People who believe in fairy tales and predictions from them are stupid! - Page 2

I have been researching Regan for a bit while fighting with somebody on facebook, and I think that chart gives him a bit of a bad rap. When Regan was elected president inflation was on an exponential rise, peaking out at 15% a few months after he was elected, which would explain a huge chunk of the debt rise due to high interest cost (Volker cranked treasury rates up really high to kill inflation).

Regan inherited a total shitstorm, kind of like Obama did, you can't really blame him for the debt he incurred, he saved the country from a possible Wiemar event, and the S&L crisis and the extra debt just came along for the ride (the inflation was one of the primary causes of the S&L crisis, due to fixed rate loans getting hammered).

Bush was the Republican party at its worst, or close to it anyway, while Regan did a pretty good job (financially, at least).

Donald Regan was never President. But of course you mean Ronald Reagan. Reagan. With an A. You'd think that if you've been arguing with someone on the Internet about someone, you'd at least spell the name right, and it's not that hard, you know?

Reagan when he was governor of California did a great feat of stupidity by closing down most of the mental health organizations in CA and letting the mentally ill roam the streets without getting any help for them. A real gem he was!

I might argue that, but only if we're truly talking about Republicans today. It's clear that the GOP lost its way on spending from 2002-2006. That is one of the reasons they lost power, IMO. But today's Republicans in office are making the deficit, debt and spending (not to mention taxes) their first priority. Don't you think?




<13 year old girl voice> Eeewwww. </13 year old girl voice>


That is so intellectually dishonest, I don't know where to begin.

Until the laws get passed and spending habits are changed for longer than an election cycle. No.

Bullshit. When they go after NPR, planned parenthood, and the NEA while not wanting to touch the military industrial complex AT ALL...yeah, it's pandering and posturing and not serious at all.

Nothing to do with finance, I restricted my post to finance, not crazy people or Iran Contra, or whatever, since I was posting in response to a suggestion that Reagan racked up too much debt.

tonton - so if you are reduced to spell checking, I guess you agree with me on all other points? I am a bad speller, I admit, no big surprise there.

First, they are "going after" big ticket items like Obamacare, medicare reform, etc. As for the military-industrial complex, I have news for you: NO ONE is going to be touching that, especially not with three wars going on. This has been going on for 50 years, so its nothing new. It's also not the reason we are in so much trouble right now. Entitlements and overall domestic spending are the prime culprits.

As for NPR and the NEA...they are worthless. NPR should be renamed "state radio" and the NEA is awesome at funding artists who portray deities in the popular cow dung medium. Planned Parenthood is not worthless, but their scandals of covering up underage sex rings and abuse (not to mention relentless support for abortion on demand) mean we shouldn't be funding them, either...not with tax dollars.

Are you KIDDING me?



Yeah, the military isn't a prime culprit. Sure. That big red piece of pie means nothing.

Looks like welfare/entitlement programs are an issue also*.


*I support large cuts in defense also. Personally I think if we stop these war adventures, close our foreign bases and stop meddling in other countries, we can get away with a much smaller defense budget.

Agreed, MJ1970. Defense spending must be reduced, and we must stop policing the world and nation building.

But defense spending is only part of the problem, as clearly shown in that pie chart.

I didn't say the military was a small piece of the pie, so please put that ridiculous strawman away. I fully realize how huge that piece is. What I am saying is that the military budget did not get us into this situation. The massive increases in deficit we've seen come predominantly from non-military spending and loss of revenue due to the weak economy. In fact, we could reduce the military budget by 50% and still only knockout about a fifth our current deficit! To deal with this problem, we need tax policies that will stimulate growth, as well as entitlement and other domestic spending reforms. Those items comprise the other 80% of the budget.

So one huge piece of the pie didn't get us into the situation but a different huge piece of the pie did. You are attributing the problem to something you are against--government involvement in social services. I say cut the military A LOT, raise taxes to Clinton levels or higher, and get medical costs under control by removing the for-profit insurance middlemen.

Hey...wow...guess what?!?! So are you!



And I say anyone who thinks that will work to solve the problems or even that medical costs will be lower doing what you said is delusional.

No, no MJ1970, you have it all wrong.

We're the ones who believe in fairytales.

Removing the "middle men" in health care may actually work for a lot of elective health care or when you have the luxury of time. People may start asking questions like, "how much is surgery vs radiation treatments for prostate cancer".

If we wanted to go a long way to making medical/health insurance more affordable we'd do the following three things:

1. The Federal government invokes the Commerce Clause (as it likes to use for just everything else it wants to ram down the throats of the country) and tells the states they can no longer prohibit the sale or purchase of insurance across state lines.
2. End all insurance coverage and pricing mandates. Some of these are at the state level...but the Feds can at least end theirs...and it will be even better if the states follow suit.
3. Eliminate any employer-provided health insurance mandates and make employer-provided health insurance a taxable* benefit.

*Ideally you'd just end personal income taxes and this wouldn't be an issue...but at least reduce the incentive to provide or get employer-provided health insurance.

If the shoe fits......

Ahhh...jimmac! You're here. Great! Thanks for the insightful comment and logical counter-arguments. It's always a pleasure to have you join a thread. The discussion is always elevated by your presence.

Sorry but I can't take the credit. You make the your own best counter arguments. I couldn't touch them. Thank you!

Really? Such as? I've proposed a solution...and you've simply implied that I believe in fairy tales. Is there more going on here that I'm missing?

You can't cut spending, government spending is the only thing keeping us out of a deflationary spiral. The country is doomed no matter what is done, cut spending or raise taxes and you trigger a recession or depression and less money is collected in taxes anyway.

The only thing that can happen is happening, we started defaulting on our debt last year (by printing money).

Ok. In today's global economy how would you pay for things if there was no income tax?

Well...for one...some of the "things" that the government is currently paying for would not be paid for. That's an okay thing. Some of these things, if deemed important by consumers, might be paid for by those consumers with the money they've been allowed to keep.

Secondly, an income tax is not the only way for a government to steal money.

Now...are you just going to leave it at broad generalized silly questions or are you going formulate your question into a reasonable one for discussion?

Curious. You would think that healthcare didn't exist before government provided it, that mail never got sent before there was a federal postal service, that roads never got built before the government started building them, etc.

It's a wonder humanity even existed without benevolent government granting us rights and bestowing money and services upon us for our survival.

Or that education never happened.

Or that people were never cared for charitably.

Like I've said you already offer your own best counter arguments or as in this case none at all.

So you have nothing to say. Got it. Your drive-by posts are much appreciated. Back under the bridge for you.

I'm sorry but trying to make me look like the person who has nothing to say is exactly what I've come to expect of you. You really don't have an answer to my question and that is precisely why I left the Libertarian party 35 years ago.

Don't lie. I did answer your poorly conceived question here. You just don't like my answer...that maybe government doesn't have to pay for everything that it currently does (or that it can steal money in ways other than through the income tax.)

Let me ask you do you think that all the "things" that government currently pays for must be paid for and must be paid for by government? Also, do you think that the only way to tax people is to tax their income?

P.S. For future reference, when you respond to a post like this, you might specify that you're replying to a minor, secondary point in the post as opposed to the main points of the post. It makes it easier to follow.

You got my meaning well enough as did all here I'm sure. And I'm sorry but you didn't supply an answer to the question. How would things get paid for in the world economy of the 21rst century if there's no income tax? It's a simple and valid question. If you can't answer without subterfuge and obfuscation don't reply. It's easy and simple.

I absolutely did. Stop lying.

First I address your question begging head on:


Then I pointed out that "things" can be paid for by means other than government:


Finally I pointed out that income taxation is not the only form of tax revenue:




Are you going to answer these questions: Do you think that all the "things" that government currently pays for must be paid for and must be paid for by government? Do you think that the only way to tax people is to tax their income?

Medical care existed, just human life expectancy was a lot shorter for the non-rich.

And do you believe that life expectancies have lengthened because of government actions? If so what government actions do you believe have contributed to longer life expectancies?

I am saying the 80% got us into the situation. Last time I checked, 80% was greater than 20%. I am also saying that even if we ended ALL military spending, it wouldn't even touch our deficit. Some cuts are needed there, but it's the not the primary problem you've made it out to be.

Raising taxes: The line "make taxes what they were under Clinton" is getting a lot of play in liberal circles these day. It's great rhetoric, because the economy was strong from 1996-1999. If I'm attributing the problem to something I'm against, then you're attributing a good economy to the Clinton rates. That, of course, makes no sense. Higher taxes do no create growth under any circumstances. Growth happens in spite of higher rates.

And let me get this straight: Your position is that getting rid of for profit insurance companies would REDUCE costs? Why, because the government will run it? To follow, when has the government ever run ANYTHING efficiently? Your position is clear: Medical care and insurance is so expensive because of big, bad insurance companies. But that's not true, either. Medical care and insurance is expensive because:

1) We expect insurance to cover everything. This is the only area where we expect this. If we expected the same for our car and house insurance, the policies would cover gas,car washes, home power bills and a new, shiny gas grill once every two years.

2) People don't care what healthcare costs are, because they don't pay them if they have insurance. Mr. Insurance Company pays for everything, or nearly everything. The patient could care less if the operation costs $1,000 or $50,000. This causes costs to explode.

Do you really believe that a country with evil socialised government-run health care and a country with no health care at all can expect to enjoy the same life expectancy?

No. Of course you don’t.

Evil socialised government-run health care is what you might like to call “government action.” Environmental controls and hygiene laws are others.

Now, MJ1970.

Do you think that we should have fought WWII with a private army instead of conscripting young people to actually die on behalf of their state?

Conscription is a form of involuntary servitude and violates natural law. You personally cannot legally or morally own another person, so why should we allow the state to own people through conscription?

You absolutly did not. You skirted arounded it. And I'm not a liar. But keep accsuing me because I'm thinking that comes under the heading of a personal attack. When backed into a corner you fight back not with logic but insults.

You gave no alternative to taxation to pay for things you simply said people can pay for stuff with the money they keep from no taxes but you didn't show any kind of plan that would assure they would do that. It's a simplistic plan that won't work in the real world. It's why I'm not a Libertarian anymore. Because their ideas are ok but they have very weak reasoning to back up any implementation in the real world.




I don't feel any obligation to answer your questions until you supply a sufficient answer to mine.

I absolutely did and it's clear in black and white. Your ignoring and repeatedly saying I didn't doesn't change that.



I didn't call you a liar categorically...I said you are lying about me not answering your question. I stand by that.



Fine. Report me me. I stand by my claim that what you have said is a lie. If the Mods wish to sanction me, it's their forum and they can do what they want.



The irony of this statement is amazing. You say I "no alternative to taxation" (which I actually did, but you weren't even asking for) and then say "said people can pay for stuff with the money they keep".



Why do I need to? I don't know that they would for sure. I cannot predict we accuracy what millions of people will do with money they're now allowed to keep. They might spend it on the things they want to spend it on as opposed to what a bunch of power-hungry elitists want to spend it on.



So, apparently, I did answer your question...you just don't like are agree with the answer.



Then don't. I don't care. I've answered your question...sorry you don't like it.

But that's still accusing me of something. Of being a liar in the context of your questions.



Maybe I should have said " Workable answer ".


So in other words you'd just let what happens happen. Yeah I want to vote for the Libertarian party! Jesus! Yeah that's a recipe for success.

Like I said they have no foundation for their ideals working in the real world. But thanks for the proof coming out of your own mouth. I couldn't have said it better.