So the '09 budget deficit for the USA government is running at about 1.4 trillion bucks, about triple what it was last year and more than any other year in recent history (accounting for inflation). But hey, who cares? You have to spend money to make money.
| |
Fugsnarf wrote:
The USA doesn't need to make money. We need to make our money worth more. This is why printing money doesn't work and also why spending money doesn't work. The economy will always fix itself without the government. Do you really think FDR really got us out of the depression? Most of his "New Deal" was either unconstitutional, had a bad outcome, or had no outcome at all. If this administration continues doing this garbage, the dollar really will become garbage. Fugs, next election cycle, be sure to put your weight behind a candidate that would actually take the Federal Reserve head on and run a constitutionally sound administration, like Ron Paul... Not the garbage conservative lot of McCain/Rimjob Romney/Fraud Thompson. | |
I think all the parties are a bunch of corrupt morons. In the end, I think McCain would have been the best choice for COMMANDER IN CHEIF when you look at all his experience in war. People forget that when we elect a president, we're electing the commander in cheif, not just a politician.
[EDIT] The legislative branch is to blame for these bills that are going to destroy the dollar. Obama is to blame for wanting to sign them and also rallying people to the cause. | |
Fugsnarf wrote:
I think all the parties are a bunch of corrupt morons. In the end, I think McCain would have been the best choice for COMMANDER IN CHEIF when you look at all his experience in war. People forget that when we elect a president, we're electing the commander in cheif, not just a politician. Then your initial comment in this thread rings extremely hollow. There's still an unconstitutional war being fought in Iraq, McCain would have even less than Obama has. You can't just pick and choose what unconstitutional positions one political party holds. [EDIT]The legislative branch is to blame for these bills that are going to destroy the dollar. Obama is to blame for wanting to sign them and also rallying people to the cause. It started with the federal reserve act during the Wilson administration. It's not the convenient Democrat in office. | |
How is my initial comment hollow? I stated that the economy will take care of itself. In the comment you just quoted, I simply said that both the republican AND democrat parties are corrupt and that McCain has plenty of war experience to be commander in cheif. There are also a lot of things that the government does that can be called unconstitutional. Nonetheless, we're in a war and we need to win it. Obama could start by actually listening to his own general that he sent out there.
| |
Fugsnarf wrote:
How is my initial comment hollow? I stated that the economy will take care of itself. You indicated that it was up to this current administration needed to avert the dollar's collapse. Since your alternative would have nearly identical policies, it indicates that you do not believe in you initial comment. Hence, it's hollow. In the comment you just quoted, I simply said that both the republican AND democrat parties are corrupt and that McCain has plenty of war experience to be commander in cheif. So if someone with war experience continues unconstitutional policies then you give them a pass as a good leader. Your approaching extreme hypocrite status in you political position. . Nonetheless, we're in a war and we need to win it. Obama could start by actually listening to his own general that he sent out there. The cost of Obama's monster health care program is less thanthe costs of the war in Iraq. This isn't even in present value costs. Were we to do that, compound eight years of GDP increase into it. We've already lost this "war" on an economic front. | |
I'd rather a man with war experience conduct an unconstitutional war than one that has none.
Also, McCain wouldn't have made us spend trillions on these pork barrel bills. | |
Also don't think I'm saying that McCain is the knight in shining armor coming to save us all. Hardly. I simply said he was the best choice out of the two.
| |
Fugsnarf wrote:
I'd rather a man with war experience conduct an unconstitutional war than one that has none. Fine. We're agreed that your comment rings hollow. Also, McCain wouldn't have made us spend trillions on these pork barrel bills. McCain voted for TARP. If history repeats itself then you are most likely wrong. You did not say he was the best of the two. You said he was the _best_. You said this as a response to my suggestion for your candidates in the future. The rational conclusion to your comment would be that you would continue to vote for candidates that would do the opposite of what you proclaimed in your first comment. | |
Bootyboy wrote:
You did not say he was the best of the two. You said he was the _best_. There were only two he could be the best out of when he came down to it. Him and Obama. Let it be known to you then that that was what I meant. | |
Fugsnarf wrote:
There were only two he could be the best out of when he came down to it. Him and Obama. Let it be known to you then that that was what I meant. Then revisit my initial comment and respond rationally this time. As a refresher, we're talking about the economy, not irrelevant banality. | |
Don't you love how posts on the deficit start such big arguments?
| |
Politics do not belong on BYOND.
| |
Fugsnarf wrote:
"You have to spend money to make money." I think you'll find that that was a sarcastic comment. But I'll take you on. I disagree that the economy will always fix itself without the government. I point to the "Tragedy of the Commons" argument, and ask how you think that would be resolved minus government intervention. Specifically, the "Tragedy of the Commons" is a thought experiment that runs something like this: Assume that there is a small village that makes most of its money via raising livestock. There is a field - the commons - that is public land, usable by all ranchers. It is individually optimal for every farmer to let their livestock wander the commons, eating as much as they want, but the consequences of every farmer adopting that policy are over-grazing, the destruction of the commons, and via that the destruction of the local livestock-farming economy. I posit to you that minus government intervention, the commons will be overgrazed, and the economy will kill itself. Government intervention is required in the form of laws permitting only a certain level of grazing on the commons, with penalties for farmers that go over that amount - thus preserving the economy. Note that this is intended more as an argument-by-analogy than an explicit representation of the livestock-farming market - it applies to any situation where there is a common resource and the economically rational thing to do is to use it faster than it can be replenished. That's a surprisingly common situation - see fish stocks, acid rain, overgrazing, toxic runoff from farms, global warming, etc. I also think that democractic-socialist policies of public education and healthcare are significant benefits to the economy that the private sector, left to itself, would never provide. I will agree with you that, in general, public money supporting private enterprise - subsidies, etc. - is not a good way to run an economy - unless said subsidies are to encourage long-term behaviour from companies (A carrot to encourage the 'correct' solution to the commons problem - say a subsidy for companies that reduce their carbon emissions in real terms, or the equivalent), but that's mostly because I don't think that's a long-term viable solution, rather than any religious mantra that the blind hand of the market will always find the right way forward. I don't know enough about FDR and the New Deal to really argue there, I'm afraid, so I'll let that drop. I will note that unconstitutionality doesn't necessarily mean 'morally wrong' or 'ineffective', and that one man's unconstitutional is another man's great idea. In particular, I think a federalist interpretation of your constitution (I assume you're a US citizen) is counterproductive, whether or not it's correct. | |
Are -you- even a US citizen? If you aren't, it's not even worth arguing with you about how my US economy works.
"I also think that democractic-socialist policies of public education and healthcare are significant benefits to the economy that the private sector, left to itself, would never provide." First of all, let me know of these benefits. I don't want to hear the usual, "Everyone gets to go to school/gets free healthcare" garbage. I want to know some economic benefits. Public edjucation is garbage. At least in the US it's garbage for sure. I'm not sure what the drop-out rate is right now but I think it's somewhere around 50%, maybe even more. The one thing that public edjucation is good for is that it's beneficial to the kids that can't pay for private school, but actually want to work for their edjucation. That percentage is very low. Also, if you live in a country with a government-run healthcare system and like it, it's fairly surprising to me that you would like it. From what I can hear, you have extremely longer waits than us for care, even vital care. You have drastically higher death rates than us for all types of cancer and many other complications. You also have doctors that don't need to work hard to care for their patients because they are paid a fixed amount. Why would a doctor work hard on you? You're just a number to them, they just want to get you out to fill their quota and get paid. | |
"live in a country with a government-run healthcare system.................."
As long as it´s the same for everyone...i´m fine with it. | |
Saeba.Ryo wrote:
"live in a country with a government-run healthcare system.................." If everybody got exactly nothing, you would be happy? | |
Fugsnarf wrote:
the ramblings of a conservative For someone who can't properly spell education, you really like to insult public schools. I'm in an excellent public school now, and I have no problems. I probably know more than most of the people locally who are in private schools, as a matter of fact. Also, the current dropout rate is 30%, you really need to learn what a search engine is. Also, government funded health care can work if done properly. However, Obama is just going at it in the wrong way. This is a bad time to rack up the deficit even more, and to maintain the current level of care, he would need to start some sort of program that encourages people to become doctors (of course, I'm just assuming he doesn't have some sort of program planned). | |
Fugsnarf wrote:
Are -you- even a US citizen? If you aren't, it's not even worth arguing with you about how my US economy works. I'm not a US citizen, no - I'm Australian. But that's not really terribly relevant, because the same fundamental principles underpin economics everywhere and the same human rights apply to everyone everywhere. "I also think that democractic-socialist policies of public education and healthcare are significant benefits to the economy that the private sector, left to itself, would never provide." Everyone having access to education and everyone having access to healthcare (Note I didn't say 'free healthcare' - I know it's funded by taxes) is the economic benefit. Having wealthy parents isn't correlated with being a good student - if you only educate the wealthy, you're missing out on a whole bunch of people who could be useful and productive members of society. I hope you would agree that everyone should have the same opportunity to succeed in life. Public healthcare and education policies attempt to level the playing field such that the poor have as much chance to succeed as the rich. That has economic benefits, too - there's less of an economic underclass, lowered crime rates, less need for welfare (not that there's much of that in the US), etc. Public edjucation is garbage. At least in the US it's garbage for sure. I'm not sure what the drop-out rate is right now but I think it's somewhere around 50%, maybe even more. The one thing that public edjucation is good for is that it's beneficial to the kids that can't pay for private school, but actually want to work for their edjucation. That percentage is very low. Regardless of whether the US public education system is garbage or not, it's a good idea in general. And it doesn't have to be poor education - it's a matter of how well it's funded and run. I'm currently attending a publicly-funded university, and getting a pretty good education. Specifically, I'm attending Adelaide University, and though university funding in Australia isn't completely public (They charge fees as well as getting government support), it's mostly deriving money from the government. Plus, there's the HECS system, which means that most of the attendees to the university are having their fees paid by the government, and then pay them back later. It's quite a good system. I can't speak for the value of public education in Australia - I was in private schools for my primary and secondary education. But I will say that the Australian system allows anyone with talent to go through school and university and get a degree, regardless of financial standing, though it's a bit harder for people on the low end of the financial scale. That's worth a lot. Also, if you live in a country with a government-run healthcare system and like it, it's fairly surprising to me that you would like it. From what I can hear, you have extremely longer waits than us for care, even vital care. You have drastically higher death rates than us for all types of cancer and many other complications. You also have doctors that don't need to work hard to care for their patients because they are paid a fixed amount. Why would a doctor work hard on you? You're just a number to them, they just want to get you out to fill their quota and get paid. You're quite misinformed on the worth of public healthcare systems. The US actually has one of the worst healthcare systems in the world in terms of outcome and price. See, for example, France's excellent healthcare system. That's not because France has better doctors or equipment than the US. It's because in the US, if you've got money, you'll get some of the best medical treatment in the world. But if you don't have money, you're up shit creek. It's a matter of averages. Universal healthcare tends to bring up the quality of care for those on the poorer end of society, without affecting care for those on the high end much - which brings up the average quality of care significantly. I've never been on a waiting list for a single medical procedure, ever. And that's not because I've never been into a hospital. I've never had any life-threatening or particularly serious issues, mind, but I have had a bunch of teeth removed under general anaesthesia (They were fused to my jawbone), and some surgery on my feet. Your assumption that doctors are paid 'a fixed amount' is somewhat broken. There are a number of ways of running a public healthcare scheme, and some sort of quota system is probably the worst. In Aussieland, you pay doctors for whatever care has happened, and the government pays part of it for you if it's covered under Medicare (The name of the public healthcare scheme). The amount paid by the government varies depending on what the treatment was, and doctors are free to charge as much as they want for treatments. If they're a good doctor, they can charge more, and people going to them will pay more. It works pretty well. You're also neglecting to consider that doctors probably care about their patients out of professional pride and wanting to do their job well. I'm paid the same amount whether I write code or goof off all day - and to be honest, I could probably goof off a fair bit and get away with it. But I write code anyway, because I take pride in my work. And, finally, note that I'm not saying that there shouldn't be private education or healthcare. I think that you should have a private and public healthcare and education sector, with the public sector establishing a baseline of care that everyone can get, and the private sector providing better quality of service for those who are able and willing to pay. The public sector also ensures the quality of the private sector - they have to be better than the public option, or people will just take the public option. That helps prevent the issue you've got in the US of medical insurance companies coming up with reasons not to insure you for whatever healthcare you require. I don't know exactly how Obama's healthcare scheme is intended to function, so I can't really comment on that. | |
The USA doesn't need to make money. We need to make our money worth more. This is why printing money doesn't work and also why spending money doesn't work. The economy will always fix itself without the government. Do you really think FDR really got us out of the depression? Most of his "New Deal" was either unconstitutional, had a bad outcome, or had no outcome at all. If this administration continues doing this garbage, the dollar really will become garbage.