Discussion:
I Want Free Health Care! I Don't Want To Pay For It! I Want It To Be Free!
(too old to reply)
Bret Cahill
2009-10-09 03:56:37 UTC
Permalink
There is no free lunch on liberty.

Freedom ain't free.

Taxes are the price of freedom.


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2009-10-09 04:00:50 UTC
Permalink
At least you admit it.
Shrikeback
2009-10-09 04:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
At least you admit it.
But, really, you should qualify for Medicare
or Medicaid or something. And the right-wing
conspiracy can be banish with 300mg of
Haldol.
Gogarty
2009-10-09 12:53:10 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Shrikeback
At least you admit it.
But, really, you should qualify for Medicare
or Medicaid or something. And the right-wing
conspiracy can be banish with 300mg of
Haldol.
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium, usually deducted from
one's Social Security payment.

The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported by taxes.
Then you would not notice and could say your health coverage is free, as
it is in the UK. There is absolutley nothing wrong whatsoever with such
an approach. But it is not going to happen here because the insurance
companies own the debate.
John Stafford
2009-10-09 13:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
In article
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Shrikeback
At least you admit it.
But, really, you should qualify for Medicare
or Medicaid or something. And the right-wing
conspiracy can be banish with 300mg of
Haldol.
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium, usually deducted from
one's Social Security payment.
The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported by taxes.
Then you would not notice and could say your health coverage is free, as
it is in the UK. There is absolutley nothing wrong whatsoever with such
an approach. But it is not going to happen here because the insurance
companies own the debate.
The big three insurance companies WILL make money, and they will absorb
the third-rate companies and the rest will die. It is much the way the
personal computer market went.

I don't think most people know about the massive discoveries in medicine
that will lead to less expensive, more effective treatments of many
maladies. It will be revolutionary, and highly disruptive. Look to the
disruption for the beginning of some very interesting times (as the
Chinese say it.)
Rod Speed
2009-10-10 01:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Stafford
Post by Gogarty
Post by Shrikeback
But, really, you should qualify for Medicare
or Medicaid or something. And the right-wing
conspiracy can be banish with 300mg of Haldol.
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium,
usually deducted from one's Social Security payment.
The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported
by taxes. Then you would not notice and could say your health
coverage is free, as it is in the UK. There is absolutley nothing
wrong whatsoever with such an approach. But it is not going to
happen here because the insurance companies own the debate.
The big three insurance companies WILL make money,
Yes.
Post by John Stafford
and they will absorb the third-rate companies and the rest will die.
Bet that doesnt happen.
Post by John Stafford
It is much the way the personal computer market went.
Nothing like it, actually.
Post by John Stafford
I don't think most people know about the massive
discoveries in medicine that will lead to less expensive,
more effective treatments of many maladies.
For a few only.

That did happen with vaccination, but not with much else.

What discoverys we did come up with for heart
disease, diabetes and cancer didnt come cheap.
Post by John Stafford
It will be revolutionary, and highly disruptive.
Bet that doesnt happen either.
Post by John Stafford
Look to the disruption for the beginning of some
very interesting times (as the Chinese say it.)
Thats actually a curse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times
tooly
2009-10-09 22:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
In article
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Shrikeback
At least you admit it.
But, really, you should qualify for Medicare
or Medicaid or something.  And the right-wing
conspiracy can be banish with 300mg of
Haldol.
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium, usually deducted from
one's Social Security payment.
The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported by taxes.
Then you would not notice and could say your health coverage is free, as
it is in the UK. There is absolutley nothing wrong whatsoever with such
an approach. But it is not going to happen here because the insurance
companies own the debate.
No, because the American public doesn't want it due to high cost.
This is magnfied during a time of stagnant economic activity and wild
out of control spending by Congress to begin with.

Economically, we have a more stratified working population,
differentiated by productivity across a wide multicultural spectrum.
I have made this argument many times, but socialism in American means
setting up permanent parasitic relationships by a distinct underclass
upon the higher productive working segments. It's unfair for the
underclass, as it imprisons them in specific socio-economic layers
[albiet, now with health care], while hindering the more productive
population from creating the necessary wealth to pay for the damn
thing [the single payer plan].

John Kennedy's former economic advisor, Walter Heller, described how
the Great Society welfare system gave incentives for black families to
break up, for children to grow up fatherless, while moving women to
have babies out of wedlock for reason of government income. It
created misery in slums. In was key preponderant in the near
destruction of an entire generation of African-Americans, which
residuals carry on into today.

Single payer is not necessarily of the same type of welfare, but it
does create disincentives to move out of bad enviornments for greater
opportunities through education and training etc. I helps in a big
way to make permanant a reliance of certain working segments upon the
productivity of other segments [And America is very stratified].
Rod Speed
2009-10-10 01:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
Post by Shrikeback
But, really, you should qualify for Medicare
or Medicaid or something. And the right-wing
conspiracy can be banish with 300mg of Haldol.
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium,
usually deducted from one's Social Security payment.
The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported
by taxes. Then you would not notice and could say your health
coverage is free, as it is in the UK. There is absolutley nothing
wrong whatsoever with such an approach. But it is not going to
happen here because the insurance companies own the debate.
Didnt stop it happening with medicare and the VA system.

The real reason it didnt happen is because Obummer's advisors had decided not to go that route.
Gogarty
2009-10-10 17:40:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Gogarty
Post by Shrikeback
But, really, you should qualify for Medicare
or Medicaid or something. And the right-wing
conspiracy can be banish with 300mg of Haldol.
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium,
usually deducted from one's Social Security payment.
The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported
by taxes. Then you would not notice and could say your health
coverage is free, as it is in the UK. There is absolutley nothing
wrong whatsoever with such an approach. But it is not going to
happen here because the insurance companies own the debate.
Didnt stop it happening with medicare and the VA system.
The real reason it didnt happen is because Obummer's advisors had decided not
to go that route.
Yes, I agree with you. They started out seeking only half a loaf when they
should have gone after two loaves and broken a few heads to get it.
Rod Speed
2009-10-10 17:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Gogarty
Post by Shrikeback
But, really, you should qualify for Medicare
or Medicaid or something. And the right-wing
conspiracy can be banish with 300mg of Haldol.
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium,
usually deducted from one's Social Security payment.
The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported
by taxes. Then you would not notice and could say your health
coverage is free, as it is in the UK. There is absolutley nothing
wrong whatsoever with such an approach. But it is not going to
happen here because the insurance companies own the debate.
Didnt stop it happening with medicare and the VA system.
The real reason it didnt happen is because Obummer's
advisors had decided not to go that route.
Yes, I agree with you. They started out seeking only half a loaf when
they should have gone after two loaves and broken a few heads to get it.
Presumably they did that because they believed that thats all they could get thru congress.

Obummer's advisors have no capacity to break even a single head in congress.
whatever@twixtntween.com
2009-10-10 20:05:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:40:49 -0400, Gogarty
Post by Gogarty
says...
Post by Gogarty
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium,
usually deducted from one's Social Security payment.
The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported
by taxes. Then you would not notice and could say your health
coverage is free, as it is in the UK. There is absolutley nothing
wrong whatsoever with such an approach. But it is not going to
happen here because the insurance companies own the debate.
No, it is not going to happen here because our population is too
massive. There Are Too Many People Here for socialized health
care to work.

Oh yeah, and our country is bankrupt, too....
Rod Speed
2009-10-10 20:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium,
usually deducted from one's Social Security payment.
The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported
by taxes. Then you would not notice and could say your health
coverage is free, as it is in the UK. There is absolutley nothing
wrong whatsoever with such an approach. But it is not going to
happen here because the insurance companies own the debate.
No, it is not going to happen here because our population is too massive.
There Are Too Many People Here for socialized health care to work.
How odd that it works in europe with even more people.

It works in the US too, with medicare and the VA system.
Oh yeah, and our country is bankrupt, too....
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
whatever@twixtntween.com
2009-10-10 21:06:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 07:43:46 +1100, "Rod Speed"
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Gogarty
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium,
usually deducted from one's Social Security payment.
The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported
by taxes. Then you would not notice and could say your health
coverage is free, as it is in the UK. There is absolutley nothing
wrong whatsoever with such an approach. But it is not going to
happen here because the insurance companies own the debate.
No, it is not going to happen here because our population is too massive.
There Are Too Many People Here for socialized health care to work.
How odd that it works in europe with even more people.
It works there because each small, individual country (even
though there is an EU now, which only loosely connects them) has
a far smaller population.
Post by Rod Speed
It works in the US too, with medicare and the VA system.
There are far fewer people on Medicare than in the entire U.S.
population.
Post by Rod Speed
Oh yeah, and our country is bankrupt, too....
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
Ad hominem - good for you! Always resort to it when you can
retort nothing of substance!
Rod Speed
2009-10-10 22:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@twixtntween.com
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Gogarty
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium,
usually deducted from one's Social Security payment.
The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported
by taxes. Then you would not notice and could say your health
coverage is free, as it is in the UK. There is absolutley nothing
wrong whatsoever with such an approach. But it is not going to
happen here because the insurance companies own the debate.
No, it is not going to happen here because our population is too massive.
There Are Too Many People Here for socialized health care to work.
How odd that it works in europe with even more people.
It works there because each small, individual country
(even though there is an EU now, which only loosely
connects them) has a far smaller population.
Wrong, as always.
Post by ***@twixtntween.com
Post by Rod Speed
It works in the US too, with medicare and the VA system.
There are far fewer people on Medicare than in the entire U.S. population.
Irrelevant.
Post by ***@twixtntween.com
Post by Rod Speed
Oh yeah, and our country is bankrupt, too....
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
Ad hominem
Its actually a statement of fact.
whatever@twixtntween.com
2009-10-11 00:28:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:00:21 +1100, "Rod Speed"
Post by Rod Speed
Post by ***@twixtntween.com
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Gogarty
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium,
usually deducted from one's Social Security payment.
The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported
by taxes. Then you would not notice and could say your health
coverage is free, as it is in the UK. There is absolutley nothing
wrong whatsoever with such an approach. But it is not going to
happen here because the insurance companies own the debate.
No, it is not going to happen here because our population is too massive.
There Are Too Many People Here for socialized health care to work.
How odd that it works in europe with even more people.
It works there because each small, individual country
(even though there is an EU now, which only loosely
connects them) has a far smaller population.
Wrong, as always.
Post by ***@twixtntween.com
Post by Rod Speed
It works in the US too, with medicare and the VA system.
There are far fewer people on Medicare than in the entire U.S. population.
Irrelevant.
Post by ***@twixtntween.com
Post by Rod Speed
Oh yeah, and our country is bankrupt, too....
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
Ad hominem
Its actually a statement of fact.
You are a boor, and a misinformed one, at that. I will killfile
you from now on.
holarchy
2009-10-11 02:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@twixtntween.com
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:00:21 +1100, "Rod Speed"
Post by Rod Speed
Post by ***@twixtntween.com
Post by Rod Speed
Post by ***@twixtntween.com
Post by Gogarty
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium,
usually deducted from one's Social Security payment.
The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported
by taxes. Then you would not notice and could say your health
coverage is free, as it is in the UK. There is absolutley
nothing wrong whatsoever with such an approach. But it is not
going to happen here because the insurance companies own the
debate.
No, it is not going to happen here because our population is too
massive. There Are Too Many People Here for socialized health
care to work.
How odd that it works in europe with even more people.
It works there because each small, individual country
(even though there is an EU now, which only loosely
connects them) has a far smaller population.
Wrong, as always.
Post by ***@twixtntween.com
Post by Rod Speed
It works in the US too, with medicare and the VA system.
There are far fewer people on Medicare than in the entire U.S. population.
Irrelevant.
Post by ***@twixtntween.com
Post by Rod Speed
Post by ***@twixtntween.com
Oh yeah, and our country is bankrupt, too....
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
Ad hominem
Its actually a statement of fact.
You are a boor, and a misinformed one, at that. I will killfile you from now on.
No one gives a flying red fuck what you do or do not read.
Nickname unavailable
2009-10-11 00:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
In article
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Shrikeback
At least you admit it.
But, really, you should qualify for Medicare
or Medicaid or something.  And the right-wing
conspiracy can be banish with 300mg of
Haldol.
Medicare is not free. There is a monthly premium, usually deducted from
one's Social Security payment.
The best solution is a single payer system entirely supported by taxes.
Then you would not notice and could say your health coverage is free, as
it is in the UK. There is absolutley nothing wrong whatsoever with such
an approach. But it is not going to happen here because the insurance
companies own the debate.
exactly, and its what the founders would have wanted. after all, its
not we the people for nothing, and the job of government is to
promote, and provide for the general welfare.
unknown
2009-10-09 04:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Bret Cahill
Tax the foreign corporations and importers that, take most, of their
profits here but declare they make them in the third world.
The US did very well without an income tax before WW1.
It's time to stop the foreigners/globalist from milking Americans dry.
To heck with Global corporations. Americans first.
Jerry
2009-10-09 05:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Bret Cahill
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Bret Cahill
2009-10-09 06:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Bret Cahill
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Just another term for taxation.


Bret Cahill
Jerry
2009-10-09 16:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Jerry
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Just another term for taxation.
I don't know how taxation gets into that.

Liberty is fragile. It can be lost easily. A case in point is in
Canada in the 1970s prime minister Trudeau called for martial law. It
last only a few days. My brother, Bob, was in the army at that time.
The soldiers were told to arrest anyone who was out after curfew time.
They were told to shoot anyone who resisted arrest. This was in
Canada, a country that is supposed to be a free country. Freedom can
be lost with a stroke of a pen.

The Patriot Act was passed without anyone reading it. It guts the
Constitution of the USA. Etc.

No one's liberty is safe while the government is in session. The
politician's feet must be held to the fire. The natural tendency of
every government is to increase its power at the expense of freedom.
The purpose of the Constitution of the USA is to restrict the -
government-, not the general population. The Founding Fathers were
scared shitless of government. Someone said, "a republic, if you can
keep it". There was some question of whether you can keep the
republic.

Someone asked Jefferson in a letter how we can ensure that only good
men are elected to office. Jefferson replied: "Speak to me not of good
men, but let us bind men with the chains of the Constitution."

Government is like a T. Rex. The Constitution is like a cage. The
Constitution is now broken and that is why all hell is breaking loose.

Rights are not given. Rights are taken.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Michael Coburn
2009-10-09 17:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Jerry
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Just another term for taxation.
I don't know how taxation gets into that.
Liberty is fragile. It can be lost easily. A case in point is in Canada
in the 1970s prime minister Trudeau called for martial law. It last only
a few days. My brother, Bob, was in the army at that time. The soldiers
were told to arrest anyone who was out after curfew time. They were told
to shoot anyone who resisted arrest. This was in Canada, a country that
is supposed to be a free country. Freedom can be lost with a stroke of a
pen.
The Patriot Act was passed without anyone reading it. It guts the
Constitution of the USA. Etc.
No one's liberty is safe while the government is in session. The
politician's feet must be held to the fire. The natural tendency of
every government is to increase its power at the expense of freedom. The
purpose of the Constitution of the USA is to restrict the - government-,
not the general population. The Founding Fathers were scared shitless of
government. Someone said, "a republic, if you can keep it". There was
some question of whether you can keep the republic.
Someone asked Jefferson in a letter how we can ensure that only good men
are elected to office. Jefferson replied: "Speak to me not of good men,
but let us bind men with the chains of the Constitution."
Government is like a T. Rex. The Constitution is like a cage. The
Constitution is now broken and that is why all hell is breaking loose.
Rights are not given. Rights are taken.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
I like all this stuff. But the Constitution really is just a piece of
paper unless it is enforced. And the only enforcement that is valid is
the majority. The Constitution and the government it designs is in place
both to protect the populous from outside invasion and to prevent heated
populism and mob rule from trampling the right of those who have earned
privileges. The vast majority understand that without security of what
one has earned there would be no justice. Yet it is that majority,
through their directly elected representatives that must insure that
government performs in keeping with its stated purpose. When our House
of Representatives refuses to impeach a president for ignoring our
Constitution the Constitution then truly becomes just a piece of paper.
And when our House of Representatives continues to fund a government that
is operating outside the confines of the popular will and the explicit
restrictions of the Constitution then again, the Constitution is
meaningless.

Those who maintain that all wealth is earned and that privilege cannot be
abused and that the Constitution bars the will of the majority are sadly
deluded. The internal concerns of government are only to prevent heated
and short sighted actions on the part of a misinformed mob. With due
deliberation the majority should always prevail.

http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes/American_Republic.php
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Jerry
2009-10-09 20:49:00 UTC
Permalink
I like all this stuff.  But the Constitution really is just a piece of
paper unless it is enforced.
True. Some time ago on a different newsgroup I proposed the death
penalty for any politician who violated the Constitution.
Michael Gordge
2009-10-09 22:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry
True. Some time ago on a different newsgroup I proposed the death
penalty for any politician who violated the Constitution.
What does the US Constitution say about killing defenceless human
beings? (not talking in the context of war)


MG
Rod Speed
2009-10-09 23:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Jerry
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Just another term for taxation.
I don't know how taxation gets into that.
Just his pathetic excuse for a troll/coat trail.
Post by Jerry
Liberty is fragile. It can be lost easily.
Not in the great democracys anymore.
Post by Jerry
A case in point is in Canada in the 1970s prime minister
Trudeau called for martial law. It last only a few days.
My brother, Bob, was in the army at that time. The soldiers
were told to arrest anyone who was out after curfew time.
They were told to shoot anyone who resisted arrest.
And whatever they were told, they wouldnt have done it.
Post by Jerry
This was in Canada, a country that is supposed to be a
free country. Freedom can be lost with a stroke of a pen.
Like hell it can when that stroke of the pen would be ignored.

If Trudeau had attempted to become dictator, that would have been ignored too.
Post by Jerry
The Patriot Act was passed without anyone reading it.
Another lie.
Post by Jerry
It guts the Constitution of the USA. Etc.
Another lie.
Post by Jerry
No one's liberty is safe while the government is in session.
Another lie.
Post by Jerry
The politician's feet must be held to the fire.
Not even possible.
Post by Jerry
The natural tendency of every government is to
increase its power at the expense of freedom.
Another lie.
Post by Jerry
The purpose of the Constitution of the USA is to
restrict the - government-, not the general population.
Another lie. Most obviously with prohibition.
Post by Jerry
The Founding Fathers were scared shitless of government.
Another lie.
Post by Jerry
Someone said, "a republic, if you can keep it".
Just because some fool says something, doesnt make it gospel.
Post by Jerry
There was some question of whether you can keep the republic.
Nope.
Post by Jerry
Someone asked Jefferson in a letter how we can
ensure that only good men are elected to office.
You cant. You can however give them the bums rush at the ballot box when they turn out to be duds.

Even you should have noticed that that has just happened to the shrub.

And happened to slick too.
Post by Jerry
Jefferson replied: "Speak to me not of good men,
but let us bind men with the chains of the Constitution."
Not even possible.
Post by Jerry
Government is like a T. Rex. The Constitution is like a cage.
Just another of your silly little fantasys.
Post by Jerry
The Constitution is now broken and that is why all hell is breaking loose.
Just another of your silly little fantasys.

It was broken even more dramatically than the Patriot Act during WW2 and the US survived that fine.
Post by Jerry
Rights are not given. Rights are taken.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
You can keep chanting pathetic little mantras till you are blue in the face if you like, changes nothing.
Michael Gordge
2009-10-09 06:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Yes that is right.
Post by Bret Cahill
Freedom ain't free.
Yes thats right.
Post by Bret Cahill
Taxes are the price of freedom.
And that is an oxymoron, in the world of reality two out of three aint
good, so try again.

MG
Bret Cahill
2009-10-09 06:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Yes that is right.
Post by Bret Cahill
Freedom ain't free.
Yes thats right.
Post by Bret Cahill
Taxes are the price of freedom.
And that is an oxymoron,
Well don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.

What _is_ the price of freedom?


Bret Cahill
Michael Gordge
2009-10-09 07:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Well don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
What _is_ the price of freedom?
Simple, the price of removing the government's gun from the trader's
head.

MG
Gogarty
2009-10-09 12:54:34 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Bret Cahill
Well don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
What _is_ the price of freedom?
Simple, the price of removing the government's gun from the trader's
head.
What? You mean those people who wrecked the economy?
Gary Forbis
2009-10-09 13:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
In article
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Bret Cahill
Well don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
What _is_ the price of freedom?
Simple, the price of removing the government's gun from the trader's
head.
What? You mean those people who wrecked the economy?
No, It's the guys who have their gun at our head, offering us a
trade for our own production. How dare the government get
between them and their resources.
Nickname unavailable
2009-10-11 00:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by Gogarty
In article
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Bret Cahill
Well don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
What _is_ the price of freedom?
Simple, the price of removing the government's gun from the trader's
head.
What? You mean those people who wrecked the economy?
No, It's the guys who have their gun at our head, offering us a
trade for our own production.  How dare the government get
between them and their resources.
hehehe, good one.
Michael Gordge
2009-10-09 21:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
What? You mean those people who wrecked the economy?
Yes thats what I mean, remove the guns from those who wrecked the
economy, the US fucking government which began fucking the economy
when they formed the FDR and took control of YOUR money and life away
from YOU.

MG
Nickname unavailable
2009-10-11 01:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Gogarty
What? You mean those people who wrecked the economy?
Yes thats what I mean, remove the guns from those who wrecked the
economy, the US fucking government which began fucking the economy
when they formed the FDR and took control of YOUR money and life away
from YOU.
MG
you may have missed the part where harding freed up wealth in the
early 1920's, and 2 bubbles began to form(who would have ever thought)
and the next two conservative clowns said leave it alone, even after
they popped in 1929, and 4 years later america was in a depressionary
inferno, that wiped out over 80% of all invested money in america.
then of course 25%+ unemployment, the farmers were in revolt, 2/3rds
of the banks had failed, 2 states were under martial law, 2 states
refused to take the dollar, industrial production had plummeted at
least 40%, there were millions of foreclosed upon small business's and
homes, which deflated the money supply for well over a decade, and
when fdr came into office, within a year he had america growing again.

Taxes were high back in the 1950s because people understood that
constraining wild extremes of wealth would make our country stronger
and prevent another depression. (Well, what did those old fogies
know?)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23641.htm


What Recession?
As the Economy Crashed Around Them, 400 Richest Americans Lined Their
Pockets with $30 Billion
By Les Leopold
October 05, 2009 "Alternet' -- It's great to know that during the
worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the wealth of the
400 richest Americans, according to Forbes, actually increased by $30
billion. Well golly, that's only a 2 percent increase, much less than
the double digit returns the wealthy had grown accustomed to. But a 2
percent increase is a whole lot more than losing 40 percent of your
401k. And $30 billion is enough to provide 500,000 school teacher
jobs
at $60k per year.
Collectively, those 400 have $1.57 trillion in wealth. It's hard to
get your mind around a number like that. The way I do it is to
imagine
that we were still living during the great radical Eisenhower era of
the 1950s when marginal income tax rates hit 91 percent. Taxes were
high back in the 1950s because people understood that constraining
wild extremes of wealth would make our country stronger and prevent
another depression. (Well, what did those old fogies know?)
Had we kept those high progressive taxes in place, instead of
removing
them, especially during the Reagan era, the Forbes 400 might each be
worth "only" $100 million instead of $3.9 billion each. So let's
imagine that the rest of their wealth, about $1.53 trillion, were
available for the public good.
What does $1.53 trillion buy?
It's more than enough to insure the uninsured for the next twenty
years or more.
It's more than enough to create a Manhattan Project to solve global
warming by developing renewable energy and a green, sustainable
manufacturing sector.
And here's my favorite: It's more than enough to endow every public
college and university in the country so that all of our children
could gain access to higher education for free, forever!
Instead, we embarked on a grand experiment to see what would happen
if
we deregulated finance and changed the tax code so that millionaires
could turn into billionaires. And even after that experiment failed
in
the most spectacular way, our system seems trapped into staying on
the
same deregulated path.
Instead of free higher education, health care and a sustainable
economy, we got a fantasy finance boom and bust on Wall Street which
crashed the real economy. We have our 400 billionaires, and we have
29
million unemployed and underemployed Americans. We have an
infrastructure in shambles. We have an environment in crisis. We have
a health care system that would make Rube Goldberg proud. And we have
the worst income distribution since 1929.
I hazard to guess that each and every Forbes 400 member could get by
with a net worth of $100 million. I don't think that would kill their
entrepreneurial drive or harm our economy--in fact it would be a
major
boon to the economy to step back from the edge of such massive
concentration of wealth. The real problem is getting there form here.
A wealth tax that kicks in when you become worth more than $100
million would be a good start. The Eisenhower tax rate on adjustable
gross income over $3 million a year would help as well.
And please let's not call it socialism, now that we've placed the
entire financial sector on welfare to the tune of over $13 trillion
in
subsidies and guarantees. (By the way, the yearly budget outlays for
means tested programs for low income citizens is about $350 billion
per year. So Wall Street's welfare is about 37 times as large as
welfare for poor.)
So if narrowing the income/wealth gap isn't socialism, what is it?
It's the America that thrived in the 1950s and 1960s. It's the
America
that created a middle-class and vowed never to let the financial
gamblers return us to another depression. It's an America that put
its
people to work and built an infrastructure that was the envy of the
world.
Where's Dwight David Eisenhower when we need him?
Michael Gordge
2009-10-11 05:27:45 UTC
Permalink
 you may have missed the part where harding freed up wealth in the
early 1920's,...............
As I was saying, the rot set into the US economy with formation of the
FDR.

MG
Werner
2009-10-10 14:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
In article
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Bret Cahill
Well don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
What _is_ the price of freedom?
Simple, the price of removing the government's gun from the trader's
head.
What? You mean those people who wrecked the economy?
Let me share some relevant facts to counter your position. Not long
ago, New York state had a regulator named Carl McCall. He was the
state?s Comptroller - a fiscal regulator. Mc Call was also responsible
for investing the State?s retirement system funds. Wall Street is
located in New York City where Mr. McCall spend a lot of time. When
the stock market was doing well and the value of the retirement system
was rising fast, Mr. McCall liked to point out how well he invested
the people?s money. Then came the Dot Com crash. The value of the
retirement system crashed as well. Suddenly our government regulator
blamed Wall Street (unfettered capitalism) for the losses.

The Federal Reserve System is a government creation to regulate the
supply of money. It lowered interest rates to encourage business and
employment. As expected, banks lent and people borrowed the money.
Those who borrowed when rates were regulated low did well and everyone
was happy. When interest rates were regulated back up to forestall
inflation many borrowers were no longer able to make loan payments.
Thus the crisis. It seems unfettered regulation has caused this fiscal
turmoil.  
Here are a few more examples of unfettered regulation. Government
created loan institutions (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) have gone
bankrupt. Instead of eliminating poverty, government anti-poverty
programs created millions more poor people on welfare. Government
Medicaid (for the poor) causes fiscal distress for local governments
which must share the costs. Government Medicare (for the aged and
disabled) is going broke faster than the government Social Security
program.  

Should you not reassess your assumptions about the value of
regulation?


back   

Blame Uncle Sam for our future
 

First published: Thursday, March 19, 2009

Your March 1 editorial "So long, Reaganomics" contends President
Obama's agenda fixes the conservative policies that got us to the
verge of depression.
Mortgage securitization was invented in 1970 by Ginnie Mae, a
government-sponsored enterprise. Congress mandated that Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac (also government-sponsored enterprises) increase their
purchases of mortgages for low- and medium-income borrowers. During
the early Bush administration, Republicans in Congress warned about
this and suggested reforms which Democrats resisted. Government
encouraged sub-prime lending.
The Federal Reserve is a government creation to regulate the supply of
money. It lowered interest rates to encourage business and employment.
Those who borrowed when rates were regulated low did well and everyone
was happy. When interest rates were regulated back up to forestall
inflation, many borrowers were no longer able to make loan payments.
Thus the crisis. It seems unfettered regulation has caused this fiscal
turmoil.
The national debt, now $11 trillion, is expected to grow $1 trillion
yearly. All of this is financed by debt. There are not enough rich
people to pay this back. Government will have to resort to inflation.
That is a tax on everyone. Expect more poverty and a lower living
standard for the vast majority, thanks to government.
Werner Hetzner


Jaws close in on Bernanke 
By Julian Delasantellis 
July 16, 2008
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JG16Dj05.html
Quote:  [The core of Freddie and Fannie's operations was to buy up
mortgage-backed securities in the open market then either hold them
to 
maturity or sell them back to the market as mortgage-backed
securities 
with the US government's implied backing. Both
dispositions 
transferred the risk of mortgage default away from the
banks to Fannie 
and Freddie.

Role of government and regulators
Economist Robert Kuttner has criticized the repeal of the Glass-
Steagall Act as contributing to the subprime meltdown. [58] A taxpayer-
funded government bailout related to mortgages during the Savings and
Loan crisis may have created a moral hazard and acted as encouragement
to lenders to make similar higher risk loans.[59]Additionally, there
is debate among economists regarding the effect of the Community
Reinvestment Act, with detractors claiming it encourages lending to
uncreditworthy consumers[60] [61] and defenders claiming a thirty year
history of lending without increased risk.
...
A contributing factor to the rise in home prices was the lowering of
interest rates earlier in the decade by the Federal Reserve, to
diminish the blow of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and combat the
risk of deflation.[69]. From 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered
the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%.[72]


Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Further information: 2008 GSE support plan
The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), two large government-
sponsored enterprises, are the two largest single mortgage backing
entity in the United States. Between the two corporations, they back
nearly half of all mortgages, around $12 trillion as of 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_meltdown#Role_of_government_and_regulators

Fannie and Freddie are private companies where the profits go to
shareholders and losses go to taxpayers. There are a lot of people
(including your humble analyst) who have complained about the current
set-up. Basically, they were allowed to leverage their capital beyond
what even your most leveraged hedge fund would think prudent. How
could the value of homes go down? Leverage up and show huge profits,
pay monster salaries and bonuses to management who did nothing but
increase risk, and spend $170 million on lobbyists to make sure that
no one changes the rules.
http://reason.com/blog/show/130670.html

'In analyzing the mortgage crisis, economist Walter E. Williams has
written: “Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that
was 
given more teeth during the Clinton administration, Congress
started 
intimidating banks and other financial institutions into
making loans, 
so-called sub-prime loans, to high-risk homebuyers and
businesses.
“The carrot offered was that these high-risk loans would be purchased
by 
the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Anyone 
with an ounce of brains would have known that this was a
prescription 
for disaster but there was a congressional chorus of
denial,” he added.
“The financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a
failure 
of the free market because lending institutions in a free
market would 
not have taken on the high-risk loans,” said Williams.
“They were forced 
to by the heavy hand of government.” '
"In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their
purchases 
of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers.
Operating under 
that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been
aggressive and 
creative in stimulating minority gains."
"The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios
to 
loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers"
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807


and




http://youtu.be/cMnSp4qEXNM

http://youtu.be/usvG-s_Ssb0



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575A...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575A...
http://americanfuturefund.com/2008/09/25/barney-frank-blocks-reform-a...
• 1) Securitization for residential mortgages was invented in 1970 by
Ginnie Mae. It was expanded by government sponsored enterprises (e.g.,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and private institutions through the 1980s
and '90s to include a wide range of financial assets. 2) Congress has
consistently eliminated regulatory obstacles to securitization with
the Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act (SMMEA), Real Estate
Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMICs), Financial Asset Securitization
Investment Trusts (FASITs), and Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act. 
3) The Riegle Act also instructed federal
regulators to reduce risk-based capital requirements for bank holdings
of small business loan securities.
http://www.nado.org/loansales/securitization1.html

regulation derivatives
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/370925

Find out moe about the CRA
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv17n4/vmck4-94.pdf
Nickname unavailable
2009-10-11 00:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Bret Cahill
Well don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
What _is_ the price of freedom?
Simple, the price of removing the government's gun from the trader's
head.
MG
the all players in the transaction are rational, and that all
information is perfect, was laughed off of the planet years ago.
Clave
2009-10-09 07:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Yes that is right.
Post by Bret Cahill
Freedom ain't free.
Yes thats right.
Post by Bret Cahill
Taxes are the price of freedom.
And that is an oxymoron,
Well don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
What _is_ the price of freedom?
No link to the original, but this is pretty nice:





No one gets it anymore.

Jim
Michael Gordge
2009-10-09 07:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
What _is_ the price of freedom?
I knew ewe would eventually fall into the trap and ask 'The Question'
to the answer:

"Speaking freely doesn't free trade, but removal of the government's
gun from the trader's head will"

Only thugs parasites and fraudsters are not traders Cahill.

MG
Gary Forbis
2009-10-09 13:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Bret Cahill
What _is_ the price of freedom?
I knew ewe would eventually fall into the trap and ask 'The Question'
"Speaking freely doesn't free trade, but removal of the government's
gun from the trader's head will"
Only thugs parasites and fraudsters are not traders Cahill.
Even thugs, parasites, and fraudsters are traders.
You may not like the terms of the trade when you aren't
in the superior position but then the same is true of
others. "thugs, parasites, and fraudsters" just label
the trade winners. If you accept the terms of the trade
with your immediate actions then upon what basis do
you back out later?
Michael Gordge
2009-10-09 21:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Forbis
Even thugs, parasites, and fraudsters are traders.
No they aren't, each entity has its very own unshared identity, e.g.
trade involves and demands choice and honesty, the parasite, the
robber, the fraudster remove choice and honesty.

MG
Michael Gordge
2009-10-09 21:26:13 UTC
Permalink
 If you accept the terms of the trade
with your immediate actions then upon what basis do
you back out later?
Depends on the terms of the trade that you were able to negotiate or
were being offered at the time of the trade, why the hell would you
want someone else to set those terms and conditions for you?

Haven't you seen enough misery yet caused by the removal of
responsibility for human individuals to check and control and be held
directly responsible their very own ideas and actions?

MG
Nickname unavailable
2009-10-11 01:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gordge
 If you accept the terms of the trade
with your immediate actions then upon what basis do
you back out later?
Depends on the terms of the trade that you were able to negotiate or
were being offered at the time of the trade, why the hell would you
want someone else to set those terms and conditions for you?
because all information is not perfect. most of the times, one side
has way more information than the other. joseph stiglitz won a nobel
prize in economics, for proving that milton freidman, and frederick
heyak were frauds:)
Post by Michael Gordge
Haven't you seen enough misery yet caused by the removal of
responsibility for human individuals to check and control and be held
directly responsible their very own ideas and actions?
looneytarians and conservative loves to blame the rapee for her
stupidity for getting raped, didn't she know that that is a bad place
to be, regardless if it was even her own home.
Post by Michael Gordge
MG
Michael Gordge
2009-10-11 04:41:42 UTC
Permalink
 because all information is not perfect.
Therefore including all information from ewe, idiot.

MG
Nickname unavailable
2009-10-11 00:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Yes that is right.
Post by Bret Cahill
Freedom ain't free.
Yes thats right.
Post by Bret Cahill
Taxes are the price of freedom.
And that is an oxymoron, in the world of reality two out of three aint
good, so try again.
MG
lets remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the
founders were really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one could
produce riches without the support of society, so anyone who
accumulates property owes a part of it back to society for social
programs

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_dec2000.htm

Philosopher of the Month
December 2000 - Thomas Paine
Robin Harwood
The great and glorious Thomas Paine was a political theorist who tried
to put his theories into action. His aim was to free human beings from
oppressive government, oppressive religions, and oppressive poverty.
His method was to appeal to reason, so that all people could recognise
truth and justice. His achievements were spectacular. Paine invented
America, took part in the French Revolution, and inspired
revolutionary movements in Britain. The American Revolution was a
success, the French revolution was a disaster, and the British
Revolution never happened. Even so, Paine's ideas of democracy and
social welfare have been at least partly realized not only in these
countries, but in many other countries as well.
He was born in England, but his life there was difficult, and on
Benjamin Franklin's advice, he emigrated to the New World. Paine
arrived in Philadelphia in 1774, and took a job as editor for the
Pennsylvania Magazine. One of his first essays was a call for the
abolition of slavery. Inspired by the first moves of the American
Revolution, he wrote the pamphlet Common Sense (1776), in which he
argued that independence was both morally justified and the only
practical option for the American Colonies. The book was massively
influential, and converted many waverers, including Thomas Jefferson
and George Washington, to the idea of the United States of America
(Paine coined the name) as an independent nation.
After the War of Independence was over, he went to France, and then to
England, where he wrote The Rights of Man. Paine's message was clear
and powerful.
All individual human beings, he argued, are created with equal rights.
However, human beings do not live as isolated individuals, but as
members of society. In society we flourish fully, both because we can
enjoy the company of other people, and from being able to gain help
and support from each other. Nonetheless, human beings are not perfect
and so sometimes infringe each other's rights. As individuals we may
not have the power to exercise some of our rights, such as the right
to protect ourselves. Thus, we create the state to protect those
rights, and the individual's natural right is transformed into a civil
right of protection. Also, as members of the state, we gain additional
rights, such as the right to vote, and the right to run for office.
The only legitimate form of state is a democratic republic. Hereditary
monarchy is morally illegitimate, since it denies the current
generation the right to choose their own leaders.
Of course, Paine held that we also have duties. We have a duty to
protect the rights of our fellow citizens, and to maintain society,
but we also have to improve, enrich, and benefit society. This
includes the duty to eliminate poverty as much as we can. Paine
proposed a system of welfare to do just this. This welfare was not
charity, but a civil right.
The popularity of the book frightened the British Government. Paine
was outlawed for treason, and he fled to France. The British
revolutionary movements were squashed.
The French elected Paine to a seat in the National Convention. During
the Terror he was imprisoned and came close to being executed. After
his release, he took little active part in French politics, and
concentrated mostly on writing, particularly on religion and
economics. He produced The Age of Reason, arguing for Deism, and
against atheism and Christianity. He demonstrated that Christian
theology was unreasonable, and the doctrine of redemption was immoral.
He also showed that the Bible cannot be divine revelation, and
condemned it for its portrayal of God as cruel and vindictive.
In Agrarian Justice, he returned to the question of rights and social
justice. Civilization, he argued, should not throw people into a worse
condition than they would be in if they were uncivilized, and yet in
Europe many people were poorer than American Indians. The Earth had
been given by God as common property to all men, but the system of
land ownership meant that only some could use it. Paine argued that
they should compensate the others by paying a ground rent to society.
Also, he argued that no-one could produce riches without the support
of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits.
When Paine finally returned to America in 1802, his writings on
religion had made him an unpopular figure. Nonetheless, Paine did yet
another great service to his ungrateful country, in proposing that the
U.S.A. buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon. Jefferson took
Paine's advice, and thus more than doubled the size of the United
States.
Paine carried on writing to the end, but his old age was miserable,
and he died in obscurity. Officialdom has preferred to ignore him,
even when carrying out his proposals, and his name is seldom on the
lists of great men, and yet many of his ideas are common currency now.
However, much of the world is still not completely free from political
oppression, organized religion, and poverty. We can still learn from
him.

Suggested reading
Thomas Paine, A. J. Ayer, (Secker and Warburg)
The
Thomas Paine Reader, ed. Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick (Penguin)
Tom
Paine: a political life, John Keane, (Little, Brown and Company)
Piet de Arcilla
2009-10-09 08:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Taxes are the price of government spending, but that price is
fraudulent. The real cost of a government program is not the tax bill,
but the net social utility of whatever actions would've occurred _but
for_ its existence.
Michael Gordge
2009-10-09 11:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Piet de Arcilla
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Taxes are the price of government spending, but that price is
fraudulent. The real cost of a government program is not the tax bill,
but the net social utility of whatever actions would've occurred _but
for_ its existence.
Where have you been? very well said.

MG
Michael Coburn
2009-10-09 17:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Piet de Arcilla
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Taxes are the price of government spending, but that price is
fraudulent. The real cost of a government program is not the tax bill,
but the net social utility of whatever actions would've occurred _but
for_ its existence.
This assumes that the social utility gained by government administration
is less than that which would have been gained otherwise. That assumption
with regard to social insurance systems such as pension costs and the
cost of medical care is erroneous.

HOWEVER!

It is good policy to separate the cost of social insurance from the
primary costs of rights enforcement such as common defense and laws and
then to defend the social insurance systems based on their own merit. A
good example in the USA is the social security system. The minority
rightarded opinion of social insurance systems should have little if any
affect on the administration of such systems. It is the "off budget"
nature of Social Security" that has kept it safe from Republican lying
pigs since its inception.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Gordge
2009-10-09 23:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
This assumes that the social utility gained by government administration
is less than that which would have been gained otherwise.
Nope, it is a fact that tax is a cost of production which ultimately
has to be be paid by the customer and it is a fact that a large
portion of that tax is given to unproductive people, e.g politicians,
who produce absolutely nothing of any value.

Perhaps you can explain how it can be regarded as rational let alone
efficient, giving YOUR dollar to a politician, who keeps a large
portion of it for himself to keep his wife and his family and to pay
for his children's education and health care and of course his
retirement plans, before he gives what is left of your dollar to your
teacher he chose for you and or a doctor for your children's edication
and health care, as against you giving all of your your dollar
directly to the teacher or your choice and or your choice of doctor.

MG
Piet de Arcilla
2009-10-10 06:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gordge
Perhaps you can explain how it can be regarded as rational let alone
efficient, giving YOUR dollar to a politician, who keeps a large
portion of it for himself to keep his wife and his family and to pay
for his children's education and health care and of course his
retirement plans, before he gives what is left of your dollar to your
teacher he chose for you and or a doctor for your children's edication
and health care, as against you giving all of your your dollar
directly to the teacher or your choice and or your choice of doctor.
I don't think that politicians consume very much tax money themselves.
They're conduits for others, such as ordinary government employees,
and government contractors.

But in any case, it's not the $X of taxes that's being wasted. The
waste is the (unknowable) difference between the value of the spending
and the value of the private spending that was displaced.
Les Cargill
2009-10-11 01:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Piet de Arcilla
Post by Michael Gordge
Perhaps you can explain how it can be regarded as rational let alone
efficient, giving YOUR dollar to a politician, who keeps a large
portion of it for himself to keep his wife and his family and to pay
for his children's education and health care and of course his
retirement plans, before he gives what is left of your dollar to your
teacher he chose for you and or a doctor for your children's edication
and health care, as against you giving all of your your dollar
directly to the teacher or your choice and or your choice of doctor.
I don't think that politicians consume very much tax money themselves.
They're conduits for others, such as ordinary government employees,
and government contractors.
But in any case, it's not the $X of taxes that's being wasted. The
waste is the (unknowable) difference between the value of the spending
and the value of the private spending that was displaced.
Precisely. But it's not all that immoral for government to
tax away rents.

--
Les Cargill
Michael Gordge
2009-10-11 08:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Piet de Arcilla
But in any case, it's not the $X of taxes that's being wasted.
Thats right, its the immorality of taxtion that is the case.
Post by Piet de Arcilla
The
waste is the (unknowable).....
Wrong, the waste its knowable because it can be measured and has been
measured and it can be measured in many more ways than one, e.g. it is
3 times cheaper, yes 3 times cheaper, (known as the "dead-weight" of
taxation) to have your children educated via privately funded
education than to have them indoctrinated and dumbed down in state
funded institutions.

Do your own research and besides, the argument is NOT about cost
anyway, the argument is 100% about the fact that THEY ARE NOT THE
STATE'S CHILDREN, for the identitical reasons that the state should
not get involved in the religion parents may or may not choose for
their children, they should also not get involved in the education of
children.


MG
Michael Coburn
2009-10-10 07:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
This assumes that the social utility gained by government
administration is less than that which would have been gained
otherwise.
Nope, it is a fact that tax is a cost of production which ultimately has
to be be paid by the customer and it is a fact that a large portion of
that tax is given to unproductive people, e.g politicians, who produce
absolutely nothing of any value.
Any insurance system requires administration. If these costs are paid in
the private sector they are not a tax. Yet administrative costs may be
higher than the costs of government administration. So let me reword
your ridiculous crap from above:

It is a fact that there is a cost imposed on production for the
administration of an insurance system and that this cost is ultimately
paid by the consumers/producers (these are both the same entities if
honesty is assumed). A large portion of the current payments being
extracted from the productive consumers is given to fat ass executives
that produce nothing of value.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Gordge
2009-10-10 10:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Any insurance system requires administration.
Of course, you're quite bright for a leftist retard.
Post by Michael Coburn
 If these costs are paid in
the private sector they are not a tax.
Yes thats right, tax isn't a choice, thats why its called tax, its the
removal of choice, health insurance is a choice, and not only is it a
choice but there's also hundreds of insurance options and insurance
companies and plans that you can choose from.
Post by Michael Coburn
 Yet administrative costs may be
higher than the costs of government administration.
There is no evidenct to support that crap, and besides in the private
sector at least you can compare and shop elsewhere, but you will find
that ultimately, in the private sector, you will get what you pay for,
pay crap get crap.
Post by Michael Coburn
 So let me reword
Whoooops I spoke tooo soon, ewe a wanking leftist retard, but then ewe
knew that already.

MG
Piet de Arcilla
2009-10-10 05:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Piet de Arcilla
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Taxes are the price of government spending, but that price is
fraudulent. The real cost of a government program is not the tax bill,
but the net social utility of whatever actions would've occurred _but
for_ its existence.
This assumes that the social utility gained by government administration
is less than that which would have been gained otherwise.
"Net" anything usually implies + or -. So, I wasn't technically
assuming that. A negative cost would be a benefit.
Les Cargill
2009-10-11 01:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Piet de Arcilla
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Taxes are the price of government spending, but that price is
fraudulent. The real cost of a government program is not the tax bill,
but the net social utility of whatever actions would've occurred _but
for_ its existence.
This assumes that the social utility gained by government administration
is less than that which would have been gained otherwise. That assumption
with regard to social insurance systems such as pension costs and the
cost of medical care is erroneous.
... because of the declining marginal value of money.
Post by Michael Coburn
HOWEVER!
It is good policy to separate the cost of social insurance from the
primary costs of rights enforcement such as common defense and laws and
then to defend the social insurance systems based on their own merit. A
good example in the USA is the social security system. The minority
rightarded opinion of social insurance systems should have little if any
affect on the administration of such systems. It is the "off budget"
nature of Social Security" that has kept it safe from Republican lying
pigs since its inception.
"Republican lying pigs" also *draw* on it...

--
Les Cargill
Beam Me Up Scotty
2009-10-11 03:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
A Liberal would think that all it takes is money to maintain freedom.

Same as they think education and everything else can be solved by
throwing money at it..... That same attitude is present in most young
children, they also don't understand the concept of not spending all
their money immediately and saving some to buy things later.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*

"I pledge that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year
will see any type of tax increase," he said. "Not income tax, not
capital gains taxes, not ANY kind of tax."
- Obama -
Nickname unavailable
2009-10-11 00:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Piet de Arcilla
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Taxes are the price of government spending, but that price is
fraudulent. The real cost of a government program is not the tax bill,
but the net social utility of whatever actions would've occurred _but
for_ its existence.
lets remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the
founders were really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one could
produce riches without the support of society, so anyone who
accumulates property owes a part of it back to society for social
programs

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_dec2000.htm

Philosopher of the Month
December 2000 - Thomas Paine
Robin Harwood
The great and glorious Thomas Paine was a political theorist who tried
to put his theories into action. His aim was to free human beings from
oppressive government, oppressive religions, and oppressive poverty.
His method was to appeal to reason, so that all people could recognise
truth and justice. His achievements were spectacular. Paine invented
America, took part in the French Revolution, and inspired
revolutionary movements in Britain. The American Revolution was a
success, the French revolution was a disaster, and the British
Revolution never happened. Even so, Paine's ideas of democracy and
social welfare have been at least partly realized not only in these
countries, but in many other countries as well.
He was born in England, but his life there was difficult, and on
Benjamin Franklin's advice, he emigrated to the New World. Paine
arrived in Philadelphia in 1774, and took a job as editor for the
Pennsylvania Magazine. One of his first essays was a call for the
abolition of slavery. Inspired by the first moves of the American
Revolution, he wrote the pamphlet Common Sense (1776), in which he
argued that independence was both morally justified and the only
practical option for the American Colonies. The book was massively
influential, and converted many waverers, including Thomas Jefferson
and George Washington, to the idea of the United States of America
(Paine coined the name) as an independent nation.
After the War of Independence was over, he went to France, and then to
England, where he wrote The Rights of Man. Paine's message was clear
and powerful.
All individual human beings, he argued, are created with equal rights.
However, human beings do not live as isolated individuals, but as
members of society. In society we flourish fully, both because we can
enjoy the company of other people, and from being able to gain help
and support from each other. Nonetheless, human beings are not perfect
and so sometimes infringe each other's rights. As individuals we may
not have the power to exercise some of our rights, such as the right
to protect ourselves. Thus, we create the state to protect those
rights, and the individual's natural right is transformed into a civil
right of protection. Also, as members of the state, we gain additional
rights, such as the right to vote, and the right to run for office.
The only legitimate form of state is a democratic republic. Hereditary
monarchy is morally illegitimate, since it denies the current
generation the right to choose their own leaders.
Of course, Paine held that we also have duties. We have a duty to
protect the rights of our fellow citizens, and to maintain society,
but we also have to improve, enrich, and benefit society. This
includes the duty to eliminate poverty as much as we can. Paine
proposed a system of welfare to do just this. This welfare was not
charity, but a civil right.
The popularity of the book frightened the British Government. Paine
was outlawed for treason, and he fled to France. The British
revolutionary movements were squashed.
The French elected Paine to a seat in the National Convention. During
the Terror he was imprisoned and came close to being executed. After
his release, he took little active part in French politics, and
concentrated mostly on writing, particularly on religion and
economics. He produced The Age of Reason, arguing for Deism, and
against atheism and Christianity. He demonstrated that Christian
theology was unreasonable, and the doctrine of redemption was immoral.
He also showed that the Bible cannot be divine revelation, and
condemned it for its portrayal of God as cruel and vindictive.
In Agrarian Justice, he returned to the question of rights and social
justice. Civilization, he argued, should not throw people into a worse
condition than they would be in if they were uncivilized, and yet in
Europe many people were poorer than American Indians. The Earth had
been given by God as common property to all men, but the system of
land ownership meant that only some could use it. Paine argued that
they should compensate the others by paying a ground rent to society.
Also, he argued that no-one could produce riches without the support
of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits.
When Paine finally returned to America in 1802, his writings on
religion had made him an unpopular figure. Nonetheless, Paine did yet
another great service to his ungrateful country, in proposing that the
U.S.A. buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon. Jefferson took
Paine's advice, and thus more than doubled the size of the United
States.
Paine carried on writing to the end, but his old age was miserable,
and he died in obscurity. Officialdom has preferred to ignore him,
even when carrying out his proposals, and his name is seldom on the
lists of great men, and yet many of his ideas are common currency now.
However, much of the world is still not completely free from political
oppression, organized religion, and poverty. We can still learn from
him.

Suggested reading
Thomas Paine, A. J. Ayer, (Secker and Warburg)
The
Thomas Paine Reader, ed. Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick (Penguin)
Tom
Paine: a political life, John Keane, (Little, Brown and Company)
AZDuffman
2009-10-09 15:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Bret Cahill
Gotta love this leftard. He wants higher taxes but cries like a
little fairy if he has to pay an insurance premium to a private
company.
Michael Gordge
2009-10-09 22:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Bret Cahill
Gotta love this leftard.  He wants higher taxes but cries like a
little fairy if he has to pay an insurance premium to a private
company.
But at least he's finally asked The Question "What is the price of
freedom?" Answer: Removing the government's guns from the trader's
head and its a small price to pay, the stroke of a pen can do it.

MG
Nickname unavailable
2009-10-11 01:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Bret Cahill
Gotta love this leftard.  He wants higher taxes but cries like a
little fairy if he has to pay an insurance premium to a private
company.
But at least he's finally asked The Question "What is the price of
freedom?" Answer: Removing the government's guns from the trader's
head and its a small price to pay, the stroke of a pen can do it.
MG
that is not a gun against the head of a trader, its the law that
requires that the trader with the most information, is at least held
to some sort of honesty.
i have never met a crook yet, that likes to be regulated.
Michael Gordge
2009-10-11 08:52:58 UTC
Permalink
 that is not a gun against the head of a trader, its the law......
Hey dopey, read my lips ewe fucking leftist retard, the law means
NOTHING without the gun being held at the head.

The law IS a gun being held at your head.

Its called "the rule of law", here is how it happens:

If you break the law then you will be forced to pay a fine, if you
refuse to pay the fine then your property will be confiscated, if you
defend your property from confiscation then you will go to jail, if
you escape and or try to defend your life by the same means that it is
being threatened, e.g. physical force, then you will be and or can be
ultimately shot dead.

And that is abreviated simply by saying, "the law is a gun being held
at your head".

It is essential for law and order in any civilized society that the
gun (being shot dead) be the ultimate means of up-holding the law.

e.g. robbers rapists pedophiles fraudsters thugs who threaten and or
initiate physical violence against peaceful human beings are the ONLY
morally legitimate 'targets' of such treatment, i.e where there are
REAL victims.

Victimless crimes, e.g. the non-payment of tax IS a victimless crime,
drug laws (in the context of adults) are victimless crimes, victimless
crimes are the scourge of humanity.

For justice to be done it must be blind, e.g. whether a person steals
for drugs or for food then his punishment must be the same, the law is
about protecting peaceful people and is NOT about making peaceful
people victims.

MG
Piet de Arcilla
2009-10-10 06:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Bret Cahill
Gotta love this leftard.  He wants higher taxes but cries like a
little fairy if he has to pay an insurance premium to a private
company.
It seems like a good idea to make everybody part of one risk pool and
not tie health insurance to employers.

What I don't want to do is injure providers like drug companies or
doctors.
Nickname unavailable
2009-10-11 00:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Bret Cahill
Gotta love this leftard.  He wants higher taxes but cries like a
little fairy if he has to pay an insurance premium to a private
company.
he gets something back from government, the private sector takes,
then when you get sick, or the premiums get so high from all of the
thieving in the private sector, they drop you.

lets remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the
founders were really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one could
produce riches without the support of society, so anyone who
accumulates property owes a part of it back to society for social
programs

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_dec2000.htm

Philosopher of the Month
December 2000 - Thomas Paine
Robin Harwood
The great and glorious Thomas Paine was a political theorist who tried
to put his theories into action. His aim was to free human beings from
oppressive government, oppressive religions, and oppressive poverty.
His method was to appeal to reason, so that all people could recognise
truth and justice. His achievements were spectacular. Paine invented
America, took part in the French Revolution, and inspired
revolutionary movements in Britain. The American Revolution was a
success, the French revolution was a disaster, and the British
Revolution never happened. Even so, Paine's ideas of democracy and
social welfare have been at least partly realized not only in these
countries, but in many other countries as well.
He was born in England, but his life there was difficult, and on
Benjamin Franklin's advice, he emigrated to the New World. Paine
arrived in Philadelphia in 1774, and took a job as editor for the
Pennsylvania Magazine. One of his first essays was a call for the
abolition of slavery. Inspired by the first moves of the American
Revolution, he wrote the pamphlet Common Sense (1776), in which he
argued that independence was both morally justified and the only
practical option for the American Colonies. The book was massively
influential, and converted many waverers, including Thomas Jefferson
and George Washington, to the idea of the United States of America
(Paine coined the name) as an independent nation.
After the War of Independence was over, he went to France, and then to
England, where he wrote The Rights of Man. Paine's message was clear
and powerful.
All individual human beings, he argued, are created with equal rights.
However, human beings do not live as isolated individuals, but as
members of society. In society we flourish fully, both because we can
enjoy the company of other people, and from being able to gain help
and support from each other. Nonetheless, human beings are not perfect
and so sometimes infringe each other's rights. As individuals we may
not have the power to exercise some of our rights, such as the right
to protect ourselves. Thus, we create the state to protect those
rights, and the individual's natural right is transformed into a civil
right of protection. Also, as members of the state, we gain additional
rights, such as the right to vote, and the right to run for office.
The only legitimate form of state is a democratic republic. Hereditary
monarchy is morally illegitimate, since it denies the current
generation the right to choose their own leaders.
Of course, Paine held that we also have duties. We have a duty to
protect the rights of our fellow citizens, and to maintain society,
but we also have to improve, enrich, and benefit society. This
includes the duty to eliminate poverty as much as we can. Paine
proposed a system of welfare to do just this. This welfare was not
charity, but a civil right.
The popularity of the book frightened the British Government. Paine
was outlawed for treason, and he fled to France. The British
revolutionary movements were squashed.
The French elected Paine to a seat in the National Convention. During
the Terror he was imprisoned and came close to being executed. After
his release, he took little active part in French politics, and
concentrated mostly on writing, particularly on religion and
economics. He produced The Age of Reason, arguing for Deism, and
against atheism and Christianity. He demonstrated that Christian
theology was unreasonable, and the doctrine of redemption was immoral.
He also showed that the Bible cannot be divine revelation, and
condemned it for its portrayal of God as cruel and vindictive.
In Agrarian Justice, he returned to the question of rights and social
justice. Civilization, he argued, should not throw people into a worse
condition than they would be in if they were uncivilized, and yet in
Europe many people were poorer than American Indians. The Earth had
been given by God as common property to all men, but the system of
land ownership meant that only some could use it. Paine argued that
they should compensate the others by paying a ground rent to society.
Also, he argued that no-one could produce riches without the support
of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits.
When Paine finally returned to America in 1802, his writings on
religion had made him an unpopular figure. Nonetheless, Paine did yet
another great service to his ungrateful country, in proposing that the
U.S.A. buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon. Jefferson took
Paine's advice, and thus more than doubled the size of the United
States.
Paine carried on writing to the end, but his old age was miserable,
and he died in obscurity. Officialdom has preferred to ignore him,
even when carrying out his proposals, and his name is seldom on the
lists of great men, and yet many of his ideas are common currency now.
However, much of the world is still not completely free from political
oppression, organized religion, and poverty. We can still learn from
him.

Suggested reading
Thomas Paine, A. J. Ayer, (Secker and Warburg)
The
Thomas Paine Reader, ed. Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick (Penguin)
Tom
Paine: a political life, John Keane, (Little, Brown and Company)
Werner
2009-10-10 14:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Bret Cahill
Taxes are the price of politics.
if "we the people'' must pay for a "money pit'' we obviously don't
want, does that not make us accountable to government?
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Accountable.shtml

http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Education.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/PerformanceGap.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/ReportCard.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Schools.shtml

despite the fact that the U.S. spends the largest amount of money per
pupil in the world, standardized international achievement tests
reveal that U.S. public schools achieve mediocre scores.. For
example,
according to the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment
(PISA) for 15-
year-old students, the U.S. ranked 15th in reading, 18th in
mathematics, and 14th in science literacy among 27 OECD countries
(U.S. DOE, 2001).
http://www.uwm.edu/~kim/papers/Accountability_Final.pdf

Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. ----
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml


Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense
of others. 
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
Rod Speed
2009-10-10 16:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werner
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Taxes are the price of politics.
if "we the people'' must pay for a "money pit'' we obviously
don't want, does that not make us accountable to government?
Nope. Not when we get to decide what taxes will be imposed.
Post by Werner
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Accountable.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Education.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/PerformanceGap.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/ReportCard.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Schools.shtml
despite the fact that the U.S. spends the largest amount
of money per pupil in the world, standardized international
achievement tests reveal that U.S. public schools achieve
mediocre scores.. For example, according to the 2000
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)
for 15- year-old students, the U.S. ranked 15th in reading,
18th in mathematics, and 14th in science literacy among
27 OECD countries (U.S. DOE, 2001).
http://www.uwm.edu/~kim/papers/Accountability_Final.pdf
And the US continues to completely dominate the world
on the full commercialisation of almost all technology.

So that shows that that sort of ranking is completely irrelevant to what matters.

<reams of your mindless mantra chanting flushed where it belongs>
Michael Gordge
2009-10-10 21:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Nope. Not when we get to decide what taxes will be imposed.
And ewe wonder why ewe have been identified as a masochist.

MG
Werner
2009-10-10 23:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Werner
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Taxes are the price of politics.
if "we the people'' must pay for a "money pit''  we obviously
don't want, does that not make us accountable to government?
Nope. Not when we get to decide what taxes will be imposed.
democracy: When two wolves and a sheep vote 
on what's for dinner.

...
Rod Speed
2009-10-10 23:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Werner
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no free lunch on liberty.
Freedom ain't free.
Taxes are the price of freedom.
Taxes are the price of politics.
if "we the people'' must pay for a "money pit'' we obviously
don't want, does that not make us accountable to government?
Nope. Not when we get to decide what taxes will be imposed.
democracy: When two wolves and a sheep vote ?on what's for dinner.
Just another of your pathetic little mantras.
Michael Gordge
2009-10-11 09:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Just another of your pathetic little mantras.
What a pathetic mantra ewe have regurgitated.

What makes 51 nodding morons out of every 100 nodding morons right?

MG

Loading...