(July 28, 2012 at 10:27 pm)A Theist Wrote: Ha Ha! Excellent!...and I'll organize a revolt of the masses when you become president!

That's cheating! No dying in some Waco-style compound just to save face. You have to live through the eight years so when it's all over and it turns out you were wrong, you have to admit it.

Trust me. I've been there as a former conservative Republican. It's not so hard to do.

---

(July 29, 2012 at 1:14 am)Stue Denim Wrote: Absolutely =D. And I'm guessing you know that I would opt for the first option (and you the second), this would make for an excellent debate topic. The situation you currently find yourself in is one neither of us would opt for.

Actually, I would say "it depends".

Remember the whole reason the government got involved with the banks at all is because of the crash in 1929. Government insurance for bank deposits has helped create some peace of mind and prevent panic. Panic is, after all, something to avoid at almost any cost if you hope for a healthy economy.

I'm actually sympathetic to libertarian ideals when it comes to business. I just see a need for the government regulators to get involved if foolhardy and shortsighted decisions might cause the whole thing to come crashing down. How would you suggest we avoid runs on the banks if there is no government insurance?

Quote:what then are your thoughts on public sector unions? Is there still a balance as with in the private sector, do you think?

Above all, it's important to remember that the whole frackus over public sector unions is really a cover for a larger political strategy. If I may be so bold, it's the "endgame" strategy for corporate interests.

With the floodgates of "Citizens United" opened wide, elections is now more than ever about fundraising. To a great (and shameful) extent, it always was in America but now far more so. Republicans can count on major corporations and wealthy donors. The only organized source of funding for the Democrats is unions. Once those are broken, Republicans have unlimited funding from corporations while Democrats get to hold bake sales.

My personal feeling is we should ban all forms of political advertisement completely. Replace the Madison Ave soundbites and scary music with spooky voiceovers with substantive weekly debates.
We need to get the funding out of American politics.

Quote:The tax burden and the tax compliance burden (you need to pay to be able to navigate the thousands of pages of tax rules) are further kicking businesses while they are down imo. With europe being a basket case I would say that you can't afford to have those nonsense regulations.

As one who runs a business myself, I can tell you what's killing me is not taxes or regulations but the lack of demand (from the death of the Middle Class) and competition from China. What distinguishes a healthy 1st world capitalist economy from a third world one is a healthy Middle Class (the latter are stratified into a small percentage of blue bloods and the rest as peasantry). We need to spend less time worrying about Wall Street and more about Main Street or else we'll continue to slide.

Quote:How would you go about the massive stimulus? Or, wanna start a economy based new thread?

America's infrastructure is crumbling. The Obama package is helping somewhat but it wasn't aggressive enough. In theory, it should be like giving a heart attack victim a shock from a defibrillator. Putting even temporary construction jobs in place, creating a stronger infrastructure that will benefit the economy anyway, will place more money into the hands of the working class and create demand that will be good for business.

Tax cuts once sounded good to me in the 80s but they've been shown to have little or no economic impact. In retrospect, it's not hard to understand why. The "job creators" don't just hire people because they have extra money. They do so because they see opportunity to make even more money. With the lack of demand, the result of a dying Middle Class, job creators will simply pocket the extra money (which is precisely what happened). The only result of the W Bush tax cuts was to increase the economic divide in America between the haves and have nots.

Quote:What did you learn creed?

Creed? I'm not sure I understand your question.

Quote: Back to healthcare: How then would you guys go about dealing with those who are unhealthy due to their own actions and those who were injured when engaging in reckless activities (the obese, the smokers, the daredevils, and the guys who exercise their right not to wear a seatbelt and end up flying through a windscreen), under socialised medicine?

Same way we deal with them now under Medicare.

My solution to America's health care costs is simply "Medicare for all". It would be the easiest solution to implement since the rules and infrastructure are already in place. All that is needed is to expand it to all age groups.

This would be a more efficient solution, cost wise, because we'd eliminate an unnecessary middleman, namely insurance companies. Medicare has its problems too, but for-profit insurance is far worse.

One of the things I learned in Organizational Behavior class, in fact rule #1, is that you get what you reward. Rewarding A and hoping for B is folly. This is the problem with our current health care scheme. Insurance companies have a vested interest to NOT provide care unless they are forced to. Hence the fox running the chicken coup analogy.

I do believe that 9 times out of 10, for profit business is a more efficient and effective way to care for consumer demand. Health care is the 1 in 10 where the government provides a better option.

A Theist, here is a political compass, with 2012 Presidential candidates:



As you can see, Obama is on the right. The Republican party seems to be aiming for the gullible idiot vote now.

Sorry, I was asking Creed of Heresy a question, he said he'd learnt something, came to a new understanding, but didn't share what that was.

looking at that graph, Gary johnson is only excellent by comparison? =P

Well, runs on the bank, ok.

What if there were no government guarantee on deposits, how much more discerning would people be in terms of which banks you choose? Without a government backing people are thinking "how likely is it that my gold/silver/paper will still be here when I come to spend it" as well as "how much interest are they offering me", rather than just focusing on the interest. Now banks get much less reckless and hold much more reserves, because their depositors insist on it. I would imagine there would be a larger market for banking where you actually pay the bank to just keep your gold/silver/paper... safe and maybe not lend it out at all (not that that doesn't already exist, just that there would be a much bigger market). People looking for interest payments would go with banks that do lend out their depositors money, even to the point of lending out more than they hold, and if people bank with such a bank what they are doing is taking on risk in return for profit. That's their decision, and their consequences to deal with. The government backing, by reducing the risk of any one bank failing, makes all banks become riskier, even the banks that would be conservative can't advertise themselves as effectively as safe banks*, because they are all 'safe', they must attract depositors by offering higher interest rates, which means making they all have to make more, (and perhaps riskier), loans. I'm not convinced that we need to stop all bank runs, banks just vault all their cash/gold are immune except in cases of large-scale theft, and banks that are still sound investments, despite panics with no basis in reality, will still get wise investors. Banks that are run poorly will eventually have a bank run, and so what? Why keep a poorly run bank around and why promise to make anyone who deals with it whole again? The depositors lose their deposits, that's what happens when you hand your money over to muppets. Fraud is what needs to be policed.

Didn't you still have bank runs in the 80's(edit, wrote 70's initially, my bad)? And it can still happen because the government guarantee is up to a certain amount and not indefinite, no? Though from what I understand (I could be wrong) the 80's situation was handled better than the current situation, where healthy banks (well run ones) were given cash to buy up the useless ones (or their 'assets'). It's still not ideal, but it's much better than simply paying the assholes who got you into the crisis in the first place. Northern rock, still had a bank run. 1907 panic, who stopped that one? The fed was created in 1913 after the 1907 panic (and ones before that) IIRC, which is when I'd say government really got involved (again).

I disagree, and think citizens united was actually good for you guys. Take a read of the transcript of citizens united, and do a ctrl/command F search for the word 'book'. It's scary stuff.

I hate the idea of abridging the freedom of speech. Even on a purely utilitarian basis, I think that that the harm that would result would be greater than the benefits to the political process, which can be gained by other reforms (two party systems are awful, fixing that would solve many of the problems you mention imo).

Basic infrastructure? Not hugely opposed to it, just shouldn't be done as stimulus imo, more as a constant thing if it's going to be done, as apparently it needs to be done anyway.

I don't see any type of insurer as useless middlemen (What is a useless middleman in the private sector anyway? If they were useless then people wouldn't use them for long, they connect people, that's their use), what you are doing is paying them to take your risk. If you go through life uninsured you run the risk of an accident that cripples you financially, even if you have a rainy day fund. What you are paying them to do is take on your risk, they are providing you with that service, and you pay them to do it. Sure they take a profit (otherwise few would bother), but under the system you are proposing the obese smoking daredevils increase the costs by socialising the risk/losses onto you, either way you pay more than the pure cost, at least the private business relationship is voluntary.

Are there any non-profit insurers (of any type, not just healthcare) over there?



*and what's worse, they have to pay to keep their reckless competitors safe, while not getting as much, or any, benefit themselves.

(July 29, 2012 at 3:57 am)Tobie Wrote: A Theist, here is a political compass, with 2012 Presidential candidates:



As you can see, Obama is on the right. The Republican party seems to be aiming for the gullible idiot vote now.

Yeah well, considering the origins of that dopey loaded political compass test, I would imagine that anyone who disagrees with the obvious undertones of the questions that were asked would be to the right of that ideology. But in this country, Obama is on the leftwing fringe and is rapidly deteriorating to your style of European socialism.

Obama is not left wing. Your ignorance is offensive. He is on the right of a centre left party in a nation that has got progressively further to the right since 1980. You couldn't have hand picked a more right wrong democrat within the Democrat party.

The political knowledge of some people in this thread borderlines that of a sardine.

European socialism. Don't make me laugh. You've no idea.

Stop watching FOX. It is just propaganda, and it hires know nothings and shock jocks.

This thread actually makes me want to hurt myself and then get taken to a hospital to get some nice free treatment just to feel better. It would also take my mind off that there are plenty of people who would rather see humanity move backwards.

What is very funny to me is the dunce Republicans calling Obama a socialist, when it was they who bailed the banks out of their fuckups. A real free market conservative, say Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, would've let them go bust, but no, the socialist that George Bush is, wanted to stick the Big Government oar in and save the day. What a left wing crook. Joe McCarthy would demanded he was hanged for his obvious communism.

On another note, the is not any socialst countries in Europe. Sweden, Norway and Denmark are Social Democracies, which are the middle ground of socialism and market economy, something Gorbachev aspired too after the fall of communism, but they god a oligarchy instead. And America is a fucking long way from that too. So, you have no need to get your rose tinted specs in a twist, you're safe from the spectre of socialism.

But here is some food for thought, compare the US to the highest tax nation, Denmark.

National Debt as % of GDP: 11%
Life expectancy: 78.3
Ease of doing business rank: 5th
Unemployment: 7.7%
Population below poverty line: 5%
Healthcare ranking: 34. Healthcare spending rank: 8

US:

National Debt as % of GDP: 100.9%
Life expectancy: 78.2
Ease of doing business rank: 4th
Unemployment: 8.2%
Population below poverty line: 15.1%
Healthcare rank: 37. Healthcare spending rank: 1

(July 29, 2012 at 10:29 am)A Theist Wrote: Obama is on the leftwing fringe and is rapidly deteriorating to your style of European socialism.

"Socialism"

When teabagger's call Obama "socialist" they mean he's a witch

Is a theist trying to mimic a bonafide human language, or is he "speaking" in tongues, mimicking howler monkey as pentacostals are liable to do?