Page 5 of 113 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 1123

Thread: Pesident Clinton

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Guildford, UK
    Posts
    165

    Default

    "What would this do to national expenditures for healthcare spending?"

    http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects...nding-compared

    Terrible, terrible things. That has been tried and tested by the USA over decades and the results just jump out at ya from the graph. Would be ok if it got the results but http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-9542833.html

    Sadly it seems all too evident people are unwilling to pay and are kinda shitty - but it's not intentional and helpless. We're small creatures and seeing the vastness of the picture down into the depths we can't imagine and those trapped in them is beyond any one person - at best we can hope to be aware such a thing exists. As such I hope we elect governments who can take that wider view and ensure we all get a fair chance without a heavy hand enforcing just how and how much - tough balances to walk but with the load spread wide enough it's much lighter
    Dynamics/EasyLase LC/FD820/RGB 400mW Homebrew w/EMS4ks

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Thessaloniki
    Posts
    223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by planters View Post
    Trump is brash. He is non-political and his statements are not crafted for him by a room full of marketing graduates. As such, he might fail to steer wide enough around hot button topics and his statements can easily be modified or parsed or taken out of context to his detriment. He is also human and makes mistakes.
    I agree that he's human and we all make mistakes, but caution should be taken when saying that. When it comes to actual political issues like illegal immigration, temporary prevention of muslims entering the US, strickter borders he is not brash, he is taken out of context or misquoted. When it comes to certain comments about certain (not *all*) women for example, which has nothing to do with politics, maybe he's brash but it shouldn't matter for voting for him.
    Last edited by ghosttrain; 03-16-2016 at 07:12.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,147,489,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by planters View Post
    Redistributing the wealth and resources from those that that produce it to those that don't, discourages those that produce it and decreases the incentive to remain in that group.
    You have just made a claim that is completely and utterly NOT supported by the evidence of the nations who have embraced redistribution. Just because you want it to be true doesn't make it true.

    This is not an all-or-nothing issue. You can redistribute some of the wealth to provide a social safety net without discouraging production. The vast majority of the nations that make up the western world do this. Why can't you see that?

    Each of us weighs the costs and benefits of working and socialism makes working or working harder less desirable and in the end, someone has to work to support all those straw men.
    Are you telling me that you actively monitor your work output based on your tax bracket? More directly, have you *ever* reduced your work output solely because you might land yourself in a higher tax bracket and thus be marginally taxed at a higher rate on the wages from that extra work output? Answer honestly now.

    The fact is that even with a progressive income tax bracket, you are only taxed at the higher rate on the margin above the bracket limit. So you will never "lose" money by working more, even with a progressive income tax system. I will grant you that there used to be a single exception to this here in the US where certain retirees drawing social security and who also made between $12,000 and $18,000 annually might be affected, but that loophole was closed long ago. You will not "lose" money in the US by working more, even with a progressive tax system.

    Furthermore, if you look back into our own nation's tax history, you will see that the times when our progressive tax rates were at their highest also correspond with periods of RECORD GROWTH in our GDP. So explain to me how socialist policies like a strongly progressive income tax system is going to decrease production again, when history shows the opposite?

    Your arguments against socialism are theoretical and completely at odds with reality. To be brutally honest, they are also amazingly simplistic and one-dimensional, and have been repeated (and resoundingly refuted) on pol-sci forums, blogs - and no doubt classrooms as well - for a long, long time.

    That is why I stated that I could not believe you were the one repeating them. I've always considered you to be someone who fact-checked things before you posted them. Furthermore, I generally consider you to be one of the better-educated members of the forum. As in top-10-list educated. (Note: I do not consider myself to be worthy of inclusion on that list. I am sitting on a lowly BS that I earned 15 years ago and have done nothing with since.)

    Evidently when it comes to politics though, you speak from your emotional experience. And yeah, I know politics is an emotional subject for many people. But that's a lousy way to make decisions that affect the entire nation. More to the point, it is a terrible way to make an argument. You can't "prove" a feeling.

    Part of the reason for allowing foreign immigrants into Europe is that the reproductive rate is below the replacement level.
    So what? The reproductive rate here in the US is also slowing. Hell, it's slowing in *lots* of places around the globe. (Which is a damned good thing, to be honest.) The fact that Europe's reproductive rate is low does nothing to prove that their socialist policies are the cause. More to the point, it doesn't even prove that the immigration is a problem for the country in the first place.

    The millions of Muslims are attracted to Europe because of the generous welfare state. It's most generous in Germany and so, that has been their target destination.
    You do realize that an influx of cheap labor actually helps a country, right? By many estimates, our own immigration (which on a per-capita basis is relatively mild compared to, say, Germany) nonetheless contributes a whopping 11% to our GDP.

    Let me put that into perspective for you: THE ENTIRE FEDERAL BUDGET is only ~ 22% of GDP. So our GDP would fall by an amount equal to HALF the Federal Budget if Trump were able to "build his wall and make Mexico pay for it." Think about that for a moment...

    Immigration can be a problem, but historically it has been managed by every western nation without serious long-term harm to their economy. Granted, there are shocks to the system (such as when the "boat people" from Laos were settled here, or when the influx of Syrian refugees overwhelmed Germany), but these are short-duration problems. I'll also grant you that in general refugees like the idea of free education and health care like Germany offers, but the reason they go there is not to become bums, but because they can get an education that leads to a job that leads to a better quality of life.

    the socialist state needs enforcement to make people comply and do what they are discouraged from doing
    Just as the communist state needs enforcement, the capitalist state needs enforcement, the democratic republic state needs enforcement, the fascist state needs enforcement... The need for enforcement is universal and has nothing to do with socialism.

    It is unstable.
    Explain the continued existence of pretty much all of Europe then.

    I benefited from the dedication of my parents, older friends, relatives, teachers and the grace of God.
    I love that you included "the grace of God"... Nice way to tie up all the unmentioned issues by saying that they are beyond our control as a society. So ultimately it's all God's will as to whether we succeed or not? We can do better than that. Europe has been doing better than that for a long time now.

    I will not allow this to be hijacked to justify some impersonal function of the State.
    Who is hijacking anything? Seriously Eric, I don't know where you come up with these statements... Have you even LOOKED at Bernie's proposed budget? I don't know how much money you earn, but I feel pretty confident that you are in either the 25% or 28% tax bracket. Based upon that assumption, you would be facing a *maximum* income tax increase of 2.2%, assuming worst case, if Bernie's plan were implemented today. Are you seriously calling a 2% increase a "hijacking"?

    I resent your assumption that your view of politics is so elevated that you can pass judgement.
    It has nothing to do with my personal "views" on politics. We are discussing facts. You stated that socialism decreases production, but you offered zero evidence to support this claim. I have provided counter-examples that demonstrate the contrary. You further stated that socialism reduces reproduction, but you failed to prove it. My position is that correlation does not equal causation, and furthermore a reduced reproduction rate (or even increased immigration) can actually be beneficial. You stated that socialism will hijack the process by which you became successful. I've shown that the differences are trivial between the two.

    This isn't passing judgement based on what my personal political views are, or how they differ from yours for that matter. This is calling you out for making a public argument from a position of emotion rather than one based on FACTS. If you want to say that you don't want to vote for Bernie because you don't like him as a person, or you don't trust him, or you have some other feeling that makes you shy away from him, then that is your feeling and your feeling alone. We're not discussing that.

    But when you make claims like "socialist policies will force people to re-evaluate their production levels", that's a statement of fact and you had better be able to back it up.

    Honestly, if you had simply said something like "I don't like Bernie Sanders because I prefer to pay as little in taxes as possible, and I don't care about the people who are less fortunate than I am because I don't feel like losing any amount, however small, out of my paycheck to help them", then that would be that. People might call you selfish or heartless, but that is your prerogative.

    It's when you try to make it sound like you don't want these types of policies because they are somehow bad for the nation as a whole that I got involved. See the difference?

    Socialism is for loosers. Socialism is theft.
    Thank you for demonstrating my earlier point (above) about you arguing from a point of emotion rather than fact. Clearly you hate the idea of socialism. And that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own likes and dislikes. But it is intellectually dishonest to conflate your personal distaste for it with factual statements that it is bad for the country / won't work for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by planters View Post
    Free market capitalism is a good start.
    Free market capitalism (that is, truly unchecked capitalism, which is quite rare outside of the industrial revolution in our country around the turn of the century) has been demonstrated to be fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons: There is zero financial incentive for a private corporation to provide for the public good, or police their own workplace safety, or take care with their environmental stewardship, or any of a hundred other issues. Remember that in free market capitalism, the only motivating factor is Profit. I suggest you read up on the subject before you argue the point further, just to open your mind to the myriad issues that are present with "free market capitalism". Here are two good articles: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-p...h-Free-Markets http://www.governmentisgood.com/arti...aid=13&print=1

    If you are that manufacturer and your success depends on the poor having government checks to buy
    You are right back to the straw-man of the bum who is forever freeloading on the Government teat. I've already showed you that the freeloaders and fraudsters make up a remarkably low percentage of the people on the welfare/unemployment rolls. So can we please dispense with this example already?

    Socialism discourages innovation and hard work.
    And yet Germany seems to be cranking out some very innovative automobiles, solar power stations, wind turbines, and a host of other products, despite the socialist policies of their Government. So apparently it does NOT discourage innovation.

    How about a more personal example? I get zero monetary rewards for hosting SELEM. You get zero monetary rewards for posting how-to laser videos on youtube. By your logic, neither one of us should choose to devote our valuable free time to these endeavors, because they don't earn us any money. But we do so anyway... Why?

    Well, we are human. We have likes and dislikes. And we gain other, intangible benefits from what we do. So we do it anyway. Guess what? That's a socialist attitude. We do what we do for our own gratification and for the greater good of the community as a whole, and we are not tarnished or otherwise harmed (or "hijacked", to use your words) in the process.

    Now, I grant you that it's an imperfect analogy. One, we are choosing to do it ourselves, rather than the government taking money from our check and hiring someone else do to it. And two, we volunteered for it, where as even if Bernie were elected, there would be a substantial segment of the population who would have voted against him, and thus would not have "volunteered". But hopefully you can see my point that free market capitalism doesn't hold all the answers, either for an individual or a nation as a whole. (The two articles I linked to above can provide considerably more perspective.)

    Fear is a motivator as well. We all know how fear has moved us in the past.
    I am 100% against a government motivating the people through fear. And I do agree this tactic has often been used in the past, throughout our nation's history. That does not make it right. We should be ashamed of this fact, in my opinion.

    The promise of wealth without confiscation is another motivator.
    It need not be black or white. You can have the promise of wealth (the spoils of capitalism, if you will) while still taxing at a progressive level that does not stifle growth, innovation, or hard work. Again, look at the history of our own nation and match up the GDP with the marginal tax rates.

    I will agree that 100% taxation will result in the consequences you speak of. But no one is proposing that. And even when our country DID have exorbitantly high tax rates (how about a top bracket of 78%!), we still had a rapidly expanding economy. Furthermore, the continued examples of other western nations demonstrate that there is a middle ground that works very well.

    Sanders is honest, but his philosophy would increase an already way too large state.
    If only you had just added "in my opinion" to that statement.... As it's stated now you make it sound like a fact, which means you need to demonstrate how much of an increase we are talking about and also demonstrate that this would have a net negative effect.

    Some of his success is due to the apocalypse he is running against for the nomination.
    That's the first time I've ever heard this opinion voiced in those terms, but I have to agree that is a colorful and somewhat apt metaphor.

    Trump is surging despite the opposition of just about every institution of the Washington establishment, including his own party.
    Personally, I think Trump is doing so well because he is an outsider. And to be completely honest, were it not for his impulsiveness and a few other character traits that I find difficult to agree with, I would probably support him as well, for that same reason (being an outsider). But, alas, there are a few show-stoppers in Trump that I just can't get behind. I will admit that it is amusing to watch the entrenched political establishment scramble to deal with him though.

    I do have a sense of fairness and because I do not have your sense of fairness this does not make me naive.
    As I mentioned above, this is fine. All you have to do is own it and stop there. "I want to keep what I earned. I feel this is mine, and I don't want to share it and/or don't trust the government to share it properly. If that makes me selfish, so be it." This is a perfectly valid way to put things. People might want to call you names because of it, but then it's a moral discussion with an ambiguous conclusion, rather that an argument about facts that can be proved or disproved.

    It's when you try to turn a personal feeling into a statement of fact that you are tripping yourself up. Again, you can't "prove" a feeling. And if you try to justify the way you feel with arguments about facts, well, you need to be sure that the facts actually back up your claims...

    Suggesting this makes you sound arrogant.
    I fully admit that I (and others in this thread) have come off as supremely arrogant. In my own defense, however, my arrogance is fueled by my utter disbelief that someone with your education, experience, and wisdom would ever fall into a trap like this. I'm not trying to be ugly here, but I honestly wondered if you were trolling the group when I first read through the thread. That's how huge the disconnect was in my mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by planters View Post
    Trump is brash. He is non-political and his statements are not crafted for him by a room full of marketing graduates. As such, he might fail to steer wide enough around hot button topics and his statements can easily be modified or parsed or taken out of context to his detriment.
    If he were to preside in a vacuum, I would have far fewer objections to his brashness. But as president of the only remaining world superpower, he *must* interact with the rest of the world. And that interaction needs to be measured, balanced, nuanced, and very carefully crafted, because decisions on the world stage have far-reaching consequences.

    By comparison, is Obama overly polished, crafted, test-marketed, and ultimately manipulated? Probably. But I don't think he will screw up and start a war either. With Trump I'm honestly not certain, and that uncertainty is very unsettling when you consider what the price of failure is.

    the Washington elite and the political system hate and fear him and will malign him.
    Yup. Already happening. Actually, in my opinion, I think they (well, the Republican party at least) are actively working against him. Why else would Kasich still be in the race even though he's running a distant third? My guess is that he's trying to prevent Trump from reaching the magical 1,237 before the convention so the party can make the decision instead of the voters. And I fully believe he's being coached by the party at the highest levels. But admittedly, this is only my opinion.

    If our elderly need care and we, their offspring, are unwilling to do it then the free market will pay a lot to those willing to pick up the burden.
    Except that's not the case. The market is NOT willing to pay a lot. Surely you've read horror stories about the horrible care in some nursing homes.?. It's rare that you hear about that sort of thing happening in a facility that charges 12,000 per month though. Trouble is, most people can't afford that (or could, but don't want to give up their own quality of life for the benefit of their parents). It's always at the economy facilities that you hear about standards of care not being upheld.

    If we are then unwilling to pay that price then we as a nation are kinda shitty and are we going to freely elect a government that will force us not to be shitty through taxation and redistribution?
    That's a rather blunt way to put it, but yes, sometimes you have to accept that the market simply can't (or won't) provide for every need. But before you start with a slippery-slope argument about how this will lead to a nanny-state, remember that Bernie's plan has specific goals for specific problems. He's not claiming to solve everything. And truthfully as president the best he can do is propose bills to the congress. They still have to make it through the house and the senate. So what he WANTS verses what he can get PASSED are two very different things.

    Adam

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,513

    Default

    Adam
    Your post is so long and restates your positions, so I'm not going to even try to readdress the same disagreements we have discussed before. You assume I do not understand these political issues and make judgements from an emotional basis. I likewise believe you do exactly the same as you accuse me of doing.

    I will vote for Trump. You can vote for whomever you prefer. I suspect that will be Sanders and as I have said, he would be my second choice.

    You said I am smart and you know that I have been successful in multiple fields. If that is not just a set up for a put down then consider your assumption that my political views are stupid or naive or foolish. Consider the possibility that you may have gotten it wrong.

    Let the readers for whom these posts are actually written, consider this as well.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Guildford, UK
    Posts
    165

    Default

    #epic but not wrong.

    I'm afraid there's some horrifically inaccurate information around and even a genius can be fooled by that.

    Europe's population continues to grow healthily - and it's beyond ridiculous to suggest a temporary influx of refugees who will then go home when the war is done can serve in any way to pop up birth rates. This is totally untrue. Almost EVERY European country is upset about population density - we want to bring it down to level!

    Secondly Germany does NOT have the most generous benefits system - it has attracted more refugees as it has officially welcomed and accepted them - many other countries have not. Many countries have more generous systems - France, The UK, Luxembourg - but for example here in the UK we're only accepting a few thousand a year. There's no point in them heading here - so few do.

    When people feed you lies and misinformation they're trying to manipulate you. Now what I've said there is checkable via a hundred sources official and otherwise from highly highly educated people whose entire job it is to know this stuff - they can't all be wrong.

    Trump terrifies me - we have no idea what he really believes. His speeches give so few details and there's no official policy - my great fear is everyone's been projecting what they imagine he'll do into it and should he get in there will be a lot of disappointed folk when they realise he's as establishment as it gets. His entire wealth and 'worth' relies on it.
    Dynamics/EasyLase LC/FD820/RGB 400mW Homebrew w/EMS4ks

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Thessaloniki
    Posts
    223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frostypaw View Post
    Trump terrifies me - we have no idea what he really believes.
    But the same can be said about everyone.
    What are the chances that Hillary or Bernie will actually do what they promise they will?

    His speeches give so few details and there's no official policy
    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

    Does one honestly tell you nothing and the other one is crystal clear?

    Quote Originally Posted by buffo View Post
    But, alas, there are a few show-stoppers in Trump that I just can't get behind.
    Like what?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Guildford, UK
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ghosttrain View Post
    But the same can be said about everyone.
    What are the chances that Hillary or Bernie will actually do what they promise they will?
    Fair play with Hillary but Bernie will try I'm sure - he's consistent.

    Of course your congress can spoil it all but I'm sure he'd try.
    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

    Does one honestly tell you nothing and the other one is crystal clear?
    One certainly covers more ground than the other that's for sure. I'm not sure getting into details of policies will do us much good in terms of keeping this friendly though - the thread will be ok as long as we can close with some vague hand waving and hope so noone gets damned.
    Dynamics/EasyLase LC/FD820/RGB 400mW Homebrew w/EMS4ks

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Thessaloniki
    Posts
    223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frostypaw View Post
    Fair play with Hillary but Bernie will try I'm sure - he's consistent.
    I dunno, maybe I'm being too skeptical about Bernie but I'm not sure as a president he will. Obama promised a lot in 2007 and back then I liked him a lot. But who needs someone who shares your views as a president if he doesn't do anything about it?
    Again, I'm not sure about Bernie and I can't judge him from other former presidents but I have yet to see someone who wants to change so much actually do it and pull it off after being elected. Hope I'm wrong if Bernie wins. Sadly it seems he hasn't got much chance against Hillary anymore...

    One certainly covers more ground than the other that's for sure.
    Sure, but you can't say Trump doesn't have a plan on anything and others do.
    And I'm sure you'll agree the issues placed on everyone's sites is the main issues they are currently concerned with, it's not a complete list of issues they are going to work on and anything else they are not concerned with or is beyond them.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Northern Indiana
    Posts
    921

    Default

    Does anyone know Trumps stance on social issues? Gay rights, women's rights, religious rights, etc.

    Sure, but you can't say Trump doesn't have a plan on anything and others do
    His website is actually pretty vague on a lot of issues. Primarily gun law, and his tax plan. And the social issues mention above I can't find anywhere on his site.

    I am genuinely curious. Not trying to inflame anyone.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    My momentum is too precisely determined :S
    Posts
    1,777

    Default

    Thank you Adam for writing that rebuttal as it is super complete and expressed some of my own views clearly. I also lack enough insight in your country's politics to make a sensible statement :P Our newspapers see Trump as a joke and are really biased. Like, "Haha look at what the orange clown said today!"

    Quote Originally Posted by buffo View Post


    I fully admit that I (and others in this thread) have come off as supremely arrogant. In my own defense, however, my arrogance is fueled by my utter disbelief that someone with your education, experience, and wisdom would ever fall into a trap like this. I'm not trying to be ugly here, but I honestly wondered if you were trolling the group when I first read through the thread. That's how huge the disconnect was in my mind.

    When I see somebody saying that a pure free market system is the way to go I can't help but be arrogant. When I see someone saying everyone should just get what he worked for and nothing more then I can get salty. Because I know it doesn't work like that. It's like being around a kid with a 1 W laser pointer shining it around in people's eyes, claiming it is safe. Then I damn sure can get arrogant!

    The only reason Europe is still a thing is because of our governments pumping tax money into banks. If they haven't done that everything would have collapsed. Giving money to banks is of course cursing in the church for someone like me but on the other hand I'm glad I can go to a store and buy food nowadays. Just wanted to throw this out because if you had a true free market system here, everything would have collapsed (like the US did with Lehman Brothers e.a.) Guess there's a reason most right-wing nuts are gun freaks...

    Quote Originally Posted by frostypaw View Post

    Secondly Germany does NOT have the most generous benefits system - it has attracted more refugees as it has officially welcomed and accepted them - many other countries have not. Many countries have more generous systems - France, The UK, Luxembourg - but for example here in the UK we're only accepting a few thousand a year. There's no point in them heading here - so few do.
    The ones that do are sure determined to do so. There are thousands waiting on this side of the Channel, refusing to ask for asylum in France and Belgium because they hope to ask for asylum in the UK.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •