Fundamental flaws in the Republican Party

[Night Strike]

So how is there a problem of not enough taxes?

Because people need services that are provided by taxes and the current taxes are not enough to both provide those AND pay down the deficit.

People don't need any of that. They've been convinced by the government that the consequences of their actions don't matter because they government will provide for them if they fail. If government programs were actually built on "need", then they would be a true temporary safety net. Instead, they're a way of life.

Furthermore, if those governmental services are so needed, why hasn't poverty improved in the last 50 years? With all the money the government spends on poverty, why are there more people than ever living off the government? I thought governmental programs were supposed to have multiplier effects on the economy.

Maybe, in reality, these programs are simply keeping people in poverty because there is no incentive to improve oneself. Why would people go work when they get guaranteed paychecks from the government? The only success the War on Poverty has had is plunging the country into massive debts. How is that fair to all the future generations of this country?

It does NOT give everyone a decent wage, doesn't improve the state of the world or the economy once those "low hanging fruit" are achieved. Governments, not the market are needed to move past the easy to obtain solutions. The market won't wait. The market is only for short term immediate solutions, it hurts longer term solutions at the expense of the short term.

Yep, because centrally-planned economies have worked so well everywhere else. The marketplace will always find a solution to a problem....the government just takes money off the top for itself and then throws the rest of the money at completely false solutions.

[AndyDufresne]

So how is there a problem of not enough taxes?

Because people need services that are provided by taxes and the current taxes are not enough to both provide those AND pay down the deficit.

People don't need any of that. They've been convinced by the government that the consequences of their actions don't matter because they government will provide for them if they fail. If government programs were actually built on "need", then they would be a true temporary safety net. Instead, they're a way of life.

Hear hear. I just found this 1933 documentary video about people receiving government assistance.




--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

So how is there a problem of not enough taxes?

Because people need services that are provided by taxes and the current taxes are not enough to both provide those AND pay down the deficit.

People don't need any of that.

I see, people don't need food, clothing, rent.

People don't need a working transportation system.

People don't need medical care.

People don't need oil, cures for most any disease, they don't need lasers, they don't need computers... etc, etc, etc.

Better be careful in pronouncing that we "don't need" the things the government provides.. better be sure you understand exactly what IS provided. So far, you show yourself intentionally and woefully ignorant of that.

They've been convinced by the government that the consequences of their actions don't matter because they government will provide for them if they fail. If government programs were actually built on "need", then they would be a true temporary safety net. Instead, they're a way of life.

yes, the right has been pretty successful in convincing a lot of people that a small increase in taxes or continuing to support services we use will result in a collapse of the free market in this country.

Furthermore, if those governmental services are so needed, why hasn't poverty improved in the last 50 years? With all the money the government spends on poverty, why are there more people than ever living off the government? I thought governmental programs were supposed to have multiplier effects on the economy.

Hmmm.... I guess you have not spent much time down in coal country applacia, becuase the truth is that while we still have poor people, the overall state and impact HAS improved a good deal.

Maybe, in reality, these programs are simply keeping people in poverty because there is no incentive to improve oneself. Why would people go work when they get guaranteed paychecks from the government? The only success the War on Poverty has had is plunging the country into massive debts. How is that fair to all the future generations of this country?

Ah but see, here you defeat your own argument.

First of all, the benefits of which I spoke were not so much those meager payments. They represent a relatively minor blip in the government debt. The benefits to which I referred are things that you, personally benefit from.. but pretend don't exist. Things like safe roads, air traffic, research, etc.You are utterly unaware of how much of your lifestyle is possible precisely becuase of government research. Roughly 30% of our ecnomy, for example is based on laser and computer technologies.. both of which began in government laboratories.

Second, stop pretending that anything I have said means our current welfare system is designed correctly and should not be changed. BUT a big change is to make sure that people can actually EARN what they need so they don't HAVE to depend upon the government for necessities. When jobs only pay $7.50-$7.99 an hour, that is not possible. You claim to be supportive of people paying their own way.. that goes for businesses, too. Demanding that someone work for less than it takes them to live for any reason other than extremely dire need is just not OK. Its not being responsible its being abusive..a nd expecting other people to pick up tabs that should be yours by right.

It does NOT give everyone a decent wage, doesn't improve the state of the world or the economy once those "low hanging fruit" are achieved. Governments, not the market are needed to move past the easy to obtain solutions. The market won't wait. The market is only for short term immediate solutions, it hurts longer term solutions at the expense of the short term.

Yep, because centrally-planned economies have worked so well everywhere else. The marketplace will always find a solution to a problem....the government just takes money off the top for itself and then throws the rest of the money at completely false solutions.

OH please...s top with the idiotic rhetoric. Setting a minimum wage is not going to destroy the free market, such as it exists. Expecting businesses to pay their own way is the only way we will continue to HAVE a free market into the future.

You can pretend all you want that problems will just go away in a free market. It is not reality. It is not history. It is based on fictional ideas, not truth.

[thegreekdog]

Because people need services that are provided by taxes and the current taxes are not enough to both provide those AND pay down the deficit.

How much tax?

[Night Strike]

So how is there a problem of not enough taxes?

Because people need services that are provided by taxes and the current taxes are not enough to both provide those AND pay down the deficit.

People don't need any of that.

I see, people don't need food, clothing, rent.

People don't need a working transportation system.

People don't need medical care.

People don't need oil, cures for most any disease, they don't need lasers, they don't need computers... etc, etc, etc.

Better be careful in pronouncing that we "don't need" the things the government provides.. better be sure you understand exactly what IS provided. So far, you show yourself intentionally and woefully ignorant of that.

Where does the Constitution state that those things must be provided by the federal government? People have to work to provide for themselves....it's not the government's role to just hand out money to people who refuse to work.

yes, the right has been pretty successful in convincing a lot of people that a small increase in taxes or continuing to support services we use will result in a collapse of the free market in this country.

We're already had an increase in taxes, so where are the spending cuts? And how many of those "support services" are either Constitutional or needed?

Hmmm.... I guess you have not spent much time down in coal country applacia, becuase the truth is that while we still have poor people, the overall state and impact HAS improved a good deal.

You mean the areas of the country the president is actively working to shut down through massive new EPA regulations that are not approved by Congress?

[BigBallinStalin]

Yep, because centrally-planned economies have worked so well everywhere else. The marketplace will always find a solution to a problem....the government just takes money off the top for itself and then throws the rest of the money at completely false solutions.

OH please...s top with the idiotic rhetoric. Setting a minimum wage is not going to destroy the free market, such as it exists. Expecting businesses to pay their own way is the only way we will continue to HAVE a free market into the future.

You can pretend all you want that problems will just go away in a free market. It is not reality. It is not history. It is based on fictional ideas, not truth.

Based on this kind of analysis, it is obvious that you do not understand what a free market is.

[AndyDufresne]

All I ever need to know about free markets is contained within this topic


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

Because people need services that are provided by taxes and the current taxes are not enough to both provide those AND pay down the deficit.

How much tax?

The figures have been brought up before. Since I don't think you are actually interested (can google them easily enough), but really just want another point to attack my position... I am not going to bother.

As I said earlier, if you want to get into a more detailed discussion of taxes, I will do it in another thread, not here. And, not today. Being up all night doing laundry and showering my son is now taking its toll.

[thegreekdog]

Because people need services that are provided by taxes and the current taxes are not enough to both provide those AND pay down the deficit.

How much tax?

The figures have been brought up before. Since I don't think you are actually interested (can google them easily enough), but really just want another point to attack my position... I am not going to bother.

As I said earlier, if you want to get into a more detailed discussion of taxes, I will do it in another thread, not here. And, not today. Being up all night doing laundry and showering my son is now taking its toll.

What figures? When before? I googled the following phrases:

"How much tax revenue is needed to pay down the debt" which isn't even the scenario you're posing. You're posing a scenario of providing MORE services than are currently provided AND paying down the debt. My google result came up wih various completely unreliable sources mostly consisting of what I showed you before, which is that raising taxes will not solve the deficit problem, much less pay for MORE services.

Bring something to the goddamn table Player. I bring information, websites, and data constantly. You bring nothing. You're willfully ignorant.

[tzor]

So how is there a problem of not enough taxes?

Because people need services that are provided by taxes and the current taxes are not enough to both provide those AND pay down the deficit.

You are like Antoinette... telling the guy who shouted "we have no bread" to just "eat cake".

That does it! Will you please stop spreading these false French Revolutionary conspiracy theories? She never said any such thing!

While it is commonly attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette, there is no record of this phrase ever having been uttered by her. It appears in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Confessions, his autobiography (whose first six books were written in 1765, when Marie Antoinette was nine years of age, and published in 1782). The context of Rousseau's account was his desire for bread, to accompany some wine he had stolen; however, in feeling he was too elegantly dressed to go into an ordinary bakery, he thus recollected the words of a "great princess".

Now, get off your high emotional horse and start thinking logically like the scientist you are. You are mixing apples and bananas here and while I have to admit I'm kind of hungry, I'm not buying it.

If you look at federal revenue received as a function of GDP throughout the modern era (past WWII) you will find it generally flat. High tax rates, low tax rates (and we have had both) the percentage relative to GDP has been flat. Of course we don't really care about taxes as a function of GDP, but gross taxes in general. However, this reminds us that the only real way to increase federal revenue is not "higher taxes" (which does nothing unless you believe that raising taxes raises GDP, which would sort of be the equivalent of a "young earth" economist) but to instead implement tax policy that would increase GDP.

That's not being mean or nasty, that is economic math reality.

Let's continue with that same economic reality, for a moment.

Ignoring for the moment the progressive social hellhole that come from the welfare state, and the question of who should provide what, the simple fact of the matter is that true need is inversely proportional to GDP. (in other words we have more people with needs in a recession than in an economic boom.) In the idea world (which used to be the states for a number of decades) revenues during boom years would exceed expenses and these additional revenues were put into what they called a "rainy day fund" for this specific reason. But at the federal level, that didn't happen and it ain't happening.

In fact, at the federal level, the notion of supplying all the necessary social needs and having an excess to pay down the debt at the same time is flat out impossible. Getting revenue neutral is almost a pipe dream at this point ... revenue positive, given the current economic conditions ... forget about it.

And so we are back to GDP ... in the end it's always about GDP. If we could wave a magic wand and double out GDP all our problems would go away.

Ironically, we could, but given the current administration, we won't.

But let's ignore logic and go for the emotional arguments. That's always been a problem with the Republican party, we don't talk from the heart.

Taxes are a form of legalized theft, and taxes for social programs is a lot like robbing from one person to pay another person. No matter how one personally feels about that first person, robbing from him is never a moral good. Moreover, robbing from him has negative repercussions that wind up impacting everyone. (Because, in the end, crime doesn't pay, even when you are the government.) More over, the more you tax, the less that person would want to (officially) make. Which is better? Doubling a person's tax or having a person's income double? The later, as doubling a person's tax may discourage that person from working at the level he is currently working at. More over, the less you rob from the person, the more the person would be open to acts of charity (which gladdens the heart of the giver and happy people tend to work harder) which in turn lowers the need for government assistance (and brings charity to the proper level in our society).

As they say on the airplane, "please put on your own oxygen mask before assisting others."

Thus from a logical and emotion point of view, raising taxes is the exact opposite of what needs to be done.

[Juan_Bottom]

I admit I laughed cause you're so angry.
But for a fourth time: THE CBO ANALYSIS AND WHATNOT DON'T MATTER ONE LICK BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE SEQUESTER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POINT AT ALL. You quoted me saying that, but why don't you understand it?

completely comfortable with saying that I cannot prove that Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are trying to destroy public trust, but I can point to a string of evidence which is currently being dissected and accepted by free thinkers of both parties. My last write-up about it has over 20,000 shares on Facebook.

Good. Stop fucking talking about your cool shit and give it to me. Stop whining. I asked for this string of evidence two pages ago. Where is it? Democratic Underground hasn't written it yet? Until then, you won't get a cookie for having 20,000 shares on Facebook.

Oh dear, another TGD rant about how everyone is stupid and/or trolling him.

Thoughts guys?

My thoughts are that it took you like 11 pages to stop arguing about the content of the Sequester and to ask what the f*ck your opponent (me) was actually talking about. All the while your opponent (me) had to repeat in every post that he was never talking about the content of the Sequester. I understand that the Liberals on tv are probably talking about content, and so when a liberal who is not on tv even mentions the Sequester you robotic-ly go into "you stupid Liberals don't understand the Sequester's content" mode without listening. Even after you [rudely] asked what I was talking about, you followed it up with more inane arguments about the content of the Sequester. Even in the same post....>

Well, there's conspiracy and there's fact. This is the same go round we always have. I've provided you with information, namely that the sequestration was, at least partially or mostly, the fault of the president. Further, I've provided you with how the budget gets allocated and that any cuts that you whine about above are the fault of the president. Even further, I've provided you with the specific dollar amounts associated with each cut for the first year of the cuts. I've provided all that information to you to show you that (1) the sequestration isn't bad; (2) it was not something cooked up by Cantor and Ryan to screw the country (which you still haven't explained; and (3) it was mostly the fault of your savior and our current president. .

Seriously? I gave you the fucking GAO analysis! I mean, you must be trolling, right? Just send me a pm and tell me you're trolling. I won't tell anyone.

Honestly I'm at a loss as to how to even explain it to you. You don't believe that politicians ever tell the truth, and you're always arguing about things I'm not talking about. Any idiot could connect the dots between the Ayn Rand/Laissez-Faire politician Paul Ryan and his desire to shrink our government through whatever legal means he can find, including shaking the people's faith in it. Cantor and Ryan were behind the Sequester, which cut out a fair amount of government spending and hurt the bureaucracy, but you respond to that by saying "you're delusional. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan don't want to cut anything." They just friggin' did, helloooooo, it's called the SEQUESTER. All I ever tried to say was that "they're trying to destroy the public trust in the Federal Government." Which I believe even NS, for all of our disagreements, can see for himself. And look at all these pages of arguments you've laid out that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my point, whatsoever. And I never said they were "trying to screw the country." I don't question their integrity; they really think that they are doing the best thing for everyone. I'm questioning their intelligence and allegiance. And no, the Obama Administration is not behind the Sequester. (I know you can't believe this) If they had their way, the money would be put back, at least into the Socialist programs.

And Sym is right too. I'm arguing UP HERE and you're arguing down here...... so you try to drag me down by claiming I'm stupid and trolling. You do it all the time.

[Juan_Bottom]

Yep, because centrally-planned economies have worked so well everywhere else. The marketplace will always find a solution to a problem....the government just takes money off the top for itself and then throws the rest of the money at completely false solutions.

OH please...s top with the idiotic rhetoric. Setting a minimum wage is not going to destroy the free market, such as it exists. Expecting businesses to pay their own way is the only way we will continue to HAVE a free market into the future.

You can pretend all you want that problems will just go away in a free market. It is not reality. It is not history. It is based on fictional ideas, not truth.

Based on this kind of analysis, it is obvious that you do not understand what a free market is.

What?
Her second paragraph seems to be referencing the places that do have 100% free markets, like Somalia (though Anarchist). So she's pretty much right. The only time a free market stays free is through taxation and regulation.

Just because she sometimes speaks with straight facts and at other times she speaks in generalities does not mean she is dumb, or that you are smarter than her. It means she respects your intelligence enough to assume that you'll be able to understand her common-sense arguments. For your benefite I've included an explaination of her argument from another source -

Historically, a fully free market has never existed. Most "free market" economies are "mixed."

To expound on the above, a "true free market" is one where there is no government involvement whatsoever - that is, no regulations or laws of any sort. The only role of a government in a TFM is to provide a common currency, and to enforce contracts.

For fairly obvious reasons, a TFM is a really, really bad idea. It inevitably allows for the exploitation of the poor and less powerful by those who have more wealth or power. Actually, that's not a strong enough statement. A TFM requires that those with more power and wealth abuse those below them, and quickly leads to almost total concentration of wealth in a tiny minority of hands.

Consequently, all countries which use a Free Market form of economy also impose some level of regulation upon it, to remove the worst excesses. The level of government intervention in a Free Market economy varies from country to country, but all countries employ some form of regulation.

Here's another good, and pretty frustrating, example of willful ignorance:

You can pick examples that illustrate how "fair" the system is all you wish, but the plain fact is that the game of moving money around to avoid taxes is a serious threat to the economies of many countries.

Step One: Player makes a point
Step Two: TGD refutes the point using data with links to other, reputable, websites and provides an analysis.
Step Three: "You can do what you want, but the plain fact is [unsupported by any data or analysis whatsoever]." Which is really code for Player sticking her fingers in her ears (or closing her eyes, as the case may be) and screaming, "LA LA LA LA LA, you can't convince me! I'm going with the viewpoint that best represents my worldview and facts won't change my mind. LA LA LA LA LA!"

Wasn't it one of the contributing factors of the global recession and also a contributing factor to the huge concentration of wealth in the hands of the 1%?
Maybe she just assumes that everyone is smart enough to understand that she's talking about current events?

[Juan_Bottom]

Taxes are a form of legalized theft, and taxes for social programs is a lot like robbing from one person to pay another person. No matter how one personally feels about that first person, robbing from him is never a moral good. Moreover, robbing from him has negative repercussions that wind up impacting everyone. (Because, in the end, crime doesn't pay, even when you are the government.) More over, the more you tax, the less that person would want to (officially) make. Which is better? Doubling a person's tax or having a person's income double? The later, as doubling a person's tax may discourage that person from working at the level he is currently working at. More over, the less you rob from the person, the more the person would be open to acts of charity (which gladdens the heart of the giver and happy people tend to work harder) which in turn lowers the need for government assistance (and brings charity to the proper level in our society).

This is a joke, but somewhat serious. Tzor have you ever considered re-writing children's storys to reflect a Conservative point of view?

[Night Strike]

Cantor and Ryan were behind the Sequester

Incorrect. The president and his administration proposed the sequester. Cantor and Ryan may have been involved in creating the environment that led to the creation of the sequester idea, but the idea itself came from Obama.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yep, because centrally-planned economies have worked so well everywhere else. The marketplace will always find a solution to a problem....the government just takes money off the top for itself and then throws the rest of the money at completely false solutions.

OH please...s top with the idiotic rhetoric. Setting a minimum wage is not going to destroy the free market, such as it exists. Expecting businesses to pay their own way is the only way we will continue to HAVE a free market into the future.

You can pretend all you want that problems will just go away in a free market. It is not reality. It is not history. It is based on fictional ideas, not truth.

Based on this kind of analysis, it is obvious that you do not understand what a free market is.

What?
Her second paragraph seems to be referencing the places that do have 100% free markets, like Somalia (though Anarchist). So she's pretty much right. The only time a free market stays free is through taxation and regulation.

Just because she sometimes speaks with straight facts and at other times she speaks in generalities does not mean she is dumb, or that you are smarter than her. It means she respects your intelligence enough to assume that you'll be able to understand her common-sense arguments. For your benefite I've included an explaination of her argument from another source -

Historically, a fully free market has never existed. Most "free market" economies are "mixed."

To expound on the above, a "true free market" is one where there is no government involvement whatsoever - that is, no regulations or laws of any sort. The only role of a government in a TFM is to provide a common currency, and to enforce contracts.

For fairly obvious reasons, a TFM is a really, really bad idea. It inevitably allows for the exploitation of the poor and less powerful by those who have more wealth or power. Actually, that's not a strong enough statement. A TFM requires that those with more power and wealth abuse those below them, and quickly leads to almost total concentration of wealth in a tiny minority of hands.

Consequently, all countries which use a Free Market form of economy also impose some level of regulation upon it, to remove the worst excesses. The level of government intervention in a Free Market economy varies from country to country, but all countries employ some form of regulation.

Apparently, you don't know what a free market is.

You can have markets in law, markets in security provision, and markets in currency, etc. Therefore, the following: " a "true free market" is one where there is no government involvement whatsoever - that is, no regulations or laws of any sort" is false.

Taxation and regulation mixed with free markets does not mean that you have free markets. Therefore, "The only time a free market stays free is through taxation and regulation" makes no sense at all. Free markets can't exist within a political boundary in which there are state-mandated monopolies on regulation. Involuntary exchanges (e.g. taxation) are antithetical to free markets too. This is pretty basic stuff about free markets, Juan.

"To provide a common currency." Oh boy. That's not worth addressing with you. Sorry. As for the rest, based on your lack of knowledge and your presumptuous attitude/faith, it would be completely pointless for me to get involved.

[Juan_Bottom]

Cantor and Ryan were behind the Sequester

Incorrect. The president and his administration proposed the sequester. Cantor and Ryan may have been involved in creating the environment that led to the creation of the sequester idea, but the idea itself came from Obama.

That's kind of just splitting hairs. It wasn't the Obama Administration's desire for the Sequester to take any effect, they were just outwitted (I guess) by Cantor and Ryan. That's why Cantor said that he and Ryan were the ones who pushed for the Sequester to happen while the administration was trying to negotiate ways to keep it from happening. I just don't think that it's fair to lay the blame at Obama's feet for that.

Apparently, you don't know what a free market is.

You can have markets in law, markets in security provision, and markets in currency, etc. Therefore, the following: " a "true free market" is one where there is no government involvement whatsoever - that is, no regulations or laws of any sort" is false.

Taxation and regulation mixed with free markets does not mean that you have free markets. Therefore, "The only time a free market stays free is through taxation and regulation" makes no sense at all. Free markets can't exist within a political boundary in which there are state-mandated monopolies on regulation. Involuntary exchanges (e.g. taxation) are antithetical to free markets too. This is pretty basic stuff about free markets, Juan.

"To provide a common currency." Oh boy. That's not worth addressing with you. Sorry. As for the rest, based on your lack of knowledge and your presumptuous attitude/faith, it would be completely pointless for me to get involved.

Wow.
You're a Rotifer.


Did it ever occur to you, GOD of pretend economists, that maybe I was speaking in both generalities and straight facts at the same time, just like Player? Why else would I have even commented on that in my last post, son? But I can't understand this for you. I even knew you would do this and prepared my response in advance. You never really try to understand anyone you don't like, you just try to one-up them. Why not take a puff from your inhaler and analyze before you criticize?
Free markets are pretend things; they don't exist, so by definition we have to speak in generalities when talking about free markets or comparing markets that exist in the real world. The closest we have come to my knowledge, is as I said before, Somalia.
It's just like if someone says:
"Rio is Heaven on Earth."
"The Free Market In America"
Similar Sh*t, no?

You can have markets in law, markets in security provision, and markets in currency, etc. Therefore, the following: " a "true free market" is one where there is no government involvement whatsoever - that is, no regulations or laws of any sort" is false.

Wrong.
According to Wiki, a free market has absolutely no government intervention, and is set by supply and demand.

A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, wage rates, interest rates — along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods — are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies.

But you already knew that, because you also parroted: "Free markets can't exist within a political boundary in which there are state-mandated monopolies on regulation." If you had bothered to check my source, you would have found that it was published on WikiAnswers too. And while I'm sure you're thinking "WIKI is no source!!!! or, I'm smarter than WIKI!!!!," I've gotta stop you there, because I'm pretty sure that the community here would trust wiki + wiki answer's answers over yours. And hey, you repeated it yourself with "Free markets can't exist within a political boundary in which there are state-mandated monopolies on regulation." If you want to stop talking about Free Market Economies and switch to Free Markets of Currency or some sh*t you're welcome to, but that wasn't the discussion that I was responding to.

[PLAYER57832]

greekdog.. starting new thread on taxes

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=187110

[PLAYER57832]

Per the bit about Repubs and the deficit... isn't it interesting that the Republican party plans all involve passing costs now covered by government programs onto AVERAGE people,( such as giving seniors vouchers that won't increase, leaving them to pay for the excess )... whereas the Democratic plan involves true long term cuts to costs,( such as by negotiating for lower perscription costs,)

[thegreekdog]

I admit I laughed cause you're so angry.
But for a fourth time: THE CBO ANALYSIS AND WHATNOT DON'T MATTER ONE LICK BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE SEQUESTER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POINT AT ALL. You quoted me saying that, but why don't you understand it?

completely comfortable with saying that I cannot prove that Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are trying to destroy public trust, but I can point to a string of evidence which is currently being dissected and accepted by free thinkers of both parties. My last write-up about it has over 20,000 shares on Facebook.

Good. Stop fucking talking about your cool shit and give it to me. Stop whining. I asked for this string of evidence two pages ago. Where is it? Democratic Underground hasn't written it yet? Until then, you won't get a cookie for having 20,000 shares on Facebook.

Oh dear, another TGD rant about how everyone is stupid and/or trolling him.

Thoughts guys?

My thoughts are that it took you like 11 pages to stop arguing about the content of the Sequester and to ask what the f*ck your opponent (me) was actually talking about. All the while your opponent (me) had to repeat in every post that he was never talking about the content of the Sequester. I understand that the Liberals on tv are probably talking about content, and so when a liberal who is not on tv even mentions the Sequester you robotic-ly go into "you stupid Liberals don't understand the Sequester's content" mode without listening. Even after you [rudely] asked what I was talking about, you followed it up with more inane arguments about the content of the Sequester. Even in the same post....>

Well, there's conspiracy and there's fact. This is the same go round we always have. I've provided you with information, namely that the sequestration was, at least partially or mostly, the fault of the president. Further, I've provided you with how the budget gets allocated and that any cuts that you whine about above are the fault of the president. Even further, I've provided you with the specific dollar amounts associated with each cut for the first year of the cuts. I've provided all that information to you to show you that (1) the sequestration isn't bad; (2) it was not something cooked up by Cantor and Ryan to screw the country (which you still haven't explained; and (3) it was mostly the fault of your savior and our current president. .

Seriously? I gave you the fucking GAO analysis! I mean, you must be trolling, right? Just send me a pm and tell me you're trolling. I won't tell anyone.

Honestly I'm at a loss as to how to even explain it to you. You don't believe that politicians ever tell the truth, and you're always arguing about things I'm not talking about. Any idiot could connect the dots between the Ayn Rand/Laissez-Faire politician Paul Ryan and his desire to shrink our government through whatever legal means he can find, including shaking the people's faith in it. Cantor and Ryan were behind the Sequester, which cut out a fair amount of government spending and hurt the bureaucracy, but you respond to that by saying "you're delusional. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan don't want to cut anything." They just friggin' did, helloooooo, it's called the SEQUESTER. All I ever tried to say was that "they're trying to destroy the public trust in the Federal Government." Which I believe even NS, for all of our disagreements, can see for himself. And look at all these pages of arguments you've laid out that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my point, whatsoever. And I never said they were "trying to screw the country." I don't question their integrity; they really think that they are doing the best thing for everyone. I'm questioning their intelligence and allegiance. And no, the Obama Administration is not behind the Sequester. (I know you can't believe this) If they had their way, the money would be put back, at least into the Socialist programs.

And Sym is right too. I'm arguing UP HERE and you're arguing down here...... so you try to drag me down by claiming I'm stupid and trolling. You do it all the time.

Sigh, you're right. You are arguing something and I have no idea what it is that you're arguing. On the one hand, you're not talking about the sequester and, if you were talking about the sequester, which you're not, you're arguing it was a plot or plan by Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan to destroy trust in the federal government, and not on account of anything the president did.

So, I ask again, for the third time, please provide to me your sources so that I can better understand your argument.

My argument, again, is that Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor do not want to cut spending. And as I've indicated in this thread, and in other, similar threads, most Republicans, including Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor, do not want to cut spending for specific things, like, for example, the military. Ryan and Cantor may want to cut spending to after school programs, but, as was demonstrated in other threads, cuts to things like that alone will not balance the budget deficit.

My response to your argument that Cantor and Ryan are trying to destroy trust in the federal government is that long before the first quarter of 2013, Congressional approval was at all-time lows. Long before Cantor and Ryan came to prominence, Congressional approval was at all-time lows. So, until I understand the sources you are using to determine your point, I cannot make any other argument than that. And that is why I think you're trolling me. It's as if you are saying X and when I ask you to show your sources for X, you go on some tangent about how you're awesome, I'm arguing down here, etc. I've asked you for some help understanding your argument and you've yet to provide it.

Further, the sequester doesn't actually cut spending, as I've demonstrated through the use of GAO data. The sequester slows the increase of spending.

You've indicated on multiple occasions, including in the quoted post above, that the sequester was not the president's fault (despite that you're not discussing the sequester apparently). As I've demonstrated (complete with links to websites and quotes), it was at least partially the president's fault. You've not demonstrated that it was not the president's fault EXCEPT through some analysis you've indicated you have, but I'm not intelligent enough to understand.

You have yet to refute any of these points and until now have not addressed them in any serious way. Your argument in the post above is that "any idiot" could connect the dots between Cantor/Ryan and their views on the federal government. And that would be a great argument except it's not supported by any data whatsoever.

In sum, you've addressed the sequester (many times), you've mentioned the Cantor/Ryan connection and blaming the sequester on them and not on the president, and the entirety of your argument (at least right now) consists of what you believe is a novel position that the Republican Party (led by Cantor and Ryan) is trying to erode the public trust in the federal government. None of this is supported in any way by any links to third party sources or data.

In sum, my response is that the sequester can be blamed on Congress and the president collectively, that the sequester was not a cut in spending, it was a cut in the planned increase of spending, that Cantor/Ryan and most Republicans do not want to sufficiently cut spending, and that the public trust in the federal government was eroded long before you came up with this idea that Cantor and Ryan are trying to erode that public trust. All of this is supported by links to third party sources and data.

But let's use some common sense for a second. If Cantor and Ryan want to erode public trust in the federal government through the sequester, and if any idiot could see that they wanted to do that, why would the president permit the sequester by signing the bill into law in the first place? Further, if the president could see what Cantor and Ryan are trying to do, why would he go on a world tour and allows his representatives to speak out regarding the disaster that would befall the federal government if the sequester happened? Why would the president make a show of closing the White House to tours as a sign of the horrible sequester? Is Obama in on the conspiracy?

[BigBallinStalin]

Cantor and Ryan were behind the Sequester

Incorrect. The president and his administration proposed the sequester. Cantor and Ryan may have been involved in creating the environment that led to the creation of the sequester idea, but the idea itself came from Obama.

That's kind of just splitting hairs. It wasn't the Obama Administration's desire for the Sequester to take any effect, they were just outwitted (I guess) by Cantor and Ryan. That's why Cantor said that he and Ryan were the ones who pushed for the Sequester to happen while the administration was trying to negotiate ways to keep it from happening. I just don't think that it's fair to lay the blame at Obama's feet for that.

Apparently, you don't know what a free market is.

You can have markets in law, markets in security provision, and markets in currency, etc. Therefore, the following: " a "true free market" is one where there is no government involvement whatsoever - that is, no regulations or laws of any sort" is false.

Taxation and regulation mixed with free markets does not mean that you have free markets. Therefore, "The only time a free market stays free is through taxation and regulation" makes no sense at all. Free markets can't exist within a political boundary in which there are state-mandated monopolies on regulation. Involuntary exchanges (e.g. taxation) are antithetical to free markets too. This is pretty basic stuff about free markets, Juan.

"To provide a common currency." Oh boy. That's not worth addressing with you. Sorry. As for the rest, based on your lack of knowledge and your presumptuous attitude/faith, it would be completely pointless for me to get involved.

Wow.
You're a Rotifer.


Did it ever occur to you, GOD of pretend economists, that maybe I was speaking in both generalities and straight facts at the same time, just like Player? Why else would I have even commented on that in my last post, son? But I can't understand this for you. I even knew you would do this and prepared my response in advance. You never really try to understand anyone you don't like, you just try to one-up them. Why not take a puff from your inhaler and analyze before you criticize?
Free markets are pretend things; they don't exist, so by definition we have to speak in generalities when talking about free markets or comparing markets that exist in the real world. The closest we have come to my knowledge, is as I said before, Somalia.
It's just like if someone says:
"Rio is Heaven on Earth."
"The Free Market In America"
Similar Sh*t, no?

You can have markets in law, markets in security provision, and markets in currency, etc. Therefore, the following: " a "true free market" is one where there is no government involvement whatsoever - that is, no regulations or laws of any sort" is false.

Wrong.
According to Wiki, a free market has absolutely no government intervention, and is set by supply and demand.

A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, wage rates, interest rates — along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods — are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies.

But you already knew that, because you also parroted: "Free markets can't exist within a political boundary in which there are state-mandated monopolies on regulation." If you had bothered to check my source, you would have found that it was published on WikiAnswers too. And while I'm sure you're thinking "WIKI is no source!!!! or, I'm smarter than WIKI!!!!," I've gotta stop you there, because I'm pretty sure that the community here would trust wiki + wiki answer's answers over yours. And hey, you repeated it yourself with "Free markets can't exist within a political boundary in which there are state-mandated monopolies on regulation." If you want to stop talking about Free Market Economies and switch to Free Markets of Currency or some sh*t you're welcome to, but that wasn't the discussion that I was responding to.

Haha, you should reread that wiki quote, which by the way is from wiki. Maybe focus on the word "unhindered."

Sorry, JB, you're still wrong on this, which isn't surprising. Now, you're doubling down (like Viceroy) on your nonsense.

You're stuck in this mental framework of associating law and regulation with only government, but there are substitutes (e.g. free markets of those goods and services). Your wiki quote does not exclude the possibilities which I've mentioned. It completely supports my stance and rejects yours, which is why all of this is really funny.

[Night Strike]

Per the bit about Repubs and the deficit... isn't it interesting that the Republican party plans all involve passing costs now covered by government programs onto AVERAGE people,( such as giving seniors vouchers that won't increase, leaving them to pay for the excess )... whereas the Democratic plan involves true long term cuts to costs,( such as by negotiating for lower perscription costs,)

That's because the answer isn't more governmental programs or involvement. Costs are lowered by competition in the marketplace and individuals shopping for the things they need.

[PLAYER57832]

Per the bit about Repubs and the deficit... isn't it interesting that the Republican party plans all involve passing costs now covered by government programs onto AVERAGE people,( such as giving seniors vouchers that won't increase, leaving them to pay for the excess )... whereas the Democratic plan involves true long term cuts to costs,( such as by negotiating for lower perscription costs,)

That's because the answer isn't more governmental programs or involvement. Costs are lowered by competition in the marketplace and individuals shopping for the things they need.

Oh get off your rhetoric high horse and start accepting realities.

The day the free market, alone will make this world a better place is the day that I don't have to spend 20K to get a refrigerator that lasts more than 5 years. I USED to live in that world. The "free market" has ensured I no longer do.. and that instad of taping my shows in a reusable VCR, I have to use a tivo-like device that works only on the one TV its hooked up to, only as long as I pay AND that makes sure the cable company knows every last second of use.

While you are fussing about "government takeover" the information everyone needs to make decisions is being quickly and quietly co-opted, sold and taken by companies in the name of profit. THAT is the real threat to our democracy. But you are too busy attacking the government.. the government by the people to care that our freedom is being sold for someone else's profit.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh get off your rhetoric high horse and start accepting realities.

The day the free market, alone will make this world a better place is the day that I don't have to spend 20K to get a refrigerator that lasts more than 5 years. I USED to live in that world. The "free market" has ensured I no longer do.. and that instad of taping my shows in a reusable VCR, I have to use a tivo-like device that works only on the one TV its hooked up to, only as long as I pay AND that makes sure the cable company knows every last second of use.

Depending on the price of internet (satellite is your most likely option), you can seek substitutes there. Torrent sites and legit sources on the internet are the way to go (PM for details). This way you can throw out that tivo-stuff and say good-bye to the cable company's rules, regulations, and fees.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh get off your rhetoric high horse and start accepting realities.

The day the free market, alone will make this world a better place is the day that I don't have to spend 20K to get a refrigerator that lasts more than 5 years. I USED to live in that world. The "free market" has ensured I no longer do.. and that instad of taping my shows in a reusable VCR, I have to use a tivo-like device that works only on the one TV its hooked up to, only as long as I pay AND that makes sure the cable company knows every last second of use.

Depending on the price of internet (satellite is your most likely option), you can seek substitutes there. Torrent sites and legit sources on the internet are the way to go (PM for details). This way you can throw out that tivo-stuff and say good-bye to the cable company's rules, regulations, and fees.

ALL of those options you mention collect my information... and will be able to sell it. For my part, I would throw the TV in the garbage (seriously), by my husband is addicted to shows that are not offered in those other locations (the outdoor channel, etc.). But truly, my point is that we had a good thing... and now we have to take something that is not as good, that benefits some people a bit, but that mostly benefits marketers more.

There was a book out recently on this, but did you know (just as an example) that google is better able to predict an impending flu outbreak in a particular area than the CBC? (they can do so in almost "real time" as opposed to the days it takes the CBC). In law enforcement, we are already getting close to "pre crime" -- convicting people before they commit a crime. We see that already in many demands to be stricter with people who have mental illnes, following the Sandy Hook shooting, for example.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh get off your rhetoric high horse and start accepting realities.

The day the free market, alone will make this world a better place is the day that I don't have to spend 20K to get a refrigerator that lasts more than 5 years. I USED to live in that world. The "free market" has ensured I no longer do.. and that instad of taping my shows in a reusable VCR, I have to use a tivo-like device that works only on the one TV its hooked up to, only as long as I pay AND that makes sure the cable company knows every last second of use.

Depending on the price of internet (satellite is your most likely option), you can seek substitutes there. Torrent sites and legit sources on the internet are the way to go (PM for details). This way you can throw out that tivo-stuff and say good-bye to the cable company's rules, regulations, and fees.

ALL of those options you mention collect my information... and will be able to sell it. For my part, I would throw the TV in the garbage (seriously), by my husband is addicted to shows that are not offered in those other locations (the outdoor channel, etc.). But truly, my point is that we had a good thing... and now we have to take something that is not as good, that benefits some people a bit, but that mostly benefits marketers more.

There was a book out recently on this, but did you know (just as an example) that google is better able to predict an impending flu outbreak in a particular area than the CBC? (they can do so in almost "real time" as opposed to the days it takes the CBC). In law enforcement, we are already getting close to "pre crime" -- convicting people before they commit a crime. We see that already in many demands to be stricter with people who have mental illnes, following the Sandy Hook shooting, for example.

Well, regarding collection of information, the relatively free market of the Internet* has provided us with free applications/add-ons like DoNotTrackMe and AdBlock+. Given this, your privacy will be more secure than with cable TV.

And back to my main point, if the main issue is money, then "you can save bundle by switching to the Internet."

RE: your second paragraph, I've heard of that story about Google and the CDC. With these issues, it's difficult to compare the relative benefits and costs, but with privacy concerns, as long as the exchanges are voluntary and that the parties involved are aware of the implications, then I have no problem with corporations collecting the customers' information.


*(The Internet is perhaps the closest example to a purely free market).