PDA

View Full Version : Clark as Obama's Vice?




electronicmaji
06-06-2008, 07:34 PM
It seems to be the latest rumour from the pundits this week; following a one on one meeting between General Clark and Obama. This would be a interesting presidential ticket...

Kludge
06-06-2008, 07:37 PM
Ahhh, when I read the title I was wondering if there were to be another Dick in office.

yongrel
06-06-2008, 07:40 PM
http://www.patfullerton.com/superman/pix/clark/clark1978c.jpg

winston_blade
06-06-2008, 07:40 PM
Ahhh, when I read the title I was wondering if there were to be another Dick in office.

He can't be vice-president and work those "Rockin' New Year's Eve" specials.

Kotin
06-06-2008, 07:40 PM
I actually really respect Wesley Clark..


but I still cant even think about voting for mr.war with pakistan...

electronicmaji
06-06-2008, 08:00 PM
I actually really respect Wesley Clark..


but I still cant even think about voting for mr.war with pakistan...

Obama never said anything about Pakistan?

pcosmar
06-06-2008, 08:08 PM
Obama never said anything about Pakistan?
Yes he did.
Are you willfully ignorant?

electronicmaji
06-06-2008, 08:29 PM
Yes he did.
Are you willfully ignorant?

I think you're mixing him up with someone else...or maybe he didn't mean it....really doesn't sound like something he'd say, just like we all know those letters aren't something Ron Paul would say.

pcosmar
06-06-2008, 08:41 PM
I think you're mixing him up with someone else...or maybe he didn't mean it....really doesn't sound like something he'd say, just like we all know those letters aren't something Ron Paul would say.

YOU are just ignoring facts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/

“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/27/535827.aspx

In August, Obama’s reference to talking about Pakistan, most probably refers to an August 2007 speech on counterterrorism in which he argued the United States should strike Pakistan unilaterally if they find actionable intelligence about al-Qaeda terrorist camps there and Pakistan fails to act. The speech was criticized by some as overreaching in terms of foreign policy. But Obama frequently cites it now when pointing to the turmoil in Pakistan to say that he was right.
Is that enough or do you need more?
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm

Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?

OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.

electronicmaji
06-06-2008, 08:54 PM
Sounds like Special Ops in the first part; not a far cry from what Ron Paul's plan to stop Al Quieda is.

As for the rest...They're questions about Israel. He pretty much has to say that. I know that he will at least look over the intel properly and take the advice from the people beside him in this case. We will not have a president in my or your lifetime that does not support Israel like that. You lose over 25%+ of your vote.

pcosmar
06-06-2008, 09:00 PM
BUT

Obama never said anything about Pakistan?
He did say it.
Iraq
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm

Q: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, there will be no US troops in Iraq?

A: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 26, 2007

electronicmaji
06-06-2008, 09:16 PM
I see more of a non answer....a unwillingness to commit; that was a quote from over a year ago.

Obama. Will he pull the troops out of Iraq. Yes.

Will he build bases there. Maybe; he might be forced to by congress.

But McCain will not only build bases in Iraq he will keep elevated troop levels there. Permanently.

No-brainer imo.

I'm not claiming Obama's perfect, but out of the politicians with any chances of winning he's the best, and since Ron Paul isn't running, And I don't trust Barr to do what he says; unlike Obama; I have no problem voting for him.

pcosmar
06-06-2008, 09:32 PM
I see more of a non answer....a unwillingness to commit; that was a quote from over a year ago.

Obama. Will he pull the troops out of Iraq. Yes.

Will he build bases there. Maybe; he might be forced to by congress.

But McCain will not only build bases in Iraq he will keep elevated troop levels there. Permanently.

No-brainer imo.

I'm not claiming Obama's perfect, but out of the politicians with any chances of winning he's the best, and since Ron Paul isn't running, And I don't trust Barr to do what he says; unlike Obama; I have no problem voting for him.

Well I do have a 'problem" with voting for him or promoting him.
That said, I suspect he will probably win. He will pander and lie better than the other guy.
I don't believe McCain has a chance.

I do have a prediction, just a wild guess as to the plan of the PTB.
McCain is lame and was pushed to the front to lose.
Obama is set up to win, but will be assassinated shortly after the election. Some patsy will be blamed (probably racist) and it will kick off unrest/riots.
Martial law invoked, NWO begins.

I will be watching from far away from the action.

Fox McCloud
06-06-2008, 09:48 PM
electronicmaji, you're willfully ignorant about Obama....pcosmar is presenting some really good information, and you're side-stepping it by saying "he has to say that", "that was year ago", or "well, he probably really means this...".

also, let's assume what you said is true---then you still have a conundrum on your hands--you're supporting a politician who panders and lies.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, he's most likely CFR (and his wife officially is), and now it's come out that he may have attended Bilderberg? How can you support someone like that?

Wilson and FDR both promised to keep out of the war, and it was found out years later that they actually helped orchestrate the respective wars they were involved in...so much for promises....and incidentally, they were both socialists and Democrats, just like Obama.

angelatc
06-06-2008, 09:52 PM
I think you're mixing him up with someone else...or maybe he didn't mean it....really doesn't sound like something he'd say, just like we all know those letters aren't something Ron Paul would say.

He absolutely said something about Pakistan. He was ridiculed, for "wanting to bomb our allies and talk to our enemies," as a result.

pinkmandy
06-06-2008, 10:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc4qnpu3N0M&feature=related

^^^^^^

There ya go. He said it unless the man in that debate is a clone of Obama.

electronicmaji
06-06-2008, 10:33 PM
Well I do have a 'problem" with voting for him or promoting him.
That said, I suspect he will probably win. He will pander and lie better than the other guy.
I don't believe McCain has a chance.

I do have a prediction, just a wild guess as to the plan of the PTB.
McCain is lame and was pushed to the front to lose.
Obama is set up to win, but will be assassinated shortly after the election. Some patsy will be blamed (probably racist) and it will kick off unrest/riots.
Martial law invoked, NWO begins.

I will be watching from far away from the action.

Once you invoke NWO and all this conspiracy bull you lose a lot of respect from me. I am not a extremist like you I am a moderate. Too much of anything is bad; including nutjob conspiracy theories.

electronicmaji
06-06-2008, 10:38 PM
electronicmaji, you're willfully ignorant about Obama....pcosmar is presenting some really good information, and you're side-stepping it by saying "he has to say that", "that was year ago", or "well, he probably really means this...".

also, let's assume what you said is true---then you still have a conundrum on your hands--you're supporting a politician who panders and lies.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, he's most likely CFR (and his wife officially is), and now it's come out that he may have attended Bilderberg? How can you support someone like that?

Wilson and FDR both promised to keep out of the war, and it was found out years later that they actually helped orchestrate the respective wars they were involved in...so much for promises....and incidentally, they were both socialists and Democrats, just like Obama.


Once again, I don't beleive in CFR. Its extremism and I don't condemn conspiracy theory or this bullshit from anyone. Be it Paulites, Republicans, or Democrats.

More importantly, I'm not sidestepping it; of course hes going to be somewhat willing to take military action; hes a mainstream politician. No completely peaceful person will ever get elected president. Even Ron Paul.

He will walk quietly and carry a big stick; but I trust him to do a lot; hes one of the most promising mainstream politicians since Kennedy. You can be apathetic; but I see good things in this Obama. I see him not accepting PAC or Lobbyist donation; I see him talking straight and not bullshitting like Ron Paul; and why he doesn't abide to all Ron Pauls ideas and yes; is not a total pacifist; I have no reason to beleive he is not authentic.

More importantly I have no reason to beleive he won't help our country and won't be as bad as a president as McCain or Bush. And that alone gets him my vote.

pcosmar
06-06-2008, 10:44 PM
Yeah,OK.
http://mikeduran.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/Blinders1.jpg

hypnagogue
06-06-2008, 10:48 PM
My what a convincing argument you've made....

electronicmaji
06-06-2008, 10:56 PM
Yeah,OK.
http://mikeduran.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/Blinders1.jpg

What would you rather I do. Staying home is a vote for McCain. A vote for Barr is a vote for McCain. I'm in a swing state. I will feel responsible if McCain wins and I did nothing to stop him. I already voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I can not take anymore of this on my conscious. It has already almost driven me to suicide.

Fox McCloud
06-06-2008, 11:34 PM
What would you rather I do. Staying home is a vote for McCain. A vote for Barr is a vote for McCain. I'm in a swing state. I will feel responsible if McCain wins and I did nothing to stop him. I already voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I can not take anymore of this on my conscious. It has already almost driven me to suicide.

voting and supporting the "lesser of two evils" (and I don't think there's a 'lesser of two evils in this election') is still voting and supporting evil.

if you stay home and do not vote you're not voting for McCain, if you vote for Bob Barr, you're definitely not voting for McCain (he'll likely siphon off conservative votes)...and if you vote for Chuck Baldwin you're most definitely not supporting McCain at all....or you could stick with writing in Ron Paul's name.

just because you vote and that candidate doesn't get elected doesn't mean you're "voting for McCain".

I live in a swing State too (Ohio), but I still can't let that cloud my judgement...and besides, at the end of the day, as we've all been saying, Obama and McCain are the same, with the exception of a few domestic issues.

Fox McCloud
06-06-2008, 11:38 PM
Once you invoke NWO and all this conspiracy bull you lose a lot of respect from me. I am not a extremist like you I am a moderate. Too much of anything is bad; including nutjob conspiracy theories.

forget all the "modern" conspiracy theories that have cropped up in the past 5-10 years--focus on the old ones...many are VERY well documented now, and even the mainstream, if they did deep enough, has to acknowledge them (they don't dig deep enough though, as they don't want to).

here's a perfect example: www.jbs.org/node/58

You're a moderate....well, I have this saying (I think I may have heard it somewhere else) "Moderation is a form of extremism".

Too much of anything is bad? So, too much freedom is bad, eh?

electronicmaji
06-06-2008, 11:44 PM
voting and supporting the "lesser of two evils" (and I don't think there's a 'lesser of two evils in this election') is still voting and supporting evil.

if you stay home and do not vote you're not voting for McCain, if you vote for Bob Barr, you're definitely not voting for McCain (he'll likely siphon off conservative votes)...and if you vote for Chuck Baldwin you're most definitely not supporting McCain at all....or you could stick with writing in Ron Paul's name.

just because you vote and that candidate doesn't get elected doesn't mean you're "voting for McCain".

I live in a swing State too (Ohio), but I still can't let that cloud my judgement...and besides, at the end of the day, as we've all been saying, Obama and McCain are the same, with the exception of a few domestic issues.

Then I never should of voted for Ron Paul. Because I don't agree with everything he says. In many ways he's also a lesser of two or three evils for me.

And if I vote for either of those, when I would be most likely to vote Democrat this time around; I will be voting for McCain.

Also Obama and McCain are no where the same. Republicans do Socialism and they do it wrong. Democrats do Socialism and they do it right. Simple as that. You can still dislike socialism; but I am a Socialist Libertarian. I agree with a lot of socialism so its not a problem for me.

Kludge
06-06-2008, 11:46 PM
Then I never should of voted for Ron Paul. Because I don't agree with everything he says. In many ways he's also a lesser of two or three evils for me.

And if I vote for either of those, when I would be most likely to vote Democrat this time around; I will be voting for McCain.

Also Obama and McCain are no where the same. Republicans do Socialism and they do it wrong. Democrats do Socialism and they do it right. Simple as that. You can still dislike socialism; but I am a Socialist Libertarian. I agree with a lot of socialism so its not a problem for me.

Socialist Libertarian....? How can you coercively collect MORE taxes and push for civil liberties WHEN ALL RIGHTS STEM FROM PROPERTY?!!!

electronicmaji
06-06-2008, 11:46 PM
forget all the "modern" conspiracy theories that have cropped up in the past 5-10 years--focus on the old ones...many are VERY well documented now, and even the mainstream, if they did deep enough, has to acknowledge them (they don't dig deep enough though, as they don't want to).

here's a perfect example: www.jbs.org/node/58

You're a moderate....well, I have this saying (I think I may have heard it somewhere else) "Moderation is a form of extremism".

Too much of anything is bad? So, too much freedom is bad, eh?

Yes. In the way that giving people the freedom to commit murder or do things that should be illegal is bad. Extremist freedom can be just as damaging.

electronicmaji
06-06-2008, 11:47 PM
Socialist Libertarian....? How can you coercively collect MORE taxes and push for civil liberties WHEN ALL RIGHTS STEM FROM PROPERTY!!!

I don't think all rights stem from property. I think rights stem from inherent moralty given to man at birth. Like the founding fathers.

Kludge
06-06-2008, 11:52 PM
I don't think all rights stem from property. I think rights stem from inherent moralty given to man at birth. Like the founding fathers.

I have "morals" because others have "morals" of the same type.

When we choose to join a society, we choose to abide by their rules (under an ideal system), dictated by that society's agreed upon "morals". The best "value" compromise would be to make aggression illegal and leave it at that, since victimless crimes have no.... victim.


If the founding fathers felt we had an inherent morality, why did they feel the need to assert what morals we inherently had in the Bill of Rights?

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 12:26 AM
I have "morals" because others have "morals" of the same type.

When we choose to join a society, we choose to abide by their rules (under an ideal system), dictated by that society's agreed upon "morals". The best "value" compromise would be to make aggression illegal and leave it at that, since victimless crimes have no.... victim.


If the founding fathers felt we had an inherent morality, why did they feel the need to assert what morals we inherently had in the Bill of Rights?

I meant rights. We have inherent rights. Morals are derived from those rights.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 12:28 AM
I meant rights. We have inherent rights. Morals are derived from those rights.

Fine, replace morals with rights in my reply and it still fits. Society at it's best should be a voluntary union.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 01:08 AM
Fine, replace morals with rights in my reply and it still fits. Society at it's best should be a voluntary union.

I disagree. Rights and Morality exist from the get go. The reason the goverment exists is to protect those rights. One of the rights I also happen to beleive in is the right to not hunger and a right to medical care for those who can not afford it. I understand if you don't agree with that, but I think some social projects are a neccesary evil; especially socialized healthcare.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 01:25 AM
I disagree. Rights and Morality exist from the get go. The reason the goverment exists is to protect those rights. One of the rights I also happen to beleive in is the right to not hunger and a right to medical care for those who can not afford it. I understand if you don't agree with that, but I think some social projects are a neccesary evil; especially socialized healthcare.

And if the necessary evil taxes me to the point where I have no home, no food? Should we socialize food and shelter as well?

What of the incentive to earn and live? When I put my energy into something, I want to see the return, and I'll go fully counter-economics if we continue spending for the "Common Good" (a concept heralded in the time of drafts, unnecessary wars, and the "New Deal" - and the Fed of course.)

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 01:39 AM
And if the necessary evil taxes me to the point where I have no home, no food? Should we socialize food and shelter as well?

What of the incentive to earn and live? When I put my energy into something, I want to see the return, and I'll go fully counter-economics if we continue spending for the "Common Good" (a concept heralded in the time of drafts, unnecessary wars, and the "New Deal" - and the Fed of course.)

Moderation...remember? Moderate taxes, Moderate amounts of social services. We won't be majorly taxing anyone. In fact i'm sure we could implement all of these services and decrease the amount of taxing that is done already. Using choice and the economy as the provider of these services is also one of the way this will work.

Let me explain. In my unique vision for a perfect america (albeit not gonna happen) everyone would have state sponsored healthcare; if you wanted to opt out you could and you won't pay taxes; but you would have to pay for any health services when you come in and the companies could charge you what they want. If you choose not to opt out you would receive a voucher, these companies would trade these vouchers to the goverment for money. You could choose whatever service provider you want; and these would be completely private companies.

I would want to see the same system implemented for schools, Social Security, and other kind of Social Services. I want to preserve choice, while at the same time preserving freedom of choice; even to the point where you're service provider could be one that doesn't accept these vouchers.

If we had systems like these not only would these Services be available for everyone but they would be cheaper and the private economy would be kept intact. I think its a good middle point for everything; but I'm sure you would disagree.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 01:42 AM
Moderation...remember? Moderate taxes, Moderate amounts of social services. We won't be majorly taxing anyone. In fact i'm sure we could implement all of these services and decrease the amount of taxing that is done already. Using choice and the economy as the provider of these services is also one of the way this will work.

Let me explain. In my unique vision for a perfect america (albeit not gonna happen) everyone would have state sponsored healthcare; if you wanted to opt out you could and you won't pay taxes; but you would have to pay for any health services when you come in and the companies could charge you what they want. If you choose not to opt out you would receive a voucher, these companies would trade these vouchers to the goverment for money. You could choose whatever service provider you want; and these would be completely private companies.

I would want to see the same system implemented for schools, Social Security, and other kind of Social Services. I want to preserve choice, while at the same time preserving freedom of choice; even to the point where you're service provider could be one that doesn't accept these vouchers.

If we had systems like these not only would these Services be available for everyone but they would be cheaper and the private economy would be kept intact. I think its a good middle point for everything; but I'm sure you would disagree.

Why would the wealthy opt to pay unholy amounts of money towards charity they have no control over?

Why not leave it up to private organizations who are more inclined to administer charity in the most effective way possible?

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 01:52 AM
Why would the wealthy opt to pay unholy amounts of money towards charity they have no control over?

Why not leave it up to private organizations who are more inclined to administer charity in the most effective way possible?

Because charities guarantee nothing. I think Healthcare is a right. I have a burden in my heart for the poor and desperate; and while here in America most of those were recently playing the system; we have gotten to a point where our economy is so bad that there are real american poor jobless who don't know where their next meal is coming from and my heart goes out to them.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 02:03 AM
Because charities guarantee nothing. I think Healthcare is a right. I have a burden in my heart for the poor and desperate; and while here in America most of those were recently playing the system; we have gotten to a point where our economy is so bad that there are real american poor jobless who don't know where their next meal is coming from and my heart goes out to them.


Why would the wealthy opt to pay unholy amounts of money towards charity they have no control over?


If they wanted to give out money, I don't understand why they wouldn't donate anyways.

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 03:08 AM
Because charities guarantee nothing. I think Healthcare is a right. I have a burden in my heart for the poor and desperate; and while here in America most of those were recently playing the system; we have gotten to a point where our economy is so bad that there are real american poor jobless who don't know where their next meal is coming from and my heart goes out to them.

That's fine, but you can't plunder other people's wealth to pay for their next meal/health-care or what-have-you.

The only difference between directly robbing a man of his wealth and giving it to the poor and taxing him is that one can be prosecuted, and the other cannot be.

also, Healthcare was really headed in the right direction, until it became more socialized, and that handed us the current mess we're in...now you want to make health-care a right.....listen to the good Dr. Paul--I think he knows what he's talking about when he said that "no, isn't and should never be a right".

as for how government destroyed affordable health-care: http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html

lest we also not forget that the FDA is a cartel-based structure....and Congress (in conjunction with the FDA) have actively suppressed alternative medicine....all are progressive policies, and socialist in nature....what you're proposing will only make the system worse.

I also recommend John Stossel's "Sick in America".


I must admit that I'm a bit biased against you...mainly because moderate are the group I detest the most (even more so than liberals). Why? They have no definitive values and compromise on anything (neither hot nor cold) and everything. And again I re-iterate that taking the "moderate" position isn't really being moderate--it's a political ideology in and of itself....and thus my quote "moderation is a form of extremism".

Danke
06-07-2008, 09:42 AM
Let me explain. In my unique vision for a perfect america (albeit not gonna happen) everyone would have state sponsored healthcare; if you wanted to opt out you could and you won't pay taxes; but you would have to pay for any health services when you come in and the companies could charge you what they want. If you choose not to opt out you would receive a voucher, these companies would trade these vouchers to the goverment for money. You could choose whatever service provider you want; and these would be completely private companies.

I would want to see the same system implemented for schools, Social Security, and other kind of Social Services. I want to preserve choice, while at the same time preserving freedom of choice; even to the point where you're service provider could be one that doesn't accept these vouchers.


Then you're really not for Socialism (lite). First you say it is a right, but you get a choice to participate and whether to pay for it.

Pretty much free market approach with some government involvement. Kinda like Medicaid and Medicare.

But your systems is actually more free market orientated than what we have today, because almost everyone can currently get services without having to pay into the system.


I like your system better than what we have. As you can't tax a right.

werdd
06-07-2008, 07:16 PM
I see more of a non answer....a unwillingness to commit; that was a quote from over a year ago.

Obama. Will he pull the troops out of Iraq. Yes.

Will he build bases there. Maybe; he might be forced to by congress.

But McCain will not only build bases in Iraq he will keep elevated troop levels there. Permanently.

No-brainer imo.

I'm not claiming Obama's perfect, but out of the politicians with any chances of winning he's the best, and since Ron Paul isn't running, And I don't trust Barr to do what he says; unlike Obama; I have no problem voting for him.


thats rediculous.

obama is going to do more nanny stating than this country has ever seen. He wants to redistrubute your wealth, and give it to the inner city.

So if you can conciously vote for a nanny stating, liberal, tax you out the ass and give the money to people who are too lazy to help theirselves, just because he is seemingly more anti war than mccain(He isn't, do you research, obama said he would not promise all of the troops home by 21002). Then ok.


You should probably read the manifesto.

Obama does nothing to advance our cause. He will do nothing to influence small goverment.

Barr and Baldwin on the otherhand, if either has a good showing +-5% then we will have made a huge step.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 07:26 PM
thats rediculous.

obama is going to do more nanny stating than this country has ever seen. He wants to redistrubute your wealth, and give it to the inner city.

So if you can conciously vote for a nanny stating, liberal, tax you out the ass and give the money to people who are too lazy to help theirselves, just because he is seemingly more anti war than mccain(He isn't, do you research, obama said he would not promise all of the troops home by 21002). Then ok.


You should probably read the manifesto.

Obama does nothing to advance our cause. He will do nothing to influence small goverment.

Barr and Baldwin on the otherhand, if either has a good showing +-5% then we will have made a huge step.

I'm not all gung ho about Small Goverment. I'm gung ho about no corruption. I'm gung ho about personal freedoms and self responsibility. I see all of those represented by Obama. There will never be a small goverment candidate who will ever have a chance of winning; even Paulwould not pull more than 15% of the vote. Chosing between McCain and Obama the answer is easy.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 07:29 PM
I'm not all gung ho about Small Goverment. I'm gung ho about no corruption. I'm gung ho about personal freedoms and self responsibility. I see all of those represented by Obama. There will never be a small goverment candidate who will ever have a chance of winning; even Paulwould not pull more than 15% of the vote. Chosing between McCain and Obama the answer is easy.

You cannot say you believe in self-responsibility and then say it is our jobs to produce for the unproductive.

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 07:32 PM
I'm not all gung ho about Small Goverment. I'm gung ho about no corruption. I'm gung ho about personal freedoms and self responsibility. I see all of those represented by Obama. There will never be a small goverment candidate who will ever have a chance of winning; even Paulwould not pull more than 15% of the vote. Chosing between McCain and Obama the answer is easy.

yes, it is--it's called staying hope or voting for Barr/Baldwin/Paul.

non-small government = less personal freedoms and collectivist responsibility....and big government promotes corruption--it's less problematic in small government, and if there is any, it's easier to find and take care of....when you have big government, it's just some branch that's blamed, then a few people are smacked on the wrist and things go back to the way they were.

and you're making a huge assumption that a "small government candidate will never win"...there's been a number of those who have been elected since this country's inception.

please stop making excuse/plugging your ears/etc and look at the facts.

Obama would fit nicely in with the fabian socialists' ideals....and need I say what their symbol is?

werdd
06-07-2008, 07:34 PM
I'm not all gung ho about Small Goverment. I'm gung ho about no corruption. I'm gung ho about personal freedoms and self responsibility. I see all of those represented by Obama. There will never be a small goverment candidate who will ever have a chance of winning; even Paulwould not pull more than 15% of the vote. Chosing between McCain and Obama the answer is easy.

Yeah, the goverment will be okay as long as you have the right people ::rolls eyes::.

goverment has 3 functions.

Protecting your personal liberties.
Maintaining a strong military.
And delivering the mail.

Now add 100000 more functions of goverment, and start to like the idea, there you go now your an obama supporter!

Give him your crumpled dollar bills, and in return he gives you change.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 07:35 PM
Pray devoutly - hammer stoutly :D

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 08:08 PM
You cannot say you believe in self-responsibility and then say it is our jobs to produce for the unproductive.

Poor != Unproductive.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 08:10 PM
Poor != Unproductive.

Of course the poor are unproductive. Otherwise, they wouldn't be poor.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 08:11 PM
Yeah, the goverment will be okay as long as you have the right people ::rolls eyes::.

goverment has 3 functions.

Protecting your personal liberties.
Maintaining a strong military.
And delivering the mail.

Now add 100000 more functions of goverment, and start to like the idea, there you go now your an obama supporter!

Give him your crumpled dollar bills, and in return he gives you change.

See I disagree; you can feel free to think that way. But coming from a poor background; I want peoples ability to work provided for by the Goverment. I can't stand to see anyone uninsured because they can't afford it and I can't stand to see people go hungry because they can't afford food.

Like I said I am for some forms of Socialism.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 08:11 PM
Of course the poor are unproductive. Otherwise, they wouldn't be poor.

You automatically assume the poor are poor because they don't make money and don't work. The make money alright; its just in our economy the money the make is worth jack shit.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 08:14 PM
You automatically assume the poor are poor because they don't make money and don't work. The make money alright; its just in our economy the money the make is worth jack shit.

The poor do not produce enough value. I will not produce for them. They need to take responsibility and start investing in their own human capital so their labor is more valuable.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 08:15 PM
See I disagree; you can feel free to think that way. But coming from a poor background; I want peoples ability to work provided for by the Goverment. I can't stand to see anyone uninsured because they can't afford it and I can't stand to see people go hungry because they can't afford food.

Like I said I am for some forms of Socialism.

Then produce for them. You have no right to coerce me to do the same. You do not own me.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 08:16 PM
The poor do not produce enough value. I will not produce for them. They need to take responsibility and start investing in their own human capital so their labor is more valuable.

Its all fancy talk about what should be done. But that gives no solutions. Also having lived in a nation where 60% of the population is below the poverty line for six years might have made me soft. But so be it. I can not stand for us to leave one person poor.

And if that makes me a dirty socialist so be it.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 08:17 PM
Then produce for them. You have no right to coerce me to do the same. You do not own me.

And if you don't want to live on the system you don't have to. But you will pay twice as much for anything you need; because the system not only helps the poor; it helps everyone.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 08:17 PM
Its all fancy talk about what should be done. But that gives no solutions. Also having lived in a nation where 60% of the population is below the poverty line for six years might have made me soft. But so be it. I can not stand for us to leave one person poor.

And if that makes me a dirty socialist so be it.

Not only does it make you a dirty socialist - it makes you an initiator of force.

To initiate force to achieve social goals is disgusting, irresponsible and offensive.

There are no solutions, because there is nothing wrong.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 08:18 PM
And if you don't want to live on the system you don't have to. But you will pay twice as much for anything you need; because the system not only helps the poor; it helps everyone.

Wtf are you talking about?

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 08:20 PM
Wtf are you talking about?

Look at my previous posts outlining my strategy, you can call me evil; you can call me a portrayor of force. So be it. But I can't stand the poor going hungry, and I don't mind socialism as a fixer for it.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 08:22 PM
Look at my previous posts outlining my strategy, you can call me evil; you can call me a portrayor of force. So be it. But I can't stand the poor going hungry, and I don't mind socialism as a fixer for it.

That's irrational. You're giving us a flawed argument and telling us "I know it is wrong, but I think it is right".

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 08:40 PM
That's irrational. You're giving us a flawed argument and telling us "I know it is wrong, but I think it is right".

Not really. Like I said; I agree with some forms of socialism. Thats simple.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 08:44 PM
Not really. Like I said; I agree with some forms of socialism. Thats simple.

How can you agree with something which is definitely wrong?

(Cult of the Morally Grey?)

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 08:48 PM
How can you agree with something which is definitely wrong?

(Cult of the Morally Grey?)

I don't think it's deffinetly wrong. I think its right.

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 08:51 PM
Look at my previous posts outlining my strategy, you can call me evil; you can call me a portrayor of force. So be it. But I can't stand the poor going hungry, and I don't mind socialism as a fixer for it.

As Ron Paul said,

"The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch – Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference – that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars."

"Unfortunately no one in Washington, especially those who defend the poor and the middle class, cares about this subject . Instead, all we hear is that tax cuts for the rich are the source of every economic ill in the country. Anyone truly concerned about the middle class suffering from falling real wages, under-employment, a rising cost of living, and a decreasing standard of living should pay a lot more attention to monetary policy"

"The “tax” is paid when prices rise as the result of a depreciating dollar. Savers and those living on fixed or low incomes are hardest hit as the cost of living rises. Low and middle incomes families suffer the most as they struggle to make ends meet while wealth is literally transferred from the middle class to the wealthy."

if we fix the dollar crises, many of this nations problems will resolve themselves on their own--it'll force us to take on a humble foreign policy, and the welfare-warfare state will implode overnight....this will help the poor out far better than [i]any social or welfare program.

Let us also not forget that it was during times where there was NO government welfare that we saw the most charitable acts of the American people in all of its history....often if there's welfare, people are less likely to donate, mostly on the basis of "Why should I donate money? The government is already using my tax-dollars to do that anyway."

I'd say 9/10 of the problems in this country, honestly, have to do with our currency and monetary policies...if we handled them realistically and in a non-socialistic manner, then we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today.


I don't think it's deffinetly wrong. I think its right.

Ok, so what's the difference between me stealing money/food/items from anyone and the US and giving it to the poor, and having the government do the same thing, either through taxation, or (in times of so called "crises") directly? I really fail to see the difference.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 08:51 PM
I don't think it's deffinetly wrong. I think its right.

.... Initiation of force is right?


Testing...

Acronyms to Know

AJ

Abolishing central banks

New York

New York City

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 08:58 PM
.... Initiation of force is right?

I don't think it initiation of force. Like I said there is no inforced intent in my plan; you're assuming a lot of things that I never agreed with.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 08:59 PM
I don't think it initiation of force. Like I said there is no inforced intent in my plan; you're assuming a lot of things that I never agreed with.

What is taxation if not theft (initiation of force, coercion) - the organized looting of the productive?

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 09:00 PM
I don't think it initiation of force. Like I said there is no inforced intent in my plan; you're assuming a lot of things that I never agreed with.

if you're going to use that argument, then it's pointless to have a government program to begin with--you might as well start a charity organization that would do the same thing--it'd be more efficient, effective, and likely have far less corruption.

it'd be like having a voluntary tax system---very few would use it.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 09:04 PM
if you're going to use that argument, then it's pointless to have a government program to begin with--you might as well start a charity organization that would do the same thing--it'd be more efficient, effective, and likely have far less corruption.

it'd be like having a voluntary tax system---very few would use it.

No it isn't. Because Goverment programs will guarantee services to the poor. Charities will not. Not to mention it will be opt out, not opt in. Most people will get used to it and use it, undoubtedly a small percentage will ever leave, and that will only make things cheaper for everyone.

SevenEyedJeff
06-07-2008, 09:11 PM
I believe this thread was originally about Wesley Clark as a possible running mate for Obama.

Beware! Wesley Clark = C.F.R.

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/CFRMembers.html

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 09:11 PM
No it isn't. Because Goverment programs will guarantee services to the poor. Charities will not. Not to mention it will be opt out, not opt in. Most people will get used to it and use it, undoubtedly a small percentage will ever leave, and that will only make things cheaper for everyone.

no it doesn't--if you're guaranteeing services, then that means that you have to guarantee a certain level of taxation, which means that your system isn't voluntary. No system guarantees anything for anyone--there's always stipulations, conditions, and requirements....and as I said (in previous posts which you've chose to ignore), the greatest outpouring of charity is when the government did not engage in it itself.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 09:15 PM
I believe this thread was originally about Wesley Clark as a possible running mate for Obama.

Beware! Wesley Clark = C.F.R.

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/CFRMembers.html

No one cares about your CFR bullshit.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 09:16 PM
no it doesn't--if you're guaranteeing services, then that means that you have to guarantee a certain level of taxation, which means that your system isn't voluntary. No system guarantees anything for anyone--there's always stipulations, conditions, and requirements....and as I said (in previous posts which you've chose to ignore), the greatest outpouring of charity is when the government did not engage in it itself.

We guarantee a level of taxation on everyone a percentage amount; yes the rich will pay a lot more then the poor; but everyone will pay about the same amount proportionate to their income. And that is how we make it cheaper.

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 09:18 PM
No one cares about your CFR bullshit.

That's a load of crock, electronicmaji...there's a great number of us here who care about that...not necessarily because we're "conspiracy theorists", but rather because what's available to read in plain sight, you need not look far to prove that the CFR is, as G. Edward Griffin says "The Government behind the government".

If there's anyone who's thoroughly done research on the topic of Libertarianism, the Fed, the CFR, and the likes, it's him...and I have yet to see someone poke a hole in his research.

pcosmar
06-07-2008, 09:20 PM
No one cares about your CFR bullshit.

Wrong.
The CFR is a Factual entity that has a great deal of influence.
To deny that in light of facts is willful ignorance.

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 09:20 PM
We guarantee a level of taxation on everyone a percentage amount; yes the rich will pay a lot more then the poor; but everyone will pay about the same amount proportionate to their income. And that is how we make it cheaper.

that's a progressive taxation system that you're describing, and it's most certainly not voluntary, as you hinted at earlier....therefore, you have to initiate this via coercion.

and I ask you again (which you've conveniently ignored); what is the difference between someone stealing something from someone and giving it to the poor, and the government taking something form someone and giving it to the poor---I really fail to see the difference.

pcosmar
06-07-2008, 09:24 PM
We guarantee a level of taxation on everyone a percentage amount; yes the rich will pay a lot more then the poor; but everyone will pay about the same amount proportionate to their income. And that is how we make it cheaper.

Nice . You support armed theft.
The poor already are exempt from income tax, so those that benefit pay nothing and those that earn and are successful are punished.

That sucks.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 09:43 PM
that's a progressive taxation system that you're describing, and it's most certainly not voluntary, as you hinted at earlier....therefore, you have to initiate this via coercion.

and I ask you again (which you've conveniently ignored); what is the difference between someone stealing something from someone and giving it to the poor, and the government taking something form someone and giving it to the poor---I really fail to see the difference.

No, it will be voluntary. Opt out, if you don't want in you don't get in.

Let me explain.....you will pay the goverment 5% of your taxes; and you will get a voucher; and private companies will take that voucher and give you plans. All the vouchers are worth the same. So ultimately 5% of the money the public makes will be tied up in healthcare. And not only will this be cheaper then any current health system. It will allow guaranteed healthcare for everyone.

There is no lose in this situation.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 09:45 PM
Nice . You support armed theft.
The poor already are exempt from income tax, so those that benefit pay nothing and those that earn and are successful are punished.

That sucks.

Thank you for putting words into my mouth.

Once again no one will be forced to pay. You opt out you don't get healthcare vouchers. You're going to have to go case by case or try to get independent coverage. But it will be extremely expensive; even today indendent coverage for a family of 4 costs over 400 dollars per month. Feel free to do that though.

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 09:47 PM
No, it will be voluntary. Opt out, if you don't want in you don't get in.

Let me explain.....you will pay the goverment 5% of your taxes; and you will get a voucher; and private companies will take that voucher and give you plans. All the vouchers are worth the same. So ultimately 5% of the money the public makes will be tied up in healthcare. And not only will this be cheaper then any current health system. It will allow guaranteed healthcare for everyone.

There is no lose in this situation.

how can you make all the vouchers worth the same when everyone is paying differing amounts...I recall you saying taxes for the rich would be higher...and even if it were all 5% for everyone, the amounts would still be different. Ultimately, 1 of 2 things would happen--the system would be overwhelmed and it would have to be funded via the Federal Reserve or taxes would have to be raised....OR very few would participate in it (the rich probably wouldn't, and a number of middle-class people wouldn't), thus making the whole program entirely ineffective.

it won't be cheaper, it'll be the same price (or more), and you'll crush the quality in the long term.

again, you have to address monetary policy and currency to solve the problems in the US, not these petty socialistic programs that are a net-drain on everyone.

edit: and thanks for ignoring my article on why health-care is so expensive in the US...once again you've conveniently ignored evidence that goes against your general purview.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 09:55 PM
how can you make all the vouchers worth the same when everyone is paying differing amounts...I recall you saying taxes for the rich would be higher...and even if it were all 5% for everyone, the amounts would still be different. Ultimately, 1 of 2 things would happen--the system would be overwhelmed and it would have to be funded via the Federal Reserve or taxes would have to be raised....OR very few would participate in it (the rich probably wouldn't, and a number of middle-class people wouldn't), thus making the whole program entirely ineffective.

it won't be cheaper, it'll be the same price (or more), and you'll crush the quality in the long term.

again, you have to address monetary policy and currency to solve the problems in the US, not these petty socialistic programs that are a net-drain on everyone.

edit: and thanks for ignoring my article on why health-care is so expensive in the US...once again you've conveniently ignored evidence that goes against your general purview.


Exactly what I said, all the vouchers will be worth the same, the amount of money the private companies receive from the vouchers will be the amount of money that is collected in taxes divided by the amount of vouchers. Those who pay less will be subsidized by those who pay more. That simple.

I know why health-care is expensive; I don't need your lectures; but even if that were fixed it does nothing for the poor.

pcosmar
06-07-2008, 09:59 PM
just how do I get 5% of my taxes back? I have paid no income tax for two years.
I have made less than $5000. I get a voucher for how much?
When I made $60,000 a year I paid tax. but have never had any medical expenses. How much of my taxes can I get back?
You make no sense. I don't want to pay ANY income TAX. If I have need of a Doctor I will deal with that, Though I have a promise of VA care I don't use that unnecessarily. They did a nice job of stitching my foot back together 30 years ago. But that was my last medical need.

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 10:01 PM
Exactly what I said, all the vouchers will be worth the same, the amount of money the private companies receive from the vouchers will be the amount of money that is collected in taxes divided by the amount of vouchers. Those who pay less will be subsidized by those who pay more. That simple.

Ahha, ok. What happens when that health-care gets more expensive due to new technology or the devaluation of the dollar (which you've failed multiple times to address)? You'll have to raise taxes to cover for it...if you raise taxes enough, you'll eventually overwhelm the system, as I've stated earlier, and it'll collapse (or it'll become more economical to pay for just pay for what you want...not to mention get it in time). Also, if the rich are subsidizing the poor, how long do you think it'll take them to figure this out and say "forget it, I'm going with my OWN provider"?


I know why health-care is expensive; I don't need your lectures; but even if that were fixed it does nothing for the poor.

it makes it a heckuva lot cheaper, that's for sure....and again, you just trashed the dollar policy that many Libertarians and Ron Paul supports want.....and we all want that for differing reasons, and one of the reasons is that it will help the poor.

You're merely applying band-aids to the situation....you're not trying to provide a cure (what Ron Paul is attempting to do)--making more social programs will only burden the economy more, and put even more of a strain on what society produces.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 10:39 PM
just how do I get 5% of my taxes back? I have paid no income tax for two years.
I have made less than $5000. I get a voucher for how much?
When I made $60,000 a year I paid tax. but have never had any medical expenses. How much of my taxes can I get back?
You make no sense. I don't want to pay ANY income TAX. If I have need of a Doctor I will deal with that, Though I have a promise of VA care I don't use that unnecessarily. They did a nice job of stitching my foot back together 30 years ago. But that was my last medical need.

You don't get any of it back. It goes to pay other peoples expenses. If you opt out you can go to a doctor or hospital and pay out of your own pocket; or try to get independent insurance. But they won't be cheap and it won't be common.

amy31416
06-07-2008, 10:43 PM
You don't get any of it back. It goes to pay other peoples expenses. If you opt out you can go to a doctor or hospital and pay out of your own pocket; or try to get independent insurance. But they won't be cheap and it won't be common.

Ecch.

Keep the hell out of people's pockets, there are already free clinics. You have no right to someone else's money or assets.

Health care in this country does need improvement, but theft will not make anything better--it'll just make more people not take responsibility for themselves or their future.

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 10:45 PM
You don't get any of it back. It goes to pay other peoples expenses. If you opt out you can go to a doctor or hospital and pay out of your own pocket; or try to get independent insurance. But they won't be cheap and it won't be common.

it wouldn't be so darn expensive if the government didn't make it expensive....again, why aren't you addressing the fundamental issue (root of the problem), and instead wanting to put band-aids on the situation?


Health care in this country does need improvement, but theft will not make anything better--it'll just make more people not take responsibility for themselves or their future.

I'd argue it does need improvement, via abolishing the FDA, abolishing the legislation that I mentioned in that article (the one that talks about how government "fixed" health-care), and going back to a sound monetary policy (oh and revoke those laws banning/limiting alternative medicine). That said, I'd take the current system over a socialized one....and that's saying a lot considering I detest the current system to no end.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 10:47 PM
Ahha, ok. What happens when that health-care gets more expensive due to new technology or the devaluation of the dollar (which you've failed multiple times to address)? You'll have to raise taxes to cover for it...if you raise taxes enough, you'll eventually overwhelm the system, as I've stated earlier, and it'll collapse (or it'll become more economical to pay for just pay for what you want...not to mention get it in time). Also, if the rich are subsidizing the poor, how long do you think it'll take them to figure this out and say "forget it, I'm going with my OWN provider"?



it makes it a heckuva lot cheaper, that's for sure....and again, you just trashed the dollar policy that many Libertarians and Ron Paul supports want.....and we all want that for differing reasons, and one of the reasons is that it will help the poor.

You're merely applying band-aids to the situation....you're not trying to provide a cure (what Ron Paul is attempting to do)--making more social programs will only burden the economy more, and put even more of a strain on what society produces.

You raise the minimum wage; and if technology gets more expensive then you increase the amount everyone pays a percent point or something.

Also people who are homeless or poor and have no income or insignificant income won't pay , but will sign a contract that if they ever can afford to pay they will pay double the normal rate for the first 5 years they can afford it.

Also 4 years of grace will be given for college students.

If you leave; say you think that its not worth it; and come back your rate will go up a percentage point or two.

If you can't afford insurance, no problem you fees can be waved for a year, or lowered depending on the case.

I would hope the rich wouldn't leave; because they would see that the program is helping them. But the way things would work; it would probably cost them more to go independent then to stay on the goverments plan.

Simply put once a system exists like this inside the goverment theres no reason why a whole lot of companies would work outside servicing people throught the goverment system. Everyone would be automatically put on the system from the time they start making income; and I doubt more than 5-10% would choose to opt out. That already gives you 90% of the population in this program. The rest of the population would be pennies compared to the millions that any private company could make servicing those in the goverments system.

The idea is free market, encouraged by the goverment and at the same time providing safety buffers for the poor; not neccesarily because they might hurt themselves or anything; but because they can not afford it.

Its a novel idea, and its not perfect but I think its light years ahead of anything we've got so far.

pcosmar
06-07-2008, 10:52 PM
I have never accepted welfare in my life.
I think when Obama wins and starts all these hand out programs I may sign up for all I can get, just to bankrupt the stupid system faster.
The sooner the economy hits rock bottom the sooner we can start over and rebuild.
Burn baby burn.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 10:56 PM
Its not about handouts; everyone who has money will give the same percentage to the goverment; and everyone will receive the same quality of care (of course dependent on what company they choose to give their voucher to). We will all reach a equal level of healthcare no matter what income.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 11:02 PM
Its not about handouts; everyone who has money will give the same percentage to the goverment; and everyone will receive the same quality of care (of course dependent on what company they choose to give their voucher to). We will all reach a equal level of healthcare no matter what income.

Receiving something is a handout. Wealth redistribution does nothing but make state-sanctioned handouts less embarrassing for those who receive it and more frustrating to those paying out without control over who receives the benefits.

yongrel
06-07-2008, 11:03 PM
Its not about handouts; everyone who has money will give the same percentage to the goverment; and everyone will receive the same quality of care (of course dependent on what company they choose to give their voucher to). We will all reach a equal level of healthcare no matter what income.

and you support Ron Paul because... :confused:

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 11:06 PM
You raise the minimum wage; and if technology gets more expensive then you increase the amount everyone pays a percent point or something.

raising the minimum wage creates more unemployment and is a violation of individual contracts...not to mention if someone is forced into hiring someone at a rate above what he should be payed....the person will just jack up the prices on his products, which will cause higher prices, and thus it'll totally negate the effect of minimum wage. Though, in all honest, more often than not, the first of what I mentioned happens. This is, as a matter of fact, why Unions want minimum wages, is because it protects their own butts from competition. If you increase the percentage point every so often, what happens when you're paying 10-15% because of these little increases here and there? How will it be economically viable then?


Also people who are homeless or poor and have no income or insignificant income won't pay , but will sign a contract that if they ever can afford to pay they will pay double the normal rate for the first 5 years they can afford it.

bad idea--they'll have way more incentive to stay on the program forever if you do this...what incentive do they have to get out of their situation if they're going to have to pay double-time the first 5 years of their recovery....also, that'll really cut into their paycheck...and believe me, a homeless person, once he gets a job, will not get payed much. Your entire system awards those who make nothing and teaches them to be a net-drain on the economy. A relative of mine works for a government housing apartment complex (she has worked their for years), and she says the VAST majority of them stay and do nothing to improve their situation--she stated only a very small number actually try to better themselves...why? You're rewarding slothfulness and inefficiency.


I would hope the rich wouldn't leave; because they would see that the program is helping them. But the way things would work; it would probably cost them more to go independent then to stay on the goverments plan.

but they would! If you made $100,000 a year, you'd have to pay $5,000 a year into it...chances are they aren't going to spend this each year on their medical care, so they'd most likely leave to avoid paying that. As it is, often those of higher wealth will even avoid paying for insurance and just pay for the expenses out of their own pockets.


Simply put once a system exists like this inside the goverment theres no reason why a whole lot of companies would work outside servicing people throught the goverment system. Everyone would be automatically put on the system from the time they start making income; and I doubt more than 5-10% would choose to opt out. That already gives you 90% of the population in this program. The rest of the population would be pennies compared to the millions that any private company could make servicing those in the goverments system.

So now you're turning a voluntary system into a mandatory system, by placing them, automatically, into it....only 5-10% opting out? *chuckles* you'd be surprised how many people will avoid paying into something if they can...as I said, the rich would likely opt out, leaving only the middle class and poorer persons (and not all the middle class would be part of it either). This means you'd need more money to cover these people, which means a higher tax-rate for the majority of them (and keep in mind, under your system, some are not paying at all). This higher tax rate will definitely encourage even less people to be on the system.

And again, I bring up that one article about the government "fixing" health-care, and our horrible dollar and monetary policies which are the #1 reason the middle-class and below are impoverished.

Why aren't you talking about that? How come not abolishing the FDA, or revoking the legislation that "fixed" health-care? Why aren't you talking about having a gold-standard policy so inflation is 0, and therefore, costs won't fluctuate like mad. How come you aren't talking about less taxation so people have more money to spend on health-care? Why aren't you talking about getting the government out of health-care altogether so it operates more efficiently and there's far more competition?

Again, why put a band-aid on an infected wound (which will only make things worse in the long run), when you can strike the root of the problem (the infection)?


The idea is free market, encouraged by the goverment and at the same time providing safety buffers for the poor; not neccesarily because they might hurt themselves or anything; but because they can not afford it.

this has nothing to do with the free market...the free market lets individuals set their terms, and it encourages competition...this system would definitely not encourage competition, and would likely stifle it.

Also what are you going to do to the doctors who say "no" to these vouchers because they don't support such a system (there's current doctors that say no to medi-care, medicaid...and some even say no to insurance). You really should watch "Sick in America" by John Stossel.


Its a novel idea, and its not perfect but I think its light years ahead of anything we've got so far.

I'd contest this and say it's light-years behind what we have...we need more free market solutions, not less.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 11:11 PM
This is a free market solution...

You guys just can't up and face reality can you?

yongrel
06-07-2008, 11:12 PM
This is a free market solution...

You guys just can't up and face reality can you?

Government ≠ Free Market

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 11:12 PM
This is a free market solution...

You guys just can't up and face reality can you?

you're proposing socialized medicine and taxes....*laughs* I fail to see what that has to do with Free Markets, let alone Libertarianism and Ron Paul.

it has everything to do with collectivism, communism/socialist, and the transfer of wealth, however.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 11:16 PM
I can't determine if EM is ignorant, thoughtless or a straw man...

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 11:23 PM
you're proposing socialized medicine and taxes....*laughs* I fail to see what that has to do with Free Markets, let alone Libertarianism and Ron Paul.

it has everything to do with collectivism, communism/socialist, and the transfer of wealth, however.

No I'm proposing a optional subsidized medicine program run by the goverment and the free market. Big difference.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 11:24 PM
No I'm proposing a optional subsidized medicine program run by the goverment and the free market. Big difference.

Nothing can be run by the gov't AND the free market. A free market has no gov't intervention mucking up supply and demand.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 11:25 PM
Nothing can be run by the gov't AND the free market. A free market has no gov't intervention mucking up supply and demand.

Consumers choose what company to use, goverment controls the cash flow and distributes cash evenly so everyone is equal. That simple.

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 11:27 PM
Consumers choose what company to use, goverment controls the cash flow and distributes cash evenly so everyone is equal. That simple.

the first is a free market, the latter is socialism....so you're creating a mixed economy, not a free market.

yongrel
06-07-2008, 11:30 PM
Consumers choose what company to use, goverment controls the cash flow and distributes cash evenly so everyone is equal. That simple.

But while you preserve consumer choice, you eliminate the price system by making the consumer careless about cost.

The price system exists to communicate information from and to various involved parties in the market place. Without prices to transmit information, the market becomes inefficient and impotent.

By having the government pay for everything, you have neutered the price system by making the final consumer universally accepting, and therefore undiscerning.

Fox McCloud
06-07-2008, 11:33 PM
But while you preserve consumer choice, you eliminate the price system by making the consumer careless about cost.

The price system exists to communicate information from and to various involved parties in the market place. Without prices to transmit information, the market becomes inefficient and impotent.

By having the government pay for everything, you have neutered the price system by making the final consumer universally accepting, and therefore undiscerning.

Thank you Yongrel! For once I agree with you :p

This is one thing Stossel pointed out about insurance these days, is that it encourages people to "spend with no end"...an example he used was "food insurance"...if that was the case, no one would care what they bought--they'd just start buying whatever they wanted since insurance covered it.

electronicmaji
06-07-2008, 11:38 PM
But while you preserve consumer choice, you eliminate the price system by making the consumer careless about cost.

The price system exists to communicate information from and to various involved parties in the market place. Without prices to transmit information, the market becomes inefficient and impotent.

By having the government pay for everything, you have neutered the price system by making the final consumer universally accepting, and therefore undiscerning.

You get a price system throught what the plans each company provides include; each company has a choice of how to shape or provide a plan.

yongrel
06-07-2008, 11:42 PM
You get a price system throught what the plans each company provides include; each company has a choice of how to shape or provide a plan.

That's what we see in the health insurance market today. The result? I paid $40 for the roll of gauze they dropped on the floor and had to throw away last time i went to the doctor's office.

I would recommend that you read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, in addition to Free to Choose by Milton Friedman, to learn more about the value and necessity of an unfettered price system in a free market.

Kludge
06-07-2008, 11:58 PM
Consumers choose what company to use, goverment controls the cash flow and distributes cash evenly so everyone is equal. That simple.

Okay. Here's how a free market works.

Bill, Kristy, Lucy, Robert & Jack (Henceforth collectively referred to as People): I want healthcare.

Joe: I have 3 units of healthcare.

People: But we all need healthcare. If we don't have healthcare, we will die!

Joe: That sucks, but I only have a limited supply of nurses and doctors (unless you'd like The State to mandate who has what job). I cannot provide any more units of healthcare.

Bill: I'd like a healthcare, please.

Joe: Alright, $200 please.

Bill: All I've got is $150.

Joe: You are not productive enough to live. Find someone else who will give you value or you will die.

Bill: Shucks.

Kristy, Lucy & Robert: I have $200! Sell me a healthcare.

[Kristy pays $200 to Joe]
[Joe gives Kristy a healthcare]

[Lucy pays $200 to Joe]
[Joe gives Lucy a healthcare]

[Robert pays $200 to Joe]
[Joe gives Robert a healthcare]

Joe: Done. Thank you for your business. I enjoy not having to charge sales tax as it allows my prices to be neat and round.

Jack: I talk slow.

God: Fast talking is a valuable skill to have. Because of your inability to make up the difference, you will die.

Jack: Shucks.



^^^ NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER!!! ^^^



Now, let's see what happens when gov't takes control in the manner you described. Oh - and ehhh... Bill just inherited $4,850.


People: I want healthcare.

Gov't: Gimme some loot, and I'll get you some healthcare.

People: How much?

Gov't: Uhhh.... durrrr... idunno. 20% of your monies sounds good.

Bill: No way. That'd be $1,000! I'll buy my own, thank you.

People (Less Bill): Sounds good.

[Kristy pays $300 to Gov't] :(
[Gov't gives Kristy a healthcare voucher]
[Lucy pays $50 to Gov't] :D
[Gov't gives Lucy a healthcare voucher]
[Robert pays $100 to Gov't] :)
[Gov't gives Robert a healthcare voucher]
[Jack pays $50 to Gov't] :D
[Gov't gives Jack a healthcare voucher]

Bill: Yo, Joe. Hook me up with a healthcare.

Joe: Sure thing. You have your voucher?

Bill: Better ;)




[Joe gives Bill a healthcare]

People (less Bill): Give us healthcare.

[People (less Bill) gives Joe (4) healthcare vouchers]

Joe: I only have (2) healthcares left....

Kristy: I'll give you what's left of my monies if you give me a healthcare.

Joe: Reach into your pants... And give me 4/5 of your original amount of money.

[Kristy gives Joe $1200 and a healthcare voucher]
[Joe gives Kristy a healthcare]
[B][Corruption]

Robert: This is pointless and dragging on forever. I will give you what's left of my monies (more then the other two in the example).

Joe: Whatever.

[Robert gives Joe $400 and a healthcare voucher]
[Joe gives Robert a healthcare]
[B][Corruption]

Lucy: Damn... I'll just go to the competing hospital, which produces healthcare right next to this building where I am currently dying.

Competing Hospital: I don't exist, and even if I did, I would still only produce a fraction of the healthcare required for everyone to live - it's like food or shelter... or water. Anyways, you shall die.

Lucy: Shucks.

Jack: I talk slow.

God: I don't exist, and even if I did, fast talking is a valuable skill to have. Because of your inability to make up the difference, you will die.

Jack: Shucks.

[Joe charges Gov't $400 for healthcare vouchers used]
[Gov't keeps $100 and does an "Oh YEAH!" representative of the Kool-Aid man]

So, to summarize, in the free market scenario, 2 people die because supply did not match demand, while in the gov't/free market scenario, 2 people die because the others were faster to get their ration or had more money then the others and corrupted "Joe". Edit: Supply did not meet demand in EITHER case!

Please, refute this so I can come up with even more nonsensical ways to try and explain what should be clear.

electronicmaji
06-08-2008, 01:08 AM
I'm sorry...I just didn't get that...

In both markets people are dying....Plus If the proper incentives are set in place there is no reason to beleive people would leave the goverment system. I'm in fact relying on their charital nature. How about that?

Nirvikalpa
06-08-2008, 02:24 AM
http://i25.tinypic.com/1z2f8fp.jpg

werdd
06-08-2008, 07:24 AM
See I disagree; you can feel free to think that way. But coming from a poor background; I want peoples ability to work provided for by the Goverment. I can't stand to see anyone uninsured because they can't afford it and I can't stand to see people go hungry because they can't afford food.

Like I said I am for some forms of Socialism.

I grew up in a trailer, and both of my parents opened small businesses, and by my later teen years i was living in an upscale house. Thats free market, people finding niches in their local economy (IT, and medical transcription) and pulling theirselves out of poverty.

But not to say that the insane taxes on small businesses didnt hurt us, but thats a little taste of socialism.

If you can comfortably envision a world where every store is a walmart and the small business taxes are too high to even try, and everyone gets a goverment mandated wage with no incentive to work harder or try to beat the giant theirselves.

In a truly austrian free market economy, every job has its place. And for the doctor to build himself a nice house, he is going to have to pay the blue collar man well.

pcosmar
06-08-2008, 07:47 AM
I'm sorry...I just didn't get that...

In both markets people are dying....Plus If the proper incentives are set in place there is no reason to beleive people would leave the goverment system. I'm in fact relying on their charital nature. How about that?

DUDE, Everybody Dies.
It's called REALITY.

kombayn
06-08-2008, 06:24 PM
I'm sorry...I just didn't get that...

In both markets people are dying....Plus If the proper incentives are set in place there is no reason to believe people would leave the government system. I'm in fact relying on their charitable nature. How about that?

They just have to do what others have been proposing with Education. Voucher system, Public Sector vs. Private Sector and that way everyone can get health-care and if you don't want the governments health-care, you can opt-out.

But this is a message board with a majority of heavy-leaning libertarian Republicans who don't want to listen to those things and believe the free market is the ends to justify the means. I pretty much agree with the free market on everything, but not health-care that's for sure.

electronicmaji
06-08-2008, 06:41 PM
They just have to do what others have been proposing with Education. Voucher system, Public Sector vs. Private Sector and that way everyone can get health-care and if you don't want the governments health-care, you can opt-out.

But this is a message board with a majority of heavy-leaning libertarian Republicans who don't want to listen to those things and believe the free market is the ends to justify the means. I pretty much agree with the free market on everything, but not health-care that's for sure.

See, finally someone I can agree with. While free market works well in some cases, and I have been to countries with free market health solutions; those countries tend to have somewhere between 30% to 70% of the population under the poverty level and unable to afford healthcare. When your talking about health insurance its a very very delicate matter; and study after study seems to show socialization is the only way to go.

Kludge
06-08-2008, 07:50 PM
But this is a message board with a majority of heavy-leaning libertarian Republicans who don't want to listen to those things and believe the free market is the ends to justify the means. I pretty much agree with the free market on everything, but not health-care that's for sure.

libertarianism is exactly the opposite of "ends justify the means". In the market of morals, if altruism is not widely accepted, there will be little supply of charity to give to the unproductive in society. If individuals do not care if you die, why should we coerce them to?

How do you justify stealing someone's property at threat of jail/fines simply because charity doesn't guarantee results (whereas "optional" socialism would not have rich participants to leach off of, creating healthcare rationing anyways)?

werdd
06-08-2008, 08:22 PM
bringing the cost of healthcare down is the objective. The idea is to make it affordable in the first place, the pharmaceuticals and the goverment are the reason why the cost of healthcare is so high, not to mention the HMOS.

We could never afford it anyway, unless your willing to cough up 10% of your earnings.

SeanEdwards
06-08-2008, 08:44 PM
We have public financing of police and fire departments, yet people are still free to hire private security guards, or install extra fire protection systems. Is it entirely ridiculous to take a similar approach to health care?

Kludge
06-08-2008, 08:46 PM
We have public financing of police and fire departments, yet people are still free to hire private security guards, or install extra fire protection systems. Is it entirely ridiculous to take a similar approach to health care?

Free health clinics are already just about everywhere... no reason to coerce anyone to do anything when the altruistic supply is already there.

Now if you want to talk about public funding for fire departments.... ;)

winston_blade
06-08-2008, 08:49 PM
See, finally someone I can agree with. While free market works well in some cases, and I have been to countries with free market health solutions; those countries tend to have somewhere between 30% to 70% of the population under the poverty level and unable to afford healthcare. When your talking about health insurance its a very very delicate matter; and study after study seems to show socialization is the only way to go.

Really?

SeanEdwards
06-08-2008, 08:49 PM
Free health clinics are already just about everywhere... no reason to coerce anyone to do anything when the altruistic supply is already there.

Now if you want to talk about public funding for fire departments.... ;)

No, free clinics are not everywhere, and there are lots of people not served by the current healthcare "system".

Kludge
06-08-2008, 08:54 PM
No, free clinics are not everywhere, and there are lots of people not served by the current healthcare "system".

"Just about". I'm not aware of any major metropolitan areas that do not currently have a free clinic. I live in a relatively small county and we have a free clinic.

electronicmaji
06-08-2008, 09:13 PM
Free clinics are beyond the point though....there service is limited in scope and in nature.

electronicmaji
06-12-2008, 02:08 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/gen-clark-mccain-is-untes_n_106457.html

Clark is criticizing McCain, Sounds like he might be a excellent Vice for Obama.