One in a Billion? Perhaps it's a little more. Religion and Healthcare

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
One in a Billion? Perhaps it's a little more. Religion and Healthcare

 Somebody, perhaps The Twelve, was claiming the other day that perhaps one in a billion theists eschew medical care in favor of prayer.  It appears that his estimate is a bit off.  Apparently, enough people object to healthcare on religious grounds that it's becoming a bit of an issue in healthcare reform talks.

Quote:
The Church of Christ, Scientist does not require its members to forgo medical treatment but promotes prayer as a route to healing, a philosophy rooted in the healing ministries ofJesus Christ.

 

Quote:
Legal scholar Marci Hamilton has no problem with adults declining medical treatment for religious reasons, but she worries some of the proposed language could let parents to opt out of health coverage for their children.

"That's another reason they may not take the children to the hospital when they become very ill," said Hamilton, an expert in law and religion at Cardozo School of Law, a nondenominational affiliate of Yeshiva University. "The federal government should not be in the business of providing incentives for parents not to treat children."

In an attempt to get some idea of just how many people believe this sort of thing, we can look at the following statistic:

Quote:
In Massachusetts, which has included a religious exemption in its experiment with near universal health coverage, fewer than 10,000 tax filers claimed it in 2007, according to the most recent information from the state Department of Revenue.

 Ok... this article says fewer than ten thousand, but damn, folks!  That's NEARLY TEN THOUSAND people in one state who are publicly stating that they believe prayer is more effective than medicine!  Do they all believe it fervently?  Maybe, maybe not.  Are some of them politically motivated?  I bet so.  The article goes on to say that this church wants to be able to be included in any healthcare reform.  In a nutshell, They want to get paid by the government to pray for people and call it medicine!

Before we jump on the political bandwagon, though, we need to realize that if these politically savvy religious wackos are going to get government money for praying, they need something... 

PATIENTS

In other words, somebody needs to believe their shenanigans are effective, or they're not going to get any customers.  Apparently, even if this is a political move, the religious leaders believe a sufficient number of people believe in the power of prayer, and would be willing to submit insurance claims to that effect.

Quote:
In the Senate Finance Committee, a similar amendment was introduced by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, but didn't come up for a vote. The concept is included in another Senate bill, according to a Kerry spokeswoman.

The devil is in the details, according to the nonpartisan Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is watching the permutations closely. Some of the proposals are dangerously broad, legislative director Aaron Schuham said.

"The biggest concern would be situations where the government is basically reimbursing people to engage in prayer services," he said.

 

 Yes, folks.  There are a lot of people who believe in prayer, and it changes the way they interact with the universe.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Yah, I tried to get numbers

Yah, I tried to get numbers for him but they are not easy to find.

 

From what I gather, there have been several hundred children who died because of misguided parents trying to default to faith healing over the past 20 or so years.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 Somebody, perhaps The Twelve, was claiming the other day that perhaps one in a billion theists eschew medical care in favor of prayer. 

Well, it wouldn't have taken much effort to properly quote me, but no, I never said "one in a billion", but a "few among billions", meaning that a very small percentage of a global population of billions of theist both past and present held a view of prayer as a means to forgo medical care, rather than supplement it.

Which shouldn't be a surprise to any one with half a brain, being  a great part of the structure and purpose of modern western hospitals owes a good deal to Christianity, and the role christian churches, and organizations still play in providing medical care throughout the world. 

And note the discussion was about prayer and medical care, and not religious reasons other than prayer and medical care. 

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Hambydammit

theTwelve wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 Somebody, perhaps The Twelve, was claiming the other day that perhaps one in a billion theists eschew medical care in favor of prayer. 

Well, it wouldn't have taken much effort to properly quote me, but no, I never said "one in a billion", but a "few among billions", meaning that a very small percentage of a global population of billions of theist both past and present held a view of prayer as a means to forgo medical care, rather than supplement it.

Which shouldn't be a surprise to any one with half a brain, being  a great part of the structure and purpose of modern western hospitals owes a good deal to Christianity, and the role christian churches, and organizations still play in providing medical care throughout the world. 

And note the discussion was about prayer and medical care, and not religious reasons other than prayer and medical care. 

A "few", by itself, can be read as a small number in absolute terms, or a small percentage. However when you add "among billions", that only makes sense if you mean a "few" as a small absolute number, which makes Hamby's assumption (and mine, earlier) reasonable as to what you appeared to be claiming. Of course you have a legitimate quibble that Hamby quoted "one", which is not what you said, but "few" in that context only makes sense as referring to a very small number greater than one, NOT as a small fraction.

At the very least you really need to address your sloppy use of words, which seems to be driven by your urge to over-state your claims. It isn't the first time, and even you had to acknowledge that at least once.

Be that as it may, there is plenty of evidence such as Hamby has quoted which make even the slightly more reasonable version of your claim a ridiculous under estimate.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:A "few", by

BobSpence1 wrote:

A "few", by itself, can be read as a small number in absolute terms, or a small percentage. However when you add "among billions", that only makes sense if you mean a "few" as a small absolute number, which makes Hamby's assumption (and mine, earlier) reasonable as to what you appeared to be claiming. 

I don't understand what you're attempting to get at all, I replied to you in the previous thread, but you haven't replied back yet.

The thread in question asked about the majority view of theist on prayer and medical care. This question ask what is the dominant view among a global population of over 2 billions theist, and more if we take into account the prevalent historical views. 

I claimed that the view that holds prayer as means to forgo medical care, is held a by only an insignificant few, meaning that the view belongs to a very small minority of theist, I'd wager less than 1%, as evident by the practices and views concerning prayer and medical care of the large bodies and denominations of theism throughout the world, past and present. 

Christianity represents a little over 2 billions people, and I really don't understand why there's an issue with me using the word "few" when speaking of a view held by a very small percentage of that population. 

Quote:
there is plenty of evidence such as Hamby has quoted which make even the slightly more reasonable version of your claim a ridiculous under estimate.

Really? Such as Hamby's? Please show me which bits of evidence in Hamby claim even has to do with forgoing medical care for prayer, and then tell me how it reveals my estimate to be ridiculous?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps, then, you should

Perhaps, then, you should have written 'a very small percentage' and not 'a few', which I can't imagine being linked to percentage in anyone's mind.  Hardly something I care to pick on, only I don't see why you're bothering to defend your use, when evidently, it did not get across what you had in mind.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:BobSpence1

theTwelve wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

A "few", by itself, can be read as a small number in absolute terms, or a small percentage. However when you add "among billions", that only makes sense if you mean a "few" as a small absolute number, which makes Hamby's assumption (and mine, earlier) reasonable as to what you appeared to be claiming. 

I don't understand what you're attempting to get at all, I replied to you in the previous thread, but you haven't replied back yet.

The thread in question asked about the majority view of theist on prayer and medical care. This question ask what is the dominant view among a global population of over 2 billions theist, and more if we take into account the prevalent historical views. 

I claimed that the view that holds prayer as means to forgo medical care, is held a by only an insignificant few, meaning that the view belongs to a very small minority of theist, I'd wager less than 1%, as evident by the practices and views concerning prayer and medical care of the large bodies and denominations of theism throughout the world, past and present. 

Christianity represents a little over 2 billions people, and I really don't understand why there's an issue with me using the word "few" when speaking of a view held by a very small percentage of that population.

If you're estimating lower than 1% you need to note that 1% of 2 billion is 20 million, half that is still 10 million, these numbers are definitely not what would be accurately described as "few", saying "a small percentage" makes more sense.

Also, you're talking about a regional political movement here, global percentages don't count for diddly squat, it will be local data that decides the outcome.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Perhaps,

Thomathy wrote:

Perhaps, then, you should have written 'a very small percentage' and not 'a few', which I can't imagine being linked to percentage in anyone's mind.  Hardly something I care to pick on, only I don't see why you're bothering to defend your use, when evidently, it did not get across what you had in mind.

Well, through out my post, I've used the term "few" explicitly in relationship to the view of majority of theist. SO I'm not sure what sort of "ambiguity" individuals here are harping about. I felt it was fairly obvious that in was in regards to "a very small percentage", because I have no clue as to what any other sense of the term could reasonably be read within the context of my post. 

But I'm curious, if you go back and read my post, if you don't feel that I was speaking about "a very small percentage", what do you feel "few" represented then?

Like I would assume if I said only few liberals support the death pentalty, or are opposed to universal healthcare, that I don't need to clarify that I'm claiming that only a small percentage of liberals support and oppose these policies. So why should I should assume differently here?

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Thomathy

theTwelve wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Perhaps, then, you should have written 'a very small percentage' and not 'a few', which I can't imagine being linked to percentage in anyone's mind.  Hardly something I care to pick on, only I don't see why you're bothering to defend your use, when evidently, it did not get across what you had in mind.

Well, through out my post, I've used the term "few" explicitly in relationship to the view of majority of theist. SO I'm not sure what sort of "ambiguity" individuals here are harping about. I felt it was fairly obvious that in was in regards to "a very small percentage", because I have no clue as to what any other sense of the term could reasonably be read within the context of my post. 

But I'm curious, if you go back and read my post, if you don't feel that I was speaking about "a very small percentage", what do you feel "few" represented then?

Like I would assume if I said only few liberals support the death pentalty, or are opposed to universal healthcare, that I don't need to clarify that I'm claiming that only a small percentage of liberals support and oppose these policies. So why should I should assume differently here?

Then WTF do you keep throwing in "out of billions" for - that is what confuses the issue. Have you so little comprehension? How many people have to explain it to you before you get it???

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Like I would

theTwelve wrote:

Like I would assume if I said only few liberals support the death pentalty, or are opposed to universal healthcare, that I don't need to clarify that I'm claiming that only a small percentage of liberals support and oppose these policies. So why should I should assume differently here?

 

Yeah, but I think accurate numbers count for a bit more in this specific instance, as it is a politics a game of numbers, and you said few in billions, which in my head translates to numbering at most, in the hundreds to thousands, but certainly not the tens of millions.


 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:How many

BobSpence1 wrote:
How many people have to explain it to you before you get it???

I don't think there is anything wrong with your explanation by the way. I'm just here cause I'm bored.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm glad they are raising

I'm glad they are raising the issue, because healthcare should be a very personal choice. What we will get with socialized healthcare is one standard for everyone. So it looks like society will become slaves to the health care industry. What ever expensive treatment they come up with will have to be paid.

When we make health care a right, basically we are bending over and telling the medical industry we'll pay whatever price to have every treatment available that can prolong life. So the percentage of GDP spent on healtcare will continue to rise. If I would rather take the risk that I may not an expensive treatment and save the money so I can enjoy life more, I don't have a choice, it's all taken in high taxes.

What about an exemption for liberty lovers that don't want to be slaves to the medical industry?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:A "few", by

Eloise wrote:

A "few", by itself, can be read as a small number in absolute terms, or a small percentage. However when you add "among billions", that only makes sense if you mean a "few" as a small absolute number, which makes Hamby's assumption (and mine, earlier) reasonable as to what you appeared to be claiming. 

According to the Oxford American dictionary: 

few: noun [as plural n. ] ( the few)

the minority of people; 

If you don't find that my use of the term falls perfectly in-line with this definition, you let me know

I've explicitly used the term few to represent a minority view, particularly when the topic of the discussion was what the majority view was. In fact I even clarified this on several occasions such as this one:

In response to Bob's questions of my use of the term "few"

"Well, you can break it down to, are these case a significant percentage of the fundies? Do their views express the views of fundies in general? Evangelical Christians make up about 60 million Americans, is the dominant view that pray is seen as mean to forgo medical care? The answer is no, and plainly obvious to even an moderate level of reflection."

And here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/18504?page=1#comment-2

Quote:
Also, you're talking about a regional political movement here, global percentages don't count for diddly squat, it will be local data that decides the outcome.

What are you talking about? We were never talking about "a regional political movement", we were talking about what dominant views of christians on prayer and medical care is, and it wasn't relegated to  US Christians (which I'd still argue that only a  very small minority  view prayer as a means of forgoing medical care).

Please, educate yourself in what was being discussed, other than mouthing off make believe shit. 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I'm glad they are

EXC wrote:

I'm glad they are raising the issue, because healthcare should be a very personal choice. What we will get with socialized healthcare is one standard for everyone. So it looks like society will become slaves to the health care industry. What ever expensive treatment they come up with will have to be paid.

When we make health care a right, basically we are bending over and telling the medical industry we'll pay whatever price to have every treatment available that can prolong life. So the percentage of GDP spent on healtcare will continue to rise. If I would rather take the risk that I may not an expensive treatment and save the money so I can enjoy life more, I don't have a choice, it's all taken in high taxes.

What about an exemption for liberty lovers that don't want to be slaves to the medical industry?

You guys can self-medicate all you want. Just go to your barkeep or your local liquor store. After all, those doctors and pharmacists are part of the medical industry. 

No one is stopping you from using alternatives if you wish (Not even the socialized medicine you fear does that).

Obama doesn't want to make health care a right - just health insurance.

Who would you like to trust your health to? MDs or accountants? You've got accountants now - how's that doing for you? Need a test that insurance won't cover lately?

I really haven't got a problem with having the same standard of health care as other countries with single payer plans - are those standards too high for you?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Eloise

theTwelve wrote:

Eloise wrote:
A "few", by itself, can be read as a small number in absolute terms, or a small percentage. However when you add "among billions", that only makes sense if you mean a "few" as a small absolute number, which makes Hamby's assumption (and mine, earlier) reasonable as to what you appeared to be claiming.

That wasn't me.

thetwelve wrote:

According to the Oxford American dictionary: 

few: noun [as plural n. ( the few)the minority of people; 

If you don't find that my use of the term falls perfectly in-line with this definition, you let me know

OK.

thetwelve wrote:

their may be a few in a population of billions, who do forgo proper treatment.

You said "a few" not "the few" thus it does not fall perfectly in line with this contextual definition. Try posting all the definitions and don't be intellectually dishonest.

 

Quote:

Quote:
Also, you're talking about a regional political movement here, global percentages don't count for diddly squat, it will be local data that decides the outcome.

What are you talking about? We were never talking about "a regional political movement", we were talking about what dominant views of christians on prayer and medical care is, and it wasn't relegated to  US Christians (which I'd still argue that only a  very small minority  view prayer as a means of forgoing medical care).

Please, educate yourself in what was being discussed, other than mouthing off make believe shit. 

It's hardly "make-believe" since the OP of this thread is about the political issue of people believing in prayer as medicine. Wow, cool your jets, why don't you, I've looked at the other thread now and you have my apologies, I leapt to an inaccurate conclusion.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

 They should just take it out of taxes and offer single payer.

 

Seriously. 

 

 

Also, treat the people killing their kids by lack of basic care, like the criminals they are.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:What are you

theTwelve wrote:

What are you talking about? We were never talking about "a regional political movement", we were talking about what dominant views of christians on prayer and medical care is, and it wasn't relegated to  US Christians (which I'd still argue that only a  very small minority  view prayer as a means of forgoing medical care).

Please, educate yourself in what was being discussed, other than mouthing off make believe shit. 

The OP in that other thread was NOT about "dominant views of christians", it was what are the 'core' teachings common to all denominations, assumed to be directly from the Bible, based on the assumption that such a clear teaching might be found there.

It was pointed out that there many verses that could be seen to be relevant to this, some of which did rather strongly seem to at least give a strong basis for people to believe that prayer could be a substitute for action, or that it could cure what 'medical care' (which was of course a very different and vastly less effective thing in those days) could not. 

Of course, the problem with trying to extract a clear consistent message from the Bible is that it is either not consistent, or some things are 'intended' to be 'parables', and it is not always clear what is 'meant' to be taken literally or not.  So the question was not going to get a simple answer, so it is entirely reasonable that the thread went into all the various ways individual believers have interpreted the text.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: The OP in

BobSpence1 wrote:
 

The OP in that other thread was NOT about "dominant views of Christians", it was what are the 'core' teachings common to all denominations.

No, the OP asked is about  what "Christianity actually teaches". Which in any sensual reading implies what the dominant view of Christianity is, of its major sects, past and present. 

Later on we have pineapple asking about "core teachings", and I addressed the problem with this in regards to prayer, in post 82. Individuals develop "core" teachings to address conflicts of ambiguity, like the reformation on "faith and works". The reformers held a divergent reading of the scriptures in regards to the notion of faith and works, and developed a "core" teaching to define themselves along this distinction. We'd only find a "core" teaching about prayer and medical care, if there were conflicts of ambiguity among the various conflicting views among Christians that a necessity arose to have definitive statement to make in these regards. 

So if the early church, during the first council of Nicaea faced opposition from individuals arguing that the church shouldn't be creating hospitals and providing medical care, and instead forgoing this for solely prayer, based on their reading of the bible, the church would have then, and then only developed a "core" or "orthodox" stance/teaching on the matter. 

A pursuit of "core" teachings would be a misnomer here. 

So what we would have to gather, to understand what the teachings and views of Christianity are on the subject, are the various practices and traditions of theism, that compose the greater part of Christianity (which I designated as 99% of Christians). 

Quote:
assumed to be directly from the Bible, based on the assumption that such a clear teaching might be found there.

It was pointed out that there many verses that could be seen to be relevant to this, some of which did rather strongly seem to at least give a strong basis for people to believe that prayer could be a substitute for action, or that it could cure what 'medical care' (which was of course a very different and vastly less effective thing in those days) could not.

And, we face a number of anachronistic problems with this assumption. Only in the modern world do we have a notion of a secular sphere, of godly means and godless means, of natural medical care, and magical care. The magician, the monk, and the ancient doctor were of the same profession. The monk prayed for you and provided you medical care. You couldn't forgo medical care for religious care because they weren't separate spheres. 

This is the sort of context in which the bible was written, so you won't find verses that support the view of forgoing medical care for prayer, because no distinction between the secular and religious existed. The separation would be rather impossible, the same way it would be possible for much of the worlds civilization to separate the religious from the cultural. No distinction has been made for them in order to separate one from the other, in order to reject one over the other.

Quote:
Of course, the problem with trying to extract a clear consistent message from the Bible is that it is either not consistent, or some things are 'intended' to be 'parables', and it is not always clear what is 'meant' to be taken literally or not.  So the question was not going to get a simple answer, so it is entirely reasonable that the thread went into all the various ways individual believers have interpreted the text.

As I said 99+% of theist have interpreted the scriptures, the christian view of prayer and medical care, as one of supplementing one with the other, rather than forgoing one for the other. This view has been carried over from traditions and teaching of ancient church, and it has not been a position of ambiguity, other than for a very small minority of modern christians. 

Appealing to me with emotional appeals about single instances, doesn't change this fact. So if you disagree with what I've claimed, i suggest you come with actual evidence. 

Present that, and you'll find that I'm a reasonable man.

 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:You said "a

Eloise wrote:

You said "a few" not "the few" thus it does not fall perfectly in line with this contextual definition. Try posting all the definitions and don't be intellectually dishonest.

Learn the difference between claiming a word can only be used in a particular regard in which I should be providing the various ways of defining the term, and claiming I'm using in a word in a particular regard, which requires that I provide the definition of the way I'm using the term. In fact, also go and learn what it means to be "intellectually dishonest", in regards to my use of the term "few".  

It may just be that I used the word incorrectly, in that "few" is a term that can be used only for a number that you can count on two hands, and I assumed erroneously that it could be used to represent a very small fraction of a group (even if it composes a million) that consists of billions of people. After reading through the definitions of the term I can see the reasoning behind this. 
 

But learn the difference between using a word incorrectly, and being intellectually dishonest. I may be an asshole and an arrogant prick, but you have nothing  on you to accuse me of being intellectually dishonest. You're intellectual honesty demands that you concede this much. 

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Eloise

theTwelve wrote:

Eloise wrote:

You said "a few" not "the few" thus it does not fall perfectly in line with this contextual definition. Try posting all the definitions and don't be intellectually dishonest.

Learn the difference between claiming a word can only be used in a particular regard in which I should be providing the various ways of defining the term, and claiming I'm using in a word in a particular regard, which requires that I provide the definition of the way I'm using the term. In fact, also go and learn what it means to be "intellectually dishonest", in regards to my use of the term "few".  

It may just be that I used the word incorrectly, in that "few" is a term that can be used only for a number that you can count on two hands, and I assumed erroneously that it could be used to represent a very small fraction of a group (even if it composes a million) that consists of billions of people. After reading through the definitions of the term I can see the reasoning behind this.  

But learn the difference between using a word incorrectly, and being intellectually dishonest. I may be an asshole and an arrogant prick, but you have nothing  on you to accuse me of being intellectually dishonest. You're intellectual honesty demands that you concede this much. 

 

It is intellectually dishonest to claim you've cited a complete definition when you've omitted the parts which contradict you. But you know, so what, twelve, if you intended to convey an approxmate integer fraction it was just a fail, that's it, it's silly to argue with the people who didn't understand what you failed to communicate.

Whatever, I was so much more interested in this thread when I thought it was a discssion of the topic in Hamby's OP. What say you about that, twelve? Do you think for the sake of a government handout previously uninvolved clergy might unscrupulously ramp up efforts to increase the size of this 'minority' who forgo treatment for congregational prayer?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You guys can

jcgadfly wrote:

You guys can self-medicate all you want. Just go to your barkeep or your local liquor store. After all, those doctors and pharmacists are part of the medical industry. 

So I should be able to opt out of paying taxes to these people if I don't want to live my live as their slave and take my chances that I won't need their expensive products and services? Maybe I just want to be a beach bum that surfs all time and only makes enough money to eat. What's wrong with this choice? But why should others be forced to pay if I later want expensive medical treatment?

jcgadfly wrote:

No one is stopping you from using alternatives if you wish (Not even the socialized medicine you fear does that).

But all the taxes taken from me for services I don't want are unavailable for other use like maybe going to Cuba where there is no doctor shortage or going to Canada to get drugs or used to enjoy my life if I so choose to take the risk.

Right now we spend 16% of our GDP on health care. So if I'm working under socialized medicine, I would be paying at least this percentage or more. This percentage will only go up because society is telling the industry we will pay any price you ask, we will never deny treatment because of the cost is too high.

jcgadfly wrote:

Obama doesn't want to make health care a right - just health insurance.

He's stated in the past he wanted single payer universal coverage. He's really a socialist but he's learned to only ask for what he can get.

jcgadfly wrote:

Who would you like to trust your health to? MDs or accountants? You've got accountants now - how's that doing for you? Need a test that insurance won't cover lately? 

So you want to trust your health to politicians that you can't fire? I can get information about these companies and their services and reputation before I buy. At least I can fire these people if they suck.

Isn't the real problem then that people are idiots when it comes to buying insurance? Or people get crappy insurance because they want to save money, then later on bitch that it doesn't cover everything. So isn't the problem that our schools fail to teach basic economics and critical thinking skills and there is too much global whining?

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I really haven't got a problem with having the same standard of health care as other countries with single payer plans - are those standards too high for you? 

You can pay for whatever standard you wish for yourself. Why do you want to force others into paying for something they don't want?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly wrote:You

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You guys can self-medicate all you want. Just go to your barkeep or your local liquor store. After all, those doctors and pharmacists are part of the medical industry. 

So I should be able to opt out of paying taxes to these people if I don't want to live my live as their slave and take my chances that I won't need their expensive products and services? Maybe I just want to be a beach bum that surfs all time and only makes enough money to eat. What's wrong with this choice? But why should others be forced to pay if I later want expensive medical treatment?

jcgadfly wrote:

No one is stopping you from using alternatives if you wish (Not even the socialized medicine you fear does that).

But all the taxes taken from me for services I don't want are unavailable for other use like maybe going to Cuba where there is no doctor shortage or going to Canada to get drugs or used to enjoy my life if I so choose to take the risk.

Right now we spend 16% of our GDP on health care. So if I'm working under socialized medicine, I would be paying at least this percentage or more. This percentage will only go up because society is telling the industry we will pay any price you ask, we will never deny treatment because of the cost is too high.

jcgadfly wrote:

Obama doesn't want to make health care a right - just health insurance.

He's stated in the past he wanted single payer universal coverage. He's really a socialist but he's learned to only ask for what he can get.

jcgadfly wrote:

Who would you like to trust your health to? MDs or accountants? You've got accountants now - how's that doing for you? Need a test that insurance won't cover lately? 

So you want to trust your health to politicians that you can't fire? I can get information about these companies and their services and reputation before I buy. At least I can fire these people if they suck.

Isn't the real problem then that people are idiots when it comes to buying insurance? Or people get crappy insurance because they want to save money, then later on bitch that it doesn't cover everything. So isn't the problem that our schools fail to teach basic economics and critical thinking skills and there is too much global whining?

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I really haven't got a problem with having the same standard of health care as other countries with single payer plans - are those standards too high for you? 

You can pay for whatever standard you wish for yourself. Why do you want to force others into paying for something they don't want?

What services do you want out of that are causing you to feel like a slave? The fire department? Decent roads? The police? Decent education?  A useful military? And who are "these people" you're paying taxes to? I'm not getting any of it.

Face it, government provides some useful services but they come with a bill. People not wanting to pay that bill is how we got into the mess we're in. Or is having some of the lowest tax rates in the world still too high for you?

News flash -  you can still go to Canada and buy drugs. You can even stay at home and have them sent to you from Canada and Mexico via the Internet (oh crap, that's a government program also)

You're right - Obama wants single payer coverage - Single payer health insurance coverage not the same thing as single payer health coverage. 

Why do you want to pay more for lower standards for yourself than what a single payer health care plan would provide for less money?

I love you libertarians - you want people to quit monkeying around with the constitution by adding stuff to it but you don't realize that taking stuff out of is still monkeying with it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:What services

jcgadfly wrote:

What services do you want out of that are causing you to feel like a slave?

Just about all of them because participation is mandatory. Social security and medicare are the worst because I will pay in my whole career, then it is projected to go broke when I retire.

jcgadfly wrote:

The fire department?

The problem is if one decides to build a fire trap with no sprinklers in a fire prone area, I pay the same taxes even if I have a way lower risk with a safe property or no property. It can be largely privatized or if it is a public service, what you pay needs to be correlated with the risk of fire.

Plus with modern technology it makes more sense to install a high tech sprinkler system that works on the fire right away rather than wait up to half an hour for the fire department.

jcgadfly wrote:

Decent roads?

With roads, we have a sort of pay as you go system. This seems to work OK except politicians will use the gas tax and tolls to fund other projects. There is no reason all government services can't be pay as you go.

jcgadfly wrote:

The police?

Same with fire, much of it can be privatized, technology can eliminate the need for a lot of policemen. If I own a bar where drunk patrons are causing problems, I pay the same as book store. Plus we're basically blackmailed by the police/fire unions. Our state/local governments are going broke paying their unfunded retirements.

jcgadfly wrote:

Decent education?

Let's look at the development of civilization and capitalism. Before civilization our ancestors were territorial as are all animals, but there we no laws about where one could go and what one could do. As technology for farming, fishing, mining, etc... developed so to did this idea of private land and rights to natural resources. This is where civilization and capitalism went wrong. This idea that I can own something I didn't earn, I can just monopolize resources for my own gain while restricting the access of others.

So if I live in a capitalist society and it doesn't provide me with a job and money I need to survive, I can't do like pre-civilization humans. I can't go foraging for food anywhere I want, I can't set up a hut wherever I want, I can't kill whatever animal I want. Everything is either private property or public property with highly restricted usage. This is the big problem with capitalism as it is now, it allows people to monopolize our planet's natural resources at the expense of others. So since I need to get a job in capitalist system to survive, the capitalist system must pay for my education to get a job if capitalist are going to use natural resources for their own profit.

But how does the current system work? One can be wasteful with resources, pollute the environment, restrict others from using my private land, still make a big profit from my monopoly over resources. Or I could use little resources, write software or develop technology that enables greater efficiency of our resources. But I still get taxed at the same rate as a wasteful polluter.

jcgadfly wrote:

  A useful military?

Again it should be based on what I have to protect, not how much money I earn. I think we'd see less military intervention and the military used for defense if we developed this philosophy. I suppose that when one earns money, the government is protection my right to do this and the capitalist system, so I believe some income tax could be used for the military. But the tax should be based more on how much property you have to protect.

jcgadfly wrote:

And who are "these people" you're paying taxes to? I'm not getting any of it.

Politicians. But their interest is getting reelected, not in doing with my taxes what's in my best interest. It's one man one vote, not one dollar in taxes paid, one vote. So we have an economically unsustainable system.

jcgadfly wrote:

Face it, government provides some useful services but they come with a bill. People not wanting to pay that bill is how we got into the mess we're in. Or is having some of the lowest tax rates in the world still too high for you?

 

A bill has a correlation to the services I use. My electric bill is based on my usage. Income tax is the Willie Sutton approach "That's where the money is". Since there is little correlation between payment and benefits, the current approach to government will bankrupt us all.

jcgadfly wrote:

News flash -  you can still go to Canada and buy drugs. You can even stay at home and have them sent to you from Canada and Mexico via the Internet (oh crap, that's a government program also)

 

But I can't opt out of paying for taxes. If I don't want the benefits, I want to keep this money so I can travel.

jcgadfly wrote:

Why do you want to pay more for lower standards for yourself than what a single payer health care plan would provide for less money?

 

There is no free lunch, less money means crappier service. If the government pays the providers less money there will be shortages. If all the hospitals and insurance companies in the USA suck, I want to go to another country with the money I earn.

jcgadfly wrote:

I love you libertarians - you want people to quit monkeying around with the constitution by adding stuff to it but you don't realize that taking stuff out of is still monkeying with it.

I'm not really a libertarian. How many libertarians don't support private land ownership rights or the right to breed? I have my own unique anti-political views.

As far as the constitution, I think the whole thing should be scrapped and started over from scratch. A new system of government must address mankind's fundamental problem: We have an unlimited ability and desire to breed while living on a planet with limited resources.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 Someone just argued for a privitized police force and fire department. Not to mention schools.

 

 

 

I'm starting to think that EXC is just a troll. There is no way that anyone would make that kind of argument. This has to be a joke.

 

 

 

Good job trolling at least. Laughing out loud You got us! We almost thought you were serious.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Someone

ClockCat wrote:
 

Someone just argued for a privitized police force and fire department. Not to mention schools.

 

We already have private police forces, they are called security companies. If you have a business like a bank that requires a lot of security you hire a private police force. Pay as you go works best. I'm just arguing for extending this type of principle. Do you want to pay for all the extra security banks require because we can't have private police?

We only need a small government at the top to act in a suprivisor way. The actual cops and fireman do not need to be unionize government employess. Only elected officials and managers need to be government employees.

Same with schools and prisions, there needs to be public funding but their is no need for any institution to be publicly owned.

The same argument was made in the past that postal services needed to be government run. With technology, there is no need for postal delivery to not be privatized. Same with police and fire, with innovation we can reduce the number of workers required and cost, but we can never get there because people like ClockCat cannot think outside their 19th century box.

ClockCat wrote:
 

I'm starting to think that EXC is just a troll. There is no way that anyone would make that kind of argument. This has to be a joke.

 

Are you kidding me or do you just not know there is a substantian number of libertarians and conservatives in you country that want government as small as possible?  You live in a fantasy world where government can somehow wave a magic wand and solve all problems if we just send them all the money and give them all the power. Give individuals and power and let them decide how to spend their own money. Anyone outside your fantasy world is a troll.

Did I argue for no government supervison over the police, fire and schools? No, Mr. Strawman. Service providers to the government can all be privatized. Just as we do now with defence contractors, constuction contractors, private prisions, etc... We already have privatized government services, I just arguing for more.

In case you'd actually like to know what is going on in your world, there is already a debate going on about privatizing more police, fire, schools and prisions to keep our governments from going bankrupt paying off the unions.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_n9_v63/ai_16166625/

But I guess all those people arguing for more privatization are all insane in your world. You like to call me a troll but you never actually explain why this is irrational.

 

 

 

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ClockCat

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:
 

Someone just argued for a privitized police force and fire department. Not to mention schools.

 

We already have private police forces, they are called security companies. If you have a business like a bank that requires a lot of security you hire a private police force. Pay as you go works best. I'm just arguing for extending this type of principle. Do you want to pay for all the extra security banks require because we can't have private police?

We only need a small government at the top to act in a suprivisor way. The actual cops and fireman do not need to be unionize government employess. Only elected officials and managers need to be government employees.

Same with schools and prisions, there needs to be public funding but their is no need for any institution to be publicly owned.

The same argument was made in the past that postal services needed to be government run. With technology, there is no need for postal delivery to not be privatized. Same with police and fire, with innovation we can reduce the number of workers required and cost, but we can never get there because people like ClockCat cannot think outside their 19th century box.

ClockCat wrote:
 

I'm starting to think that EXC is just a troll. There is no way that anyone would make that kind of argument. This has to be a joke.

 

Are you kidding me or do you just not know there is a substantian number of libertarians and conservatives in you country that want government as small as possible?  You live in a fantasy world where government can somehow wave a magic wand and solve all problems if we just send them all the money and give them all the power. Give individuals and power and let them decide how to spend their own money. Anyone outside your fantasy world is a troll.

Did I argue for no government supervison over the police, fire and schools? No, Mr. Strawman. Service providers to the government can all be privatized. Just as we do now with defence contractors, constuction contractors, private prisions, etc... We already have privatized government services, I just arguing for more.

In case you'd actually like to know what is going on in your world, there is already a debate going on about privatizing more police, fire, schools and prisions to keep our governments from going bankrupt paying off the unions.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_n9_v63/ai_16166625/

But I guess all those people arguing for more privatization are all insane in your world. You like to call me a troll but you never actually explain why this is irrational.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, it is a little crazy to make your argument.

You argue that the government is taking too much money from your pocket but you advocate privatizing services that will actually cost more (find me a corporation that hasn't charged more than the market will bear).

EXC, you are one confusing being.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Well, it is a

jcgadfly wrote:

Well, it is a little crazy to make your argument.

You argue that the government is taking too much money from your pocket but you advocate privatizing services that will actually cost more (find me a corporation that hasn't charged more than the market will bear).

Did you read the article at all? Governments are privatizing services to save money. Yes it is controversial but there is evidence that this is less expensive. Why would a privatized service cost more.

http://reason.org/news/show/private-prisons-save-money-boo

What you don't get is that there is no such thing as not for-profit. What are police, fire, prison guard and teachers unions? They are associations of people that negotiate to deliver a product as maximum profit for themselves. How are they any different than a for-profit corporation that negotiates on behalf of shareholders to sell a product? The only difference is we allow government unions to be a monopoly. So they can negotiate very generous pension plans that are now bankrupting the country. Find me a labor union that hasn't charged as much as the market will bear.

You claim these are vital services, so therefore we only allow one group to negotiate provide the service? So it's like living in a town with one gas station or one grocery store. You know the price will be higher and the service sucks. It seems like if you want to make sure gas is always available and not expensive in your town, you'd want more than one station.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

EXC, you are one confusing being.

Change for the better is never going to be easy. People love to hold onto their delusions. Same is true for religion and politics.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 So..you provide an example of a small town with 4 police officers. 4 officers, with old, inefficient equipment, that only worked part time. 

 

Congratulations.

 

Oh, and private prisons work prisoners for less than people will in third world countries to make money and products for places like JC Pennies. Fabulous. "Made in America" frequently means made in a prison now. I'm well aware of the privatizing of prisons. It isn't news. Working people at 30 cents an hour creates a new underclass in the country of people that more than half of are there for nonviolent drug offenses. Lets try and make more ways for them to imprison a larger part of the population! I mean, if you can make a profit off it, why not?

 

While you keep touting "PRIVITIZE BCUZ IT SAEV MONEY IN THIS TINY TOWN" or "SLAVE LABOR GUD, SAEVS MONEYS", and willfully ignore the reality of every situation..like in that health care thread..no one is going to take you seriously.

But feel free to keep at it.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: So..you

ClockCat wrote:

 So..you provide an example of a small town with 4 police officers. 4 officers, with old, inefficient equipment, that only worked part time. 

Which demonstrates that it could work on a larger scale. In larger cities you have more customers and more businesses. There is no reason the police officers have to be government employees.

And where were the public police officers during Katrina and the LA riots?

 

 

ClockCat wrote:

Oh, and private prisons work prisoners for less than people will in third world countries to make money and products for places like JC Pennies. 

If you're in prison, it's kind of the idea to pay back your victim and costs of incarceration and to learn some job skills. Or should we just let prisons play and watch TV all day?

 

ClockCat wrote:

Fabulous. "Made in America" frequently means made in a prison now. 

As long as the profits go to the victims, why do you have a problem with this?

 

ClockCat wrote:

I'm well aware of the privatizing of prisons. It isn't news. Working people at 30 cents an hour creates a new underclass in the country of people that more than half of are there for nonviolent drug offenses.

I'm for legalizing drug as long a the drugs don't lead one to commit crimes. People should only be in prison if there is a victim.

 

ClockCat wrote:

Lets try and make more ways for them to imprison a larger part of the population! I mean, if you can make a profit off it, why not?

OK Mr. Strawman. The reason we have such a high prison population is recidivism. If we hired and paid companies based on low recidivism, the problem would go away. Instead, high crime is good business for prison guard and police unions and lawyers so there is no incentive to fix the problem.

 

ClockCat wrote:

..no one is going to take you seriously.

Well then I guess we should convert to Theism. The majority is always right, so we better go with that. Let's not think for ourselves but go with conventional thought.

 

ClockCat wrote:

But feel free to keep at it.

Well, I know reason is on my side even if I'm a small minority here.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Well, it is a little crazy to make your argument.

You argue that the government is taking too much money from your pocket but you advocate privatizing services that will actually cost more (find me a corporation that hasn't charged more than the market will bear).

Did you read the article at all? Governments are privatizing services to save money. Yes it is controversial but there is evidence that this is less expensive. Why would a privatized service cost more.

http://reason.org/news/show/private-prisons-save-money-boo

What you don't get is that there is no such thing as not for-profit. What are police, fire, prison guard and teachers unions? They are associations of people that negotiate to deliver a product as maximum profit for themselves. How are they any different than a for-profit corporation that negotiates on behalf of shareholders to sell a product? The only difference is we allow government unions to be a monopoly. So they can negotiate very generous pension plans that are now bankrupting the country. Find me a labor union that hasn't charged as much as the market will bear.

You claim these are vital services, so therefore we only allow one group to negotiate provide the service? So it's like living in a town with one gas station or one grocery store. You know the price will be higher and the service sucks. It seems like if you want to make sure gas is always available and not expensive in your town, you'd want more than one station.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

EXC, you are one confusing being.

Change for the better is never going to be easy. People love to hold onto their delusions. Same is true for religion and politics.

So you really think Blackwater/Xe saved America money?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So you really

jcgadfly wrote:

So you really think Blackwater/Xe saved America money?

Do you really think the prison guards at Abu-Ghrab that were government employees save America money or helped our anti-terrorism efforts? There are pleanty of instances of government employees illegally firing a civilians as well.

Suppose the guards at Abu Grab had been private contractors. We would never have heard the end of how bad it is to have private contractors. The problem in both cases though is lack of supervision on the part our elected officials. I don't see how having a the employees work directly for the government is an advantage. It all comes down to supervision and training.

But look at what happened in these two case. Backwater lost contracts, had their reputation ruined. Obama isn't going to hire them.

The generals in Abu Ghrab just got a slap on the wrist. The military is an old boys club and a monopoly.

That's what I don't get people will bitch about  Big oil, health insurance, Wal-mart, etc... being monopolies and in collusion. But then unions and government employees can collude and create monopolies, no problem with that.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I'm glad they are

EXC wrote:

I'm glad they are raising the issue, because healthcare should be a very personal choice.

Why? Why shouldn't health care be just the thing in the background, like electricity or water supply? Do you want to choose your water distributor as well? Maybe you would like to choose the private police company? Maybe you would like to choose individually all the people that work in your local fire department, what their wages should be and what color uniforms they should wear? Maybe you would like to have so much detailed uninformed choice on bullshit non-sensical issues that should basically be handled collectively that you will have no time to do anything else 24/7/52?

Maybe you think it's a good idea for kids and teachers in schools to make all decisions on funding of their classrooms and make all the administrative shoices about which supplier of school benches the school should employ? Maybe each child should choose their own school book publisher? Maybe in a school of 1000 kids each of them should be responsible for running 0.1% of everything in their school? Maybe they will have time for the business of getting educated on sundays and maybe administration of the school system will not cost more than if it were done in a single administrative office and maybe the kids will act so nicely and informedly that all the 1000x0.1% of administration will add up to a very good solution at discount price. And maybe it will be a total cockup for twice the price and zero purpose of education, which is basically the case with your healthcare and the purpose of keeping people healthy.

Fundamental misunderstanding is that the private helthcare system equates more choice. It doesn't. It equates to 45k dead Americans every year due to insufficient health insurance at a price TWICE that of any other modern country and an administrative overhead that is nothing short of fantastic. On top of that comes the huge stress factor for the uninformed individual - since they are NOT INFORMED on healthcare enough to be informed consumers. It also equates destruction of the US Republic by the moneyed interest, which you as a republican should give a damn about once in a while.

EXC wrote:

What we will get with socialized healthcare

No, you won't. Have you bothered to read through the bill that is being formed at the moment? If you think that is socialised healthcare, you are on drugs.

EXC wrote:

is one standard for everyone. So it looks like society will become slaves to the health care industry.

The standard IS the same for everyone and will stay so - 0 healthcare for twice the price. The society IS a slave to the healthcare industry.

EXC wrote:

What ever expensive treatment they come up with will have to be paid.

When we make health care a right, basically we are bending over and telling the medical industry we'll pay whatever price to have every treatment available that can prolong life. So the percentage of GDP spent on healtcare will continue to rise. If I would rather take the risk that I may not an expensive treatment and save the money so I can enjoy life more, I don't have a choice, it's all taken in high taxes.

Correct there - public option is off the table, at the moment it's really all about pleasing the industry.

EXC wrote:

What about an exemption for liberty lovers that don't want to be slaves to the medical industry?

They will have to grow a pair and start fighting people on the "right" who pretend to support more choice and people on the "left" who are basically just keeping the money out of people on the "right's" pockets by appeasing the healthcare industry. You stand before nothing less than a fascist corporate state - there is no peaceful way to get rid of those.

First you have to VOTE them out of office by not allowing divide-and-conquer bullshit to push you in one of the fascist camps of "democrats" or "republicans", have enough integrity to vote for people who work FOR YOU, not the other way around. THEN you will have to spill blood in the streets, once the fascist propaganda from CNN, NBC, FOX and the like no longer works in the political arena and they have to turn their private armies, sound cannons, tear gas, battons, live bullets and torture on US citizens, just like they have done in south and middle america, middle east, africa. Only thereafter can you hope to rebuild a republic, federation, democracy, whatever you want to call it.

It's not a revolution, it is a simple matter of reclaiming the billions in caiman islands for the US tax payer. It's not a revolution, it's a simple matter of reclaiming the Republic for the people by the people. US foreign policy is ran from the corporate offices of Lockheed Martin - that is not sensible and it deserves a few rolling heads.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Why? Why shouldn't

ZuS wrote:

Why? Why shouldn't health care be just the thing in the background, like electricity or water supply?

OK. Well what would happen if we billed electricity and water the way single payer health care would work. We just send everyone a bill based on how much income you made in a highly progressive manner. How much electricity or water you use doesn't affect your bill only how much you make. Don't you think we'd see extreme waist and inefficiency? The electric company would decide what appliances I need in my home, so they'd give me the most wasteful ones to maximize their profits. Eventually it would bankrupt the government.

 

ZuS wrote:

Do you want to choose your water distributor as well? 

Yes. I choose my bottled water company. Perhaps as technology advances, it won't be necessary to have a single water distributor and all the water one uses could be recycled. This is what happened with electricity where it is now practical to choose your power generating company.

Water is a regulated monopoly only because it is impractical to have two water/sewer lines in a city. But it's not impracticle for multiple companies to compete to run the water supply. You have multiple suppliers for your food and this works OK for the most part.

ZuS wrote:

Maybe you would like to choose the private police company? 

I think for small towns, it would more practical for the city's management to choose police services from several companies rather than be blackmailed by a police union monopoly demanding ridiculous pension plans. For big cities there is no reason we should not be able to choose from several companies, we already do this with security firms.

ZuS wrote:

Maybe you would like to choose individually all the people that work in your local fire department, what their wages should be and what color uniforms they should wear? Maybe you would like to have so much detailed uninformed choice on bullshit non-sensical issues that should basically be handled collectively that you will have no time to do anything else 24/7/52?

Well that's as ridiculous as saying you should choose the waiters in your restaurants. I only care about the bottom line, am I getting good service at a good price. But I want to make the call, not politicians. Do you want politicians to decide what restaurants are available for you to go to in your town?

ZuS wrote:

Maybe you think it's a good idea for kids and teachers in schools to make all decisions on funding of their classrooms and make all the administrative choices about which supplier of school benches the school should employ? Maybe each child should choose their own school book publisher? Maybe in a school of 1000 kids each of them should be responsible for running 0.1% of everything in their school?

I've tried to explain my position on education. I think you're making up a strawman argument about my position.

We already let kids decide what they can study. The results are a disaster. When I was in high school, you could opt out of math and science classes for something that was fun. So in my high school, we had 4 years of band, 4 years of choir, 4 years of art, 4 years of pys. ed. But we had no physics or advanced math classes. So now, people wonder why America is loosing out economically and we have high unemployment while there is a nurse and doctor shortage.

It's the people of your political persuasion that believe kids should choose to study what they want but I can't choose how to spend my own money on health care.

The person paying the bill should decide what kids study. So if you have a publicly funded education, it should be geared toward getting one gainful employment. Parents can fund whatever else they want their kids to study.

 

 

ZuS wrote:

Fundamental misunderstanding is that the private helthcare system equates more choice. It doesn't.

There is choice if you have money, there is no choice if you don't. So why not focus on fixing this problem?

ZuS wrote:

It equates to 45k dead Americans every year due to insufficient health insurance at a price TWICE that of any other modern country and an administrative overhead that is nothing short of fantastic.

This is propaganda and it's difficult to compare prices because of the differences in cost of living. And if  these profits are so massive, why can't you start a health insurance company and become a billionaire? Then use these billions to pay for poor people? You can't because you don't really believe this propaganda and because you are only generous and compassionate with other people's money not your own. 

ZuS wrote:

On top of that comes the huge stress factor for the uninformed individual - since they are NOT INFORMED on healthcare enough to be informed consumers. 

OK, so must be admitting our education systems is failure? It doesn't produce citizens that can not be informed consumers by reading , comprehending or thinking for themselves? Nor does it produce people that can afford to buy their own insurance. So the same political system and politicians that produced this failed system are going to run my health care? No thanks.

ZuS wrote:

It also equates destruction of the US Republic by the moneyed interest, which you as a republican should give a damn about once in a while.

I'm not a republican, they call me a communist.

ZuS wrote:

No, you won't. Have you bothered to read through the bill that is being formed at the moment? If you think that is socialised healthcare, you are on drugs.

We don't know yet if we'll get the public options. This will subsidize health care for everyone that can't afford it.

EXC wrote:

is one standard for everyone. So it looks like society will become slaves to the health care industry.

ZuS wrote:

Correct there - public option is off the table, at the moment it's really all about pleasing the industry.

But you can say no to them and their high prices.

EXC wrote:

What about an exemption for liberty lovers that don't want to be slaves to the medical industry?

EXC wrote:

You stand before nothing less than a fascist corporate state - there is no peaceful way to get rid of those.

Far from it. If I don't like a corporation, I don't want my money going to them. Under single payer, I'm force to pay them via taxes. Look at all the companies and doctors that got rich off medicaid.

EXC wrote:

it is a simple matter of reclaiming the billions in caiman islands for the US tax payer.

And once you take the billions, where will more money come from to fund doctors and the healthcare industry that can charge whatever they want because we never say no? What will get people into productive jobs so we can pay for whatever expensive cure that can be invented? I'll stop working when the government subsidizes me for being poor.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly wrote:So

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So you really think Blackwater/Xe saved America money?

Do you really think the prison guards at Abu-Ghrab that were government employees save America money or helped our anti-terrorism efforts? There are pleanty of instances of government employees illegally firing a civilians as well.

Suppose the guards at Abu Grab had been private contractors. We would never have heard the end of how bad it is to have private contractors. The problem in both cases though is lack of supervision on the part our elected officials. I don't see how having a the employees work directly for the government is an advantage. It all comes down to supervision and training.

But look at what happened in these two case. Backwater lost contracts, had their reputation ruined. Obama isn't going to hire them.

The generals in Abu Ghrab just got a slap on the wrist. The military is an old boys club and a monopoly.

That's what I don't get people will bitch about  Big oil, health insurance, Wal-mart, etc... being monopolies and in collusion. But then unions and government employees can collude and create monopolies, no problem with that.

No, but they had orders from the top to be as counter-productive as possible. Thank your boys Bush and Cheney for that, will you?

I really wish I'd run into these powerful unions you keep mentioning - My employer has our union by the short curlies with Indiana's help. But I doubt if you have a problem with government screwing over a union, do you?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:No, but they

jcgadfly wrote:

No, but they had orders from the top to be as counter-productive as possible. Thank your boys Bush and Cheney for that, will you?

They're never were my boys. They pretended to be fiscal conservatives then created unfunded socialist programs like prescription drugs. They grant welfare and rights to their constituents, how are they any different than a socialist leftist?

jcgadfly wrote:

I really wish I'd run into these powerful unions you keep mentioning - My employer has our union by the short curlies with Indiana's help. But I doubt if you have a problem with government screwing over a union, do you?

Come to California, the land of unfunded union entitlements.

There will be a day of reckoning on public retiree benefits

So the labor unions negotiated these generous unfunded pension plans in the past that are now due. We're bleeding businesses and jobs already to other places because of high taxes. So how do we avoid "screwing over" the unions by not paying these pensions? Where else do we cut the budget to pay for these union pensions?

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly wrote:No,

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

No, but they had orders from the top to be as counter-productive as possible. Thank your boys Bush and Cheney for that, will you?

They're never were my boys. They pretended to be fiscal conservatives then created unfunded socialist programs like prescription drugs. They grant welfare and rights to their constituents, how are they any different than a socialist leftist?

jcgadfly wrote:

I really wish I'd run into these powerful unions you keep mentioning - My employer has our union by the short curlies with Indiana's help. But I doubt if you have a problem with government screwing over a union, do you?

Come to California, the land of unfunded union entitlements.

There will be a day of reckoning on public retiree benefits

So the labor unions negotiated these generous unfunded pension plans in the past that are now due. We're bleeding businesses and jobs already to other places because of high taxes. So how do we avoid "screwing over" the unions by not paying these pensions? Where else do we cut the budget to pay for these union pensions?

 

 

How do you figure they weren't your boys? You have so much in common - you, Bush and Cheney want to destroy the government at all costs.

As for why we're bleeding business to other places - I don't suppose that the lower wages that those businesses can pay if they go elsewhere has nothing to do with it? Nope - it's all higher taxes and them damn unions. We should want to work for $5/day and have to buy out stuff from company stores and live in company housing, right?

You really don't know anything about economic reality do you?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

jcgadfly wrote:

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

No, but they had orders from the top to be as counter-productive as possible. Thank your boys Bush and Cheney for that, will you?

They're never were my boys. They pretended to be fiscal conservatives then created unfunded socialist programs like prescription drugs. They grant welfare and rights to their constituents, how are they any different than a socialist leftist?

jcgadfly wrote:

I really wish I'd run into these powerful unions you keep mentioning - My employer has our union by the short curlies with Indiana's help. But I doubt if you have a problem with government screwing over a union, do you?

Come to California, the land of unfunded union entitlements.

There will be a day of reckoning on public retiree benefits

So the labor unions negotiated these generous unfunded pension plans in the past that are now due. We're bleeding businesses and jobs already to other places because of high taxes. So how do we avoid "screwing over" the unions by not paying these pensions? Where else do we cut the budget to pay for these union pensions?

 

 

How do you figure they weren't your boys? You have so much in common - you, Bush and Cheney want to destroy the government at all costs.

As for why we're bleeding business to other places - I don't suppose that the lower wages that those businesses can pay if they go elsewhere has nothing to do with it? Nope - it's all higher taxes and them damn unions. We should want to work for $5/day and have to buy out stuff from company stores and live in company housing, right?

You really don't know anything about economic reality do you?

 

He probably believes in "reaganomics". Which, anyone that took Econ 101 knows is bullshit. 

 

At least he gets to share things in common with the right wing jesus jumpers. "Keep the government out of our business!" Lol.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:How do you

jcgadfly wrote:

How do you figure they weren't your boys? You have so much in common - you, Bush and Cheney want to destroy the government at all costs.

What are you talking about? Do you know how much government spending increased under Bush? Do you know how much more power the feds grabbed for themselves? So Bush was a big government spender, the only reason you don't like him is because he gave the welfare to corporations and the military instead of the constituents that you like.

You like for the gov. to spend money it doesn't have, so how are you any different?

jcgadfly wrote:

As for why we're bleeding business to other places - I don't suppose that the lower wages that those businesses can pay if they go elsewhere has nothing to do with it? Nope - it's all higher taxes and them damn unions. We should want to work for $5/day and have to buy out stuff from company stores and live in company housing, right?

So you're a protectionist then? So is your idea cut of all trade and just have a high minimum wage? So we loose all exportation jobs which are usually high paying technology jobs. The businesses then pass on all these mandatory high wages to the consumer, so people make $20/hr. in a non skilled job but it costs $20 for a hamburger and the prices at stores all double. So we have to raise wages more and we end up with runaway inflation. Businesses cut labor because it cost too much. Young workers have no incentive to learn because everyone makes the same net income if they can even find a job.

Is that pretty much the plan? We just keep raising minimum wage and benefits and pretend there will be no adverse secondary effects?

jcgadfly wrote:

You really don't know anything about economic reality do you?

For someone that completely ignores secondary effects and laws of supply and demand, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you don't understand me at all.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly wrote:How

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

How do you figure they weren't your boys? You have so much in common - you, Bush and Cheney want to destroy the government at all costs.

What are you talking about? Do you know how much government spending increased under Bush? Do you know how much more power the feds grabbed for themselves? So Bush was a big government spender, the only reason you don't like him is because he gave the welfare to corporations and the military instead of the constituents that you like.

You like for the gov. to spend money it doesn't have, so how are you any different?

jcgadfly wrote:

As for why we're bleeding business to other places - I don't suppose that the lower wages that those businesses can pay if they go elsewhere has nothing to do with it? Nope - it's all higher taxes and them damn unions. We should want to work for $5/day and have to buy out stuff from company stores and live in company housing, right?

So you're a protectionist then? So is your idea cut of all trade and just have a high minimum wage? So we loose all exportation jobs which are usually high paying technology jobs. The businesses then pass on all these mandatory high wages to the consumer, so people make $20/hr. in a non skilled job but it costs $20 for a hamburger and the prices at stores all double. So we have to raise wages more and we end up with runaway inflation. Businesses cut labor because it cost too much. Young workers have no incentive to learn because everyone makes the same net income if they can even find a job.

Is that pretty much the plan? We just keep raising minimum wage and benefits and pretend there will be no adverse secondary effects?

jcgadfly wrote:

You really don't know anything about economic reality do you?

For someone that completely ignores secondary effects and laws of supply and demand, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you don't understand me at all.

So you guys have different methods to your goals. your objective is still the same, is it not? One group wants to bloat the government till it collapses under it's own weight - the other wants to eviscerate it to uselessness.

Not a protectionist - I just want you to understand that high taxes (which actually don't exist for the corporations you describe - unless you define "high" as "any&quotEye-wink aren't the reason why the jobs go overseas.

Supply and demand has nothing to do with corporate greed - which is the cause you seem to be espousing under the guise of a "free market".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:He probably

ClockCat wrote:

He probably believes in "reaganomics". Which, anyone that took Econ 101 knows is bullshit. 

 From wikipedia.

"Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981-1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround. The economic principle that business expansion, jobs and wealth follow low tax rates is widely accepted".

Stephen Moore has a B.A. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an M.A. from George Mason University in economics. I guess he must have skipped Enon 101 and went strait to 102.

Why do you make such ridiculous claims? Anyone with a brain knows there is a debate between liberal and conservative economists about supply side economics, they all took Econ 101. How we can anyone have a debate with someone that is so brainwashed by their propaganda that they have no grip on reality.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

He probably believes in "reaganomics". Which, anyone that took Econ 101 knows is bullshit. 

 From wikipedia.

"Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981-1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround. The economic principle that business expansion, jobs and wealth follow low tax rates is widely accepted".

Stephen Moore has a B.A. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an M.A. from George Mason University in economics. I guess he must have skipped Enon 101 and went strait to 102.

Why do you make such ridiculous claims? Anyone with a brain knows there is a debate between liberal and conservative economists about supply side economics, they all took Econ 101. How we can anyone have a debate with someone that is so brainwashed by their propaganda that they have no grip on reality.

 

 

Hahahaha. Thanks for proving my point.

 

There is no "debate" because reaganomics never has been, and never will be a form of economics. It quite simply is a lie.

 

There is no such thing as a "trickle down" effect. Reaganomics functions on the pareto principle, and works to take wealth from the middle class and shift it upwards, essentially creating two classes of people.

 

Next you will be arguing for a "flat tax". Hahahaha.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Hahahaha.

ClockCat wrote:

 

Hahahaha. Thanks for proving my point.

Where did I claim I believed in "Reganomics"? All I did was prove your 'argument by consensus' claim was completely false.

You love to commit this logically fallacy all the time:

Argumentum ad populum

Why don't you try to present evidence and respected opinions to prove your point? Why do think claiming that 'EXC must be wrong because he's in the minority' is a good argument on an atheist website?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Wow an economist from a

Wow an economist from a conservative economics school makes unfounded claims. Holy damn, we should just bow down to this argument from authority.

If there is a debate about supply side economics - it should be "Does it suck or does it suck hard enough to bend light?"

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

 Oh no, I'm speaking from my own understanding. I had to take a number of micro, and macroeconomic courses.

 

"supply side economics", the idea that by cutting taxes it increases tax revenue by allowing companies and individuals to spend more, is quite simply a lie. The laffer curve quoted by people that believe in this, even shows the lie, as the nation is permanently to the left of the curve no matter what is done short of taxing 90% capital gains and labor income.

 

It functions as the pareto principle says it would. That is, it never accomplishes what it claims it does. "Trickle down" is a lie. Any beginning student in economics knows this. What it does is starve the government of funding, creating more national debt while redistributing the wealth.

 

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, if you think you found the "grand unified theory" of economics. It isn't even a valid economic theory though. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Wow an

jcgadfly wrote:

Wow an economist from a conservative economics school makes unfounded claims. Holy damn, we should just bow down to this argument from authority.

I didn't argue for Reganomics, I only presented evidence that CC claim was completely false.

I agree that capitalism can lead to great imbalances in wealth. But this is only because we allow the wealthy to monopolize natural resources. But an economics system must reward sucess not punish it.

jcgadfly wrote:

If there is a debate about supply side economics - it should be "Does it suck or does it suck hard enough to bend light?"

But how many people would like to return to the economy of the 80s and 90s? We go into the current economic mess by encouraging lending to help the poor instead of increasing their productivity.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

Hahahaha. Thanks for proving my point.

Where did I claim I believed in "Reganomics"? All I did was prove your 'argument by consensus' claim was completely false.

You love to commit this logically fallacy all the time:

Argumentum ad populum

Why don't you try to present evidence and respected opinions to prove your point? Why do think claiming that 'EXC must be wrong because he's in the minority' is a good argument on an atheist website?

 

 

Because rather than making an appeal to an inappropriate authority I would rather address the points myself. I never said you were wrong about reaganomics because you are in a minority. 

 

I'm laughing at you believing in it, because you found some douchebag to link to saying it is good, while not discussing it yourself. Oh, and also laughing at you fitting perfectly into the stereotype that I portrayed you in. Yes, that too.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

If there is a debate about supply side economics - it should be "Does it suck or does it suck hard enough to bend light?"

But how many people would like to return to the economy of the 80s and 90s? We go into the current economic mess by encouraging lending to help the poor instead of increasing their productivity.

 

 

Ahahahahahahha. Oh god. Priceless.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly wrote:Wow

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Wow an economist from a conservative economics school makes unfounded claims. Holy damn, we should just bow down to this argument from authority.

I didn't argue for Reganomics, I only presented evidence that CC claim was completely false.

I agree that capitalism can lead to great imbalances in wealth. But this is only because we allow the wealthy to monopolize natural resources. But an economics system must reward sucess not punish it.

jcgadfly wrote:

If there is a debate about supply side economics - it should be "Does it suck or does it suck hard enough to bend light?"

But how many people would like to return to the economy of the 80s and 90s? We go into the current economic mess by encouraging lending to help the poor instead of increasing their productivity.

80's no - 90's sure. We had a surplus in the 90s (did you forget about the best Republican president the country ever had - Bill Clinton?)

Improving the productivity of the poor? How in the hell does taking jobs out of this country accomplish that?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: I'm

ClockCat wrote:

 

I'm laughing at you believing in it, because you found some douchebag to link to saying it is good, while not discussing it yourself. Oh, and also laughing at you fitting perfectly into the stereotype that I portrayed you in. Yes, that too.

All you do is insult and make 'appeal to majority' arguments. Where is the evidence that high taxes, massive welfare entitlements, high minimum wage, protectionism, etc... will work and are sustainable?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:80's no -

jcgadfly wrote:

80's no - 90's sure. We had a surplus in the 90s (did you forget about the best Republican president the country ever had - Bill Clinton?)

Well in '92, he had to promise people 'something for nothing' liberalism. Then he had to get reelected in 96, so he needed a good economy, so he stabbed the liberals in the back. Just a typical politician.

jcgadfly wrote:

Improving the productivity of the poor? How in the hell does taking jobs out of this country accomplish that?

How do we keep high paying jobs here unless the workers are highly productive and capitalists are encouraged not punished for starting new businesses?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

I'm laughing at you believing in it, because you found some douchebag to link to saying it is good, while not discussing it yourself. Oh, and also laughing at you fitting perfectly into the stereotype that I portrayed you in. Yes, that too.

All you do is insult and make 'appeal to majority' arguments. Where is the evidence that high taxes, massive welfare entitlements, high minimum wage, protectionism, etc... will work and are sustainable?

 

 

Are you attributing claims of all these things to me? Why are you trying to change the subject? Why are you throwing up a number of red herrings? 

 

Are you afraid to discuss reaganomics on it's own merits? Or is it that you are unable to, and that is why you seek to find quotes from proponents of it?

 

I'm still waiting for you to discuss any of the points I have made. No doubt this will be very humorous for me. :3

Theism is why we can't have nice things.