I doubt we'd have jury instructions; and there is a distinction between what an issue of fact is and what an issue of law is. An issue of fact is "Did he commit murder." An issue of law is "what is the definition of murder/manslaughter/rape" etc. That is not decided by juries, but by the legislature in writing their statutes and codes. Other issues of law include the definition of "duty" in tort cases, sometimes also foreseeability, reasonableness etc. Summary judgment can be entered (or remanded) based on whether an issue is of law or fact, which determines whether or not a jury should have even been used in many cases. And I'm not sure if other areas of law even strictly require a jury hearing as much as criminal law (since summary judgment and directed verdicts both don't involve juries).

A jury verdict usually is not challenged, mostly because to protect the privacy of the jury, the jury does not have to supplant a rationale for their decision. It has no legal bearing unless the judgment, entered by the judge, agrees. It's a common misconception that jury verdicts are legal holdings (they're not). It's just that realistically speaking that in practice, some of what they're saying are misconceptions. A bit snobbery of the legal system? Yep.

Know the full case names of the other ones? I need to see how they're holding up too.

[prometheus]

Xanodel,

I don't know as much about FIJA as Feralfea.

But I think these quotes are relevant.

JOHN JAY (1794): The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction...."if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."

SAMUEL CHASE (1804): The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): "The new Constitution has secured these [individual rights] in the Executive and Legislative departments: but not in the Judiciary. It should have established trials by the people themselves, that is to say, by jury."

SAMUEL CHASE (Justice, U. S. Supreme Court and signer of the Declaration of Independence; in 1804): "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND (Article XXIII): "In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction."

4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (United States v. Moylan, 417F.2d1006, 1969): "If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."

INDIANA CONSTITUTION (Article 1, Section 19, Upheld in Holliday v. State 257N.E.579, 1970): "In all criminal cases whatsoever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts."

[feralfae]

Feralfae, I'm not disputing that the jury has a right to exist, however I do not agree with the statements that the jury decides the matters of the law/disputes of law. The jury's role is to decide whether or not someone violated an issue of the law, which is further defined by the law. A jury verdict determines whether something is right or wrong based on what the law "is" already, not "is the law right or wrong." Other than the fact I think an activist juror would get eliminated in jury selection.

I read the one of Ring v. Arizona (which got criticized or overturned or something later on). The right to trial by jury is considered an unalienable right, however no single supreme court case states that the jury is the one who decides "issues of law." If that were the case, I doubt we'd have jury instructions; and there is a distinction between what an issue of fact is and what an issue of law is. An issue of fact is "Did he commit murder." An issue of law is "what is the definition of murder/manslaughter/rape" etc. That is not decided by juries, but by the legislature in writing their statutes and codes. Other issues of law include the definition of "duty" in tort cases, sometimes also foreseeability, reasonableness etc. Summary judgment can be entered (or remanded) based on whether an issue is of law or fact, which determines whether or not a jury should have even been used in many cases. And I'm not sure if other areas of law even strictly require a jury hearing as much as criminal law (since summary judgment and directed verdicts both don't involve juries).

A jury verdict usually is not challenged, mostly because to protect the privacy of the jury, the jury does not have to supplant a rationale for their decision. It has no legal bearing unless the judgment, entered by the judge, agrees. It's a common misconception that jury verdicts are legal holdings (they're not). It's just that realistically speaking that in practice, some of what they're saying are misconceptions. A bit snobbery of the legal system? Yep.

Know the full case names of the other ones? I need to see how they're holding up too.


Let us, for the moment, limit this discussion to criminal cases, and revisit civil cases later, shall we?

Several Supreme Court cases have reiterated the role of the jury and the jury's function to judge both the law and the facts. (See below citations, for starters) Should SCOTUS deny this right and authority, it would remain incumbent upon the People to exercise this authority and right to prevent oppressive prosecutions by the government. A right reserved need not be reiterated by any government body. Including breathing, by the way. :)

Actually, Ring v Arizona was a SCOTUS case, never overturned, seldom criticized, and the other case is Blakely v Washington, also a SCOTUS case, both recent (within the last six years or so). If you actually read Ring you would have known that. The Ring decision followed the Apprendi decision, IIRC. I therefore question your veracity, or memory, perhaps.

Did you bother to read any of the citations on the web site? Any of the quotes? Any of Suja Thomas? James Joseph Duane? There are several Supreme Court Cases stating that the Jury decides issues of law as well as fact: you might want to research a bit more prior to making unfounded statements such as this one that you have made. You might also want to research the obvious intent of the founders when they included the right to trial by jury and the protection of the jury FOUR times in the Constitution. The Federalist Papers are quite clear and specific in this regard.

I realize that the fact that I am a U of Chicago (Fellow) requires that you patronize me, but you need to get your facts straight. (I believe you are at Stanford?) I suggest you research a bit more and then come back and let us discuss the role of and reason for the jury since at least the Magna Carta, the William Penn trial (England Court of Common Pleas), the John Peter Zenger trial (Colonial America), the Marbury v Madison case (SCOTUS) and a string of other cases, all cited on the web site I provided to you.

All these cases establish the fundamental and traditional role of the juror, and jury, as the final arbiter of law when a defendant is brought before the juror, and thus the entire jury, under a law prosecuted by government. The remarkable role of the individual juror remains one of the most exquisite constructions of justice yet conceived, for a single minority-opinion juror may hang a jury and thus stay a conviction. Much mathematical research has been published on this particular facet of the jury system: a minority viewpoint will have trouble being successfully prosecuted by a majority viewpoint so long as one lone juror can protect a private citizen from successful prosecution by government.

This evening, I will be lecturing, as a visiting lecturer, to yet another law school class on this exquisite function of the jury. You would do well to read a bit of Suja A. Thomas, who is presently lecturing at Northwestern Law School (I taught at NU for many years, so I am particularly fond of her position at present, although she returns to her home law school next year) has written and published much on the authority and role of the jury under common and Constitutional Law.

Your remarks reek of an rigid and uninformed position, made without research, or the curiosity and investigative frame of mind which determines clear thinking: that is not how I have come to view you as a thinking individual, however.

I suggest that you approach my statements with a bit of an open mind and attempt to correct your misperceptions, because you are obviously bright enough to grasp the concept of the jury as the final veto against government tyranny, as elucidated and practiced since the Magna Carta.

(If you are presently at Stanford Law, you will find a great deal of information on this issue in your library, as well as some excellent past papers written there, which I will attempt to cite of you once I return to my own office.)

And so today, the jury thus remains as the final bulwark of protection of the citizen against the oppressive actions of the king or any other form of government, wherever and whenever the jury is duly constituted as a common law jury.

Here are a few quotes for you:
"I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet devised by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Thomas Jefferson

" It is not only his right, but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." John Adams

(Jurors have the right) "to determine the law as well as the facts in controversy" John Jay, Georgia v Brailsford, 1,4,U. S. (1794)

"A right to trial by jury is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the government" Byron White, Duncan v Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155 (1968)

And you will find much more on the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. web site if you will take the time to do a bit of research there.

Thank you for considering my comments above.

Sincerely,
ff

[xanodel]

I'm not disputing the right to a jury trial. And no I'm not at Stanford. And if you're a lawyer, or professor then cool, I can learn more from you. =D

What I have read in the Blakely case though, is that facts pertaining to sentencing should be sent to a jury, and the judgment was arbitrary because it violated a fundamental principle, that if there are facts in dispute, it should be sent to the jury. Currently reading Brailsford and the rest, but having trouble scoffing it down while doing outlines for finals (it's next week for me).

I think in criminal cases, where there are no clear distinctions between issues of fact and issues of law, many times issues that could be considered issues of law do in fact, get sent to the jury since they hinge on facts. However I have trouble seeing it in cases such as tort law,and issues of legal duty. That is the bit I have trouble reconciling. That and the appeals process. And the fact a judge may overrule a jury verdict and enter a separate judgment that contradicts, so long as it can stand later on that the jury was unreasonable on an issue of law ( a discretion I think, but not an absolute duty).

However, I am inclined to leave it at that, and have no judgment of what the definite role of a jury is due to my rather limited legal experience (I'm only a 1L, what the hell do I know? XD) and do it later after I get a bit more experience.

Actually, in retrospect I am not inclined to dispute the role of a juror in criminal cases, since that happens often enough. Getting some of Friedmen's books on US legal history to read.

[Henry]

I was going to address all the "production" you claimed. But there is no point if there isn't comprehension about production.

Mary has an unlimited free supply of hazelbeans and suckers Bob, Henry, Bill and Jack into thinking they are rare and valuable, since she made it illegal to make their own hazelbeans.

Now Jack is a doctor and receives hazelbeans for treating Mary, Bob, Bill and Henry.
Bob is a lawyer and recieves Hazelbeans for defending Jack, Mary, Bill and Henry.
Henry is a policeman and receives hazelbeans for protecting Mary, Jack, Bob and Bill.
Bill is a farmer and grows all the food for everyone.

Bill is the only non-service producer. One day bill gets sick and tired of receiving hazelbeans for his efforts (partly because his savings of hazelbeans lose value every time Mary spends any). Partly because he wants to move somewhere he can just defend himself and not have deal with arbitrary laws whose only purpose is to provide work to support Bob and Henry.

What happens when Bill moves.........

So your question is "What happens when everybody in the world stops demanding medical care, education, legal services, police and fire departments, etc and instead only demand manufactured or grown goods?" I'm sorry, I do not think this is a point.

You seriously think that service positions provide nothing? Well, I shall be sure to remind thy doctor of this when you have a heart attack.

11% inflation calculation by using the SGS-Alternate Consumer Inflation Measure (1980 methodology) Link was provided in my original post........If you don't want to at least attempt to look at what I post, and would prefer to just go stare into a mirror and think how wonderful you are let me know.

Quick question: What is the current M3?

Don't know, not really interested, the marginal dollars in M2-M3 are illiquid in comparison to M1 and M2 dollars and do not fit into the MV=PY equation. I know wasteful Ron Paul wants to gather M3 data, but its a borderline-meaningless statistic.

[prometheus]

Don't know, not really interested, the marginal dollars in M2-M3 are illiquid in comparison to M1 and M2 dollars and do not fit into the MV=PY equation. I know wasteful Ron Paul wants to gather M3 data, but its a borderline-meaningless statistic.

"The most restrictive, M1, only measures the most liquid forms of money; it is limited to currency actually in the hands of the public. This includes travelers checks, demand deposits (checking accounts), and other deposits against which checks can be written.

M2 includes all of M1, plus savings accounts, time deposits of under $100,000, and balances in retail money market mutual funds.

But that is all small potatoes, M3 includes all of M2 (which includes M1) plus large-denomination ($100,000 or more) time deposits, balances in institutional money funds, repurchase liabilities issued by depository institutions, and Eurodollars held by U.S. residents at foreign branches of U.S. banks and at all banks in the United Kingdom and Canada."

In other words, M3 tracks what the big boys are doing with the money. This includes US dollars held in banks in Canada and the UK (called Eurodollars) not to be confused with the Euro which is the standard currency of Europe.

So the question immediately arises why would the FED stop tracking this? The reason they give is that:

1) it will save money

2) That all the money that it tracks is tracked by other indicators.

First of all, since when is the government interested in saving money? I've never heard of a government program being cut once it is on the books. There are stories of government offices being created for the purpose of WWII and continuing on for decades even though the employees had absolutely nothing to do!

If they were eliminating M1 they could say the money is included in other indicators because M1 is included in M2 and M3. If they eliminated M2 it would be included in M3 but what is M3 included in?

It is no coincidence that the M3 went up an annualized 9.4% in the last three months (it was tracked) and an annualized 17.2% in December (the last month) alone and then the Feds stopped tracking it!

Why bother tackling a problem of this magnitude when you can just bury the evidence? Who wants to leave a "smoking gun" laying around? A 9.4% increase in money supply should translate into a 9.4% inflation rate (if GDP produces exactly enough to counteract obsolescence).

Even if there is a 1% increase in the supply of goods, that still means that we really have 8.4% inflation rather than the 3.6% the BLS is telling us.

In order for the 3.6% number to be true-- we would have to have 5.8% more stuff than last year (9.4% - 3.6% = 5.8%)."

Tim McMahon, Editor
InflationData.com

So your question is "What happens when everybody in the world stops demanding medical care, education, legal services, police and fire departments, etc and instead only demand manufactured or grown goods?" I'm sorry, I do not think this is a point.

No, my question was what happens when nobody in this country is producing real goods, and foreign producers no longer want to be paid in a currency that is losing its value faster than ever before.

[prometheus]

Some friends tracking this thread also wanted to ask you:

How does law enforcement contribute the same way.... as does an export good being paid cash for?

"About 94% of what's consumed here is either produced here or paid for with same-year exports.
"
Really.
Has he looked under the hood of an AMERICAN car lately?
It's all foreign.

The company may be domestic but the labor that he is so fond of, and most of the materials are from elsewhere these days.
Ask him what the trade deficit means the that same year exports?
He is talking bulk not worth.
We export tons of cheap raw materials and buy back expensive finished(low quality) goods.
How does this help our economy.
The fiat is unbacked and foreign markets are rejecting our bonds wholesale.
How does he explain that as it relates to a strong dollar...a dollar that doesn't exist.
I think it was Citbank just got several BILLION from Dubai or UAE but to get it they needed to offer 11% interest...why?
If you loaned someone money in the US right now would you get 11%
Asians are manipulating OUR currency...granted the Chinese are devaluing theirs but look at the rank and file Chinese laborer...their hurting.
You don't hear much about the fuel riots in the inner provinces of China do you.
That is recession at work.
He advocates that here?
%@$%.
The currency needs to be backed by something investors believe in.
Foreign investors are fleeing from the US and not simply because the Euro is doing so well.
So unless our esteemed masters steal more money from our paychecks or print more ala Bob Mugabe they'd better find a tangible base for the dollar other than housing.

He is one of these CPI worshiping types that does not figure food or fuel into inflation rates....he needs to ponder the PPI(producer price index) which is the ultimate cost of actual delivery of goods to the masses....the cpi is a government set used to toss a pleasant figure over the real numbers.
11% is more accurate but may even be light. I have not looked at the indexes lately but 11 sounds like PPI.

Budget deficits have little actual impact on trade deficits.
He is right about what he said about Asian (China) currency rates but that's about it and I think he may be confused as to why he is correct.
What positive investment environment?
You mean the fact the America is the leader in derivative exposure?
He says to fix trade imbalances we would need a 30% tax hike?
For who?
The consumer?
Sounds like more government manipulation to me.
JFK himself was a tax fighter.
When he dropped taxes America flourished economically until LBJ raised them back up and whoops...enter the recession Nixon inherited that caused him to bump food and fuel off the CPI...bad juju.
Higher taxes cause economic stagnation and have done so in every country they are used in.
Look at France.
Sarkozy wants to boost growth...his solution is lower taxes and let Frenchmen spend.
Worked here, problem was stupid greedy people bought shit on credit they could not afford and bought stupid loans from greedy banks.
Now both banks and buyer are getting reamed and FEDGOV wants to grope us to bail both out.
Henry's solution would be to raise taxes and bail away setting everyone up for the next big failure and bailout with what?
You guessed it more taxation!
Yay!
(I'm a little bummered. My taxation feels like John Holmes %&*#$@ up my *$#& tonight)

Shrub lowered taxes and people spent and actual tax revenues are higher than ever.
Raise taxes and the turtle pops into it's shell and doesn't spend.
Simple.
Economics 101.

He speaks models and catch phrase to confuse the truth of the matter.
Models are THEORY.
Models are excuses.
Reality is if you spend more than you have you go into debt.
How he comes up with bullshit like deficit today is surplus tomorrow is only workable in a fiat fantasy where you inflate you way out of trouble.
It's a thin veil and historically has proven economically fatal. Case in point... Weimar Germany.
More extreme case Zimbabwe.
really generally speaking ecomonics are not all that hard to grasp until someone starts creating newspeak for it to hide truths.
You money is valuable or it isn't.
That is based on what others are willing to accept and what it is based on.
Deficits themselves just don't magically become surpluses as if aging like fine wine.
Sorry, but his Socialist monkey econ Profs. are wrong.


Another asks:

P, I think it was you, or it may have been someone else, who cited a Misesian argument. The argument is correct and it totally demolished the &*$@#. He simply shrugged it aside. I mentioned it in the other thread on the place; with crap like that, reasoned discussion is simply impossible. Here's one, and see if he even understands it;

As market societies develop beyond the initial stages of the money economy there is a natural tendency for the increased specialization of labor. This makes possible an increased satisfaction of consumer wants across all fields of production. As the capital structure lengthens and narrows, the need for a given form of labor decreases in general, but increases where it is desired. Laborers will tend to move towards the centers of production where they are most desired, as expressed in money. With them, necessarily, moves the technological knowledge and talent they possess. However, this observation only obtains as an automatic statement of reality in a truly international, laissez-faire society. In the present context, due belief in the virtues of the volkswirtschaft and the concomitant exhortations to consume in accordance with ever narrower localities in proximity to the consumer, it is necessary to understand that the natural nonspecificity of labor as a capital good is hampered, and so are satisfactions of consumer wants. In the long run, the natural tendency proceeds only abated; it is not arrested. Consequently, in nations which attempt to achieve volkswirtschaft, political pressure is used to force continuation to attempt production beyond its marginal revenue value. The inevitable result is, unless a full program of embargoes is embarked upon, that the undesired domestic products will be priced above marginality, while foreign goods dominate the markets to fill the wants that domestic production cannot.

[Henry]

Prometheus,

Posting 3rd rate articles from writers doing everything they can to scare you into "Watch my program or you'll be BLINDSIDES by the CRASH to come" does not constitute an argument.

Tim McMahon, Editor
InflationData.com

First of all, as a rule, you should laugh at anyone who uses the words "big boys" in an article that discusses macroeconomics. If they're using terms like this, you can bet there's some major demagoguery going on.

Calling a 9% increase in M3 a 9% increase in the money supply is asinine. Or demagoguery trying to sell you gold, not sure which. MV=PY, but that's money that's actually being used to purchase goods and services. If you take money and shove it under a mattress, as in the case of foreign central banks, options, etcthat are unlikely to be spent on goods, services, or investment, that money is not in circulation, its essentially under a mattress, and its not impacting inflation.



No, my question was what happens when nobody in this country is producing real goods, and foreign producers no longer want to be paid in a currency that is losing its value faster than ever before.

Eek! Time to panic!

The dollar will devalue, the real exchange rate will fall, imports will become more expensive, exports less so, imports fall exports rise. I can assure you that there will be no crisis.

[Henry]

The last post was bad, this one is pathetic.

You're posting this on other forums in the hope that some like-minded Misses will be able to come up with better arguments than you are?

Some friends tracking this thread also wanted to ask you:

How does law enforcement contribute the same way.... as does an export good being paid cash for?

Its contributing a good that is absolutely necessary and that others are willing to trade their goods and services for.

"About 94% of what's consumed here is either produced here or paid for with same-year exports.
"
Really.
Has he looked under the hood of an AMERICAN car lately?
It's all foreign.

Oh god. There's roughly a 6-7% trade imbalance in the US. Everything else - unless you're an ass and deny that a visit to the Dr's office has value - is either domestically produced or financed through same year exports.


The company may be domestic but the labor that he is so fond of, and most of the materials are from elsewhere these days.
Ask him what the trade deficit means the that same year exports?
He is talking bulk not worth.
We export tons of cheap raw materials and buy back expensive finished(low quality) goods.
How does this help our economy.

Durr...

Its called "comparative advantage". Not going to explain this, accepted by every economist I've ever read or met. And blue-collar charlatans do not count.


The fiat is unbacked and foreign markets are rejecting our bonds wholesale.
How does he explain that as it relates to a strong dollar...a dollar that doesn't exist.

The dollar is not strong right now. Its weak for a variety of reasons.

Foreign markets are not rejecting the dollar "wholesale", and that's an atricious use of the term. If foreign markets were rejecting the dollar "wholesale", then the dollar would be worth "nothing" in foreign exchange. And yet the dollar still buys euros, pounds, yen.

Who wrote this? An ISFP?


I think it was Citbank just got several BILLION from Dubai or UAE but to get it they needed to offer 11% interest...why?
If you loaned someone money in the US right now would you get 11%

Durr...Because Citibank is a shitty company on the verge of default, and shitty companies pay a lot of money to borrow.

And because Dubai is awash with dollars and has to recycle those dollars back into the US economy, one way or the other.

Asians are manipulating OUR currency...granted the Chinese are devaluing theirs but look at the rank and file Chinese laborer...their hurting.
You don't hear much about the fuel riots in the inner provinces of China do you.
That is recession at work.
He advocates that here?
%@$%.
The currency needs to be backed by something investors believe in.
Foreign investors are fleeing from the US and not simply because the Euro is doing so well.
So unless our esteemed masters steal more money from our paychecks or print more ala Bob Mugabe they'd better find a tangible base for the dollar other than housing.

...

Ah yes, pity for labor. I missed that somewhere. And pity for rambing SP bullshit. Missed that too. And respect for histrionics. Yup, missed that one too.

He is one of these CPI worshiping types that does not figure food or fuel into inflation rates....he needs to ponder the PPI(producer price index) which is the ultimate cost of actual delivery of goods to the masses....the cpi is a government set used to toss a pleasant figure over the real numbers.
11% is more accurate but may even be light. I have not looked at the indexes lately but 11 sounds like PPI.

Could not care less about PPI

Budget deficits have little actual impact on trade deficits.
He is right about what he said about Asian (China) currency rates but that's about it and I think he may be confused as to why he is correct.
What positive investment environment?
You mean the fact the America is the leader in derivative exposure?
He says to fix trade imbalances we would need a 30% tax hike?
For who?
The consumer?
Sounds like more government manipulation to me.
JFK himself was a tax fighter.
When he dropped taxes America flourished economically until LBJ raised them back up and whoops...enter the recession Nixon inherited that caused him to bump food and fuel off the CPI...bad juju.
Higher taxes cause economic stagnation and have done so in every country they are used in.
Look at France.
Sarkozy wants to boost growth...his solution is lower taxes and let Frenchmen spend.
Worked here, problem was stupid greedy people bought shit on credit they could not afford and bought stupid loans from greedy banks.
Now both banks and buyer are getting reamed and FEDGOV wants to grope us to bail both out.
Henry's solution would be to raise taxes and bail away setting everyone up for the next big failure and bailout with what?
You guessed it more taxation!
Yay!
(I'm a little bummered. My taxation feels like John Holmes %&*#$@ up my *$#& tonight)

I think this SP spends a great deal of time thinking about John Holmes' *#*@ up his #@! and too little time thinking about his posts and even less about a coherent economic philosophy.

That savings, including typically negative national savings, less investment equals net exports is true by definition. Unless you wish to change the terms, my point stands.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Shrub lowered taxes and people spent and actual tax revenues are higher than ever.
Raise taxes and the turtle pops into it's shell and doesn't spend.
Simple.
Economics 101.

A poet and a scholar! Argues that inflation is 10% and then later trumps the nominal increase in taxation!

He speaks models and catch phrase to confuse the truth of the matter.
Models are THEORY.
Models are excuses.
Reality is if you spend more than you have you go into debt.
really generally speaking ecomonics are not all that hard to grasp until someone starts creating newspeak for it to hide truths.
You money is valuable or it isn't.
That is based on what others are willing to accept and what it is based on.
Deficits themselves just don't magically become surpluses as if aging like fine wine.
Sorry, but his Socialist monkey econ Profs. are wrong.

"Models are excuses"

That you found this line of argument credible enough to repost scares me.


Another asks:

P, I think it was you, or it may have been someone else, who cited a Misesian argument. The argument is correct and it totally demolished the &*$@#. He simply shrugged it aside. I mentioned it in the other thread on the place; with crap like that, reasoned discussion is simply impossible. Here's one, and see if he even understands it;

At least this one can spell and has only moderate problems with syntax.

As market societies develop beyond the initial stages of the money economy there is a natural tendency for the increased specialization of labor. This makes possible an increased satisfaction of consumer wants across all fields of production. As the capital structure lengthens and narrows, the need for a given form of labor decreases in general, but increases where it is desired. Laborers will tend to move towards the centers of production where they are most desired, as expressed in money. With them, necessarily, moves the technological knowledge and talent they possess. However, this observation only obtains as an automatic statement of reality in a truly international, laissez-faire society. In the present context, due belief in the virtues of the volkswirtschaft and the concomitant exhortations to consume in accordance with ever narrower localities in proximity to the consumer, it is necessary to understand that the natural nonspecificity of labor as a capital good is hampered, and so are satisfactions of consumer wants. In the long run, the natural tendency proceeds only abated; it is not arrested. Consequently, in nations which attempt to achieve volkswirtschaft, political pressure is used to force continuation to attempt production beyond its marginal revenue value. The inevitable result is, unless a full program of embargoes is embarked upon, that the undesired domestic products will be priced above marginality, while foreign goods dominate the markets to fill the wants that domestic production cannot.

A total non-point, as none of our trading partners are "laissez-faire" in the radical sense that the term is used by many Misses, and this is the entire crux of this intentionally vague argument.

[prometheus]

Henry,

I'm not an economist, that is why I asked other people who know more than I do about your points for input on them. I do not wish to discuss abstract economic theories any more.

What I do have to say is:
Four years ago I bought gold for $440/ounce, today it's at $807.70
I bought silver at $4.80/ounce, today it's at $14.63
The national average for gasoline was $1.72/gallon, today it's at $2.0043/gallon.
The diesel average was 1.6007/gallon, today it's at $3.325.

Your denial over the fact of double digit inflation is asinine. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

[rocksteady]

Finding it difficult to keep up with this thread (I've taken one macro class so I recognize a bit of the terminology) The one thing I have to point out is the debate on service economy vs production economy. I believe the future is most definitely in service, not production. Especially information services. Production/manufacturing is last century, and should be kept in places where it is done cheapest/easiest, no sense in messing with globalization, let it run it's course.

Also, when thinking about a free-market type economy, it can be useful to look at proof-of-concept countries to see what happens.


Hong Kong's economy is dominated by services, which accounts for over 90 percent of its gross domestic product.

In 2006, Hong Kong's per-capita GDP ranked as the 6th highest in the world at US$38,127, ahead of countries such as Switzerland, Denmark, and Japan.[37] Its GDP ranked as the 40th highest at US$253.1 billion.

Hong Kong maintains a highly capitalist economy built on a policy of free market, low taxation and government non-intervention.[28] It is an important centre for international finance and trade, with the greatest concentration of corporate headquarters in the Asia-Pacific region. In terms of gross domestic product per capita and gross metropolitan product, Hong Kong is the wealthiest urban centre in the People's Republic of China. The GDP (PPP) per capita of Hong Kong exceeds the four big economies in Western Europe (UK, France, Germany, Italy), as well as Japan



WIKI

[prometheus]

Prometheus,

Posting 3rd rate articles from writers doing everything they can to scare you into "Watch my program or you'll be BLINDSIDES by the CRASH to come" does not constitute an argument.



First of all, as a rule, you should laugh at anyone who uses the words "big boys" in an article that discusses macroeconomics. If they're using terms like this, you can bet there's some major demagoguery going on.

Calling a 9% increase in M3 a 9% increase in the money supply is asinine. Or demagoguery trying to sell you gold, not sure which. MV=PY, but that's money that's actually being used to purchase goods and services. If you take money and shove it under a mattress, as in the case of foreign central banks, options, etcthat are unlikely to be spent on goods, services, or investment, that money is not in circulation, its essentially under a mattress, and its not impacting inflation.





Eek! Time to panic!

The dollar will devalue, the real exchange rate will fall, imports will become more expensive, exports less so, imports fall exports rise. I can assure you that there will be no crisis.

I haven't seen Henry's shining personality or thousand dollar vocabulary lately but as they say "History will show who was wrong or right."

If you had followed Henry's advice on a strong economy etc. and invested $100,000 in the DJIA blue chips on 12-10-07 the date he threw this shining wisdom out here you would now have: $90,822 a $9178 loss in little over a month.

Now if you had placed that same $100,000 in gold you would now have: $108,296 , a $8296 gain in little over a month.

Hummmm.