Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Vee Pee Debate Prediction Thread

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 October 2012 at 2:08pm
Originally posted by Whale Whale wrote:

Someone receiving an NIH grant to study the social networks of HIV-positive Native Americans in rural western U.S. areas to see who they talk to compared to which doctors and clinics they use -- that money seems like a waste, perhaps, but the fact the knowledge exists means that healthcare providers and clinics now know which geographical areas are lacking proper coverage. 
 
But these are humanitarian benefits not necessarily economic.
 
From a social perspective I'm fairly liberal. I'm all about health, education, and enviornmental initiatives if they serve an overall purpose to the human spectrum.
 
I see the government's responsibility as filling holes the private sector is not motivated to fill. So in that case profit is no longer the goal because the private market never saw a profit to be had. In other words, I feel the government excels in situations where a loss is offset by a non monetary gain.
 
So Medicare, Medicaid, health initiatives, education initiatives, etc would not exist without government involvement.
 
But for the sake of the free market in and of itself, I don't see the government as having a massive positive impact. On a purely economic basis involvement by the government generally means that A:) the private sector was uninterested or unmotivated by the project at hand or B:) someone is failing somewhere.
 
Looking at it from that point of view, I see most government involvement in the free market as a sign of financial trouble.
 
To put a specific example-the government as a job creator. As I stated earlier, job growth and economic growth are, in many ways, tied together. I realize that there are jobs that thrive in times of economic distress, but on the whole bad economy is going to contribute in some way job loss.
 
For the government to funnel money into dying companies it often means that the government is artificially stimulating a product that the market has chosen for extinction. Look at the S and L bailouts from the 80's, or the auto industry bailouts of recent.
 
That doesn't mean that the government did so without merit-the job loss would have been pretty diasasterous for alot of people-but again, we get back to the humanitarian issue and not an economic issue. For this to be an economic cause there will need to be future growth from these industries, otherwise it was simply money lost.
 
This is, of course, a deeply intricate subject with alot of caveats and exceptions, but when I look at economic policies on the whole I prefer a hands off approach. I believe it was McKinley who ran on the idea that government didn't have all the answers to the private sector whoas so why should he even pretend? That's why I think sometimes the best answer to the economic sector is to take your hands off the wheel and let the bad times turn into good times.
 
I could, obviously, be very wrong but it's fun to argue
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 October 2012 at 2:11pm
Originally posted by Whale Whale wrote:

It can be. But not always. Medicare/Medicaid operates on a much lower profit margin, getting way more for way less, than commercial insurance. Granted, this also makes it more susceptible to fraud, but it operates with generally much, much less overhead. 
 
But Medicaid and Medicare also operate at the expense of the hospital or provider doing the treatment.
 
They're able to get away with paying hospitals 12-30% of the bill whereas a commercial company could never operate at such a rate.
 
The key to longevity in government programs is operating at a loss. If a company were to operate at government efficiencies it would be bankrupt in a year. But those losses affect the private sector.
 
Now hospitals bring up the argument as to whether or not healthcare should be private, but that's a whole 'nuther debate that I'm not necessarily qualified to dig into. But I think it's a good example on how something may operate efficiently by the standards of the government but that efficiency represents a loss to the private sector.
Back to Top
NYer View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 October 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 572
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NYer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 12:13am
To the gentleman suggesting I am a child - I am a 34 year old property owner with a family I own a business (paintball field) and I am a school teacher.

@stratoaxe you definitely word your arguments politely and thoughtfully even if I dont agree.

to the other gentleman saying that he cant take meserious because one line I suggested bush's time as president as evil.

Yes I am serious about fake war yed I beleive he is evil. It is my personal beleif that he lied about WMD to promote a law which he and/or his friends profited from. I beleive any killing of life to profit is evil.

Anyway thats irrelevant to this election but I think Obamais doing so so and I intend to vote for him. I beleive he is for middle class, and although republicans in general are not evil (I AM NOT SAYING THIS) I just think that top down idea does not work. These are my ideas, I am well educated, middle class, and I do not always vote DEM and I am more middle of the road in general.

Thansk for reading :)

edward d'andrea
Back to Top
NYer View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 October 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 572
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NYer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 12:14am
Wow and after post reading I will not be posting again after drinking lmao, sorry for that part.

edward d'andrea
Back to Top
evillepaintball View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not sexy - only dangerous to self

Joined: 08 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4920
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote evillepaintball Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 3:01am
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

Originally posted by NYer NYer wrote:


 I dont think donald trump bill gates etc need tax cuts again their focus is not humanitarian so tax cuts wont inspire jobs it will inspire thank yous and more private jets!
 
Job creation isn't humanitarian it's economic. If you have X amount of dollars you can afford Y amount of employees. If you raise X, Y goes up. If you lower X, Y goes down.
 


Businesses don't hire more employees just because they can afford it.  There has to be need for them to do the job.  No one is going to hire 3 people to do a one person job just because they have a bunch of money.  That is the problem I see with the Republican economic plan; it doesn't create the need for more employees.  Jobs are lost because the businesses don't need them any more.  Businesses don't need them anymore because their demand has gone down.  Demand has gone down because people lost jobs.  The only way to stop the cycle is to get people to start buying things and using services to increase demand.  If you do this, the businesses will have both more money to hire more people and also a need to hire people to keep up with demand.  You won't have more jobs without both of those. 
Back to Top
NYer View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 October 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 572
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NYer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 9:36am
Thank you I think you illustrated my point better than I did.
Think about the bailouts, you gave a ton of money to BIG business that was in trouble (arent they all) and what did those companys do? They gave themselves raises and vacations and **edited**!

Ryan tried to say that in our country upper echelon pays the most taxes compared to average and that is NOT the case. It is only the case when you include non industrialized countries, or 3rd world, into your sample. In those countries the upper pay almomst NO taxes.. When you look at the industrialized world(much more appropriate) Companieshere pay almost no tax respectively. Either way alot or a little our country needs some money badly and they can afford it.

I think the issue with the economy is the spending and starts with the middle class, I think both participants kind of agreed but I think Ryans plan inevitably, mathematically will be forced to hurt the middle class not help it. I beleive you have put money in the pockets of main street familys and let them feel financially safe and start spending.

Anyway I got 14 people here for paintball today :) peace

edward d'andrea
Back to Top
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 9:50am
If the answer lies in a bottom-up ideology, then people need to tighten their belts up and lay off of the credit cards. I've done my part if this is the case.
Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
evillepaintball View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not sexy - only dangerous to self

Joined: 08 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4920
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote evillepaintball Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 10:20am
I use my credit card almost exclusively.    I also pay off the balance twice a month.
Back to Top
NYer View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 October 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 572
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NYer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 10:25am
I think it is middle out but yea I dont even own a credit card. I keep a cash cushion and cash is king!
If I dont have the money I dont buy it!

edward d'andrea
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 3:42pm


Saw it yesterday. Big smile

Back to Top
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 3:51pm
Not sure how this ties into the thread but it's funny how the market is really biting the 1984 orwellian, conspiracy theory stuff. The television is laden with it too.

Wolf blitzer puts his really big boy pants on too and says conspiracy theory. He's very debonair when he says it.
Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 7:49pm
Originally posted by evillepaintball evillepaintball wrote:

That is the problem I see with the Republican economic plan; it doesn't create the need for more employees.  Jobs are lost because the businesses don't need them any more.  
 
You're absolutely right-you can't artificially create demand. This goes back to what I was saying earlier about how the market makes its own decisions regardless of government intervention. If the market decides that there's no longer a demand for a VHS tape all the intervention in the world won't save it.
 
You're promoting the same idea that I am-the market moves on its own accord and will rise and fall on its own whims. By this logic, I don't see how further taxing a business does anything but slow this process. 
 
NOW DISCLAIMER. Romney cannot and will not accomplish what he's saying. Very few presidents in history have made vast, sweeping decisions that have great effects on the market. So I'm not trying to say that if you vote Romney the deficit gets cut and we all get jobs. That's just political crap they all say to get elected.
 
For my money the president affects very little of the economy, so I vote based on how I see the decision at hand being played out against my own ideas. I have no delusions that casting a vote for Obama will destroy American business or that a vote for Romney frees us all from an oppressive deficit. And I don't live in a dream world where we can just lower taxes all around and cut the defiict-but I would like to live in a world where the success of big business isn't punitively and the government doesn't write checks on the bank account of the market.
 
But I also don't care about the decisions of Bush. We're almost a decade post-Bush and it's high time the Democrats stop riding their own failures on the back of that one president. It's also time to end the comeback to conservative fiscal policy that is "Bush did this so obviously conservatism fails." Bush wasn't a conservative. He was a social conservative but a huge spender and his term is not a reflection on conservatism. If anything it's a reflection on careless spending policies.


Edited by stratoaxe - 14 October 2012 at 7:50pm
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4779
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 8:21pm
I agree with Strato on this thread... great points all around, but Strato is nailing it...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
NYer View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 October 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 572
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NYer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 8:49pm
Yea I like reading your posts too.
I think ultimately you are right and I dont think either president will make a huge difference.
You have congress to deal with, and regardless of their majority the other side can always filibuster. So the one political constant we can all count on is LITTLE to NO change haha...

edward d'andrea
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 12:08am
Originally posted by NYer NYer wrote:

You have congress to deal with, and regardless of their majority the other side can always filibuster. So the one political constant we can all count on is LITTLE to NO change haha...
 
This is very true. The one consistency among politicians is their inconsistency in accomplishing their goals.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.