• U.S. Debt - $14,000,000,000,000
    310 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28114943]Did you then ask him how that sidewalk and street in front of his house got there, or how the water that comes into his house is regulated by strict health and safety standards, or how his internet doesn't go down every 10 seconds?[/QUOTE] This is an asinine argument and I'm pretty sure your intelligent to realize this fact. Just because the government controls a certain service doesn't mean that its impossible for anyone else to do so, the only difference is that with government you don't have the choice to refuse the service and with private industry you do. Also to try and say that someone who is against government monopolies is being somehow hypocritical to use the services provided by said monopolies is also ridiculous, why shouldn't they use those services after all its their taxes that are paying for them and they don't have any other choice. The same thing goes for public schools, the people who send their kids there are already paying for school once in the form of taxes, meaning that they may not be able to afford a private school because that would require them having to pay for school twice, which many people can't afford because the market for low and medium end schools has been taken over by the government. Basically its pointless to try and say "BUT YOU DRINK PUBLIC WATER" when they either don't have a choice, can't afford to pay for the same service twice or both.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;28115078]Well I didn't vote for 'em /Monty Python And I'd guess few of those British Facepunchers of voting age did. (And I bet some of the ones who voted Lib Dems are kicking themselves, I know I am)[/QUOTE] I'd imagine you would be after Clegg kinda didn't do what he promised.
[QUOTE=Habsburg;28114918]Education's pretty socialist too.[/QUOTE] Yes, public education is also Socialist.
[QUOTE=faze;28113506]USA actually had no debt 175 years ago today. What happened? I'm embarrassed to be American.[/QUOTE] Yeah because shit back 175 years ago was when we had it best. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Novistador;28115094]This is an asinine argument and I'm pretty sure your intelligent to realize this fact. Just because the government controls a certain service doesn't mean that its impossible for anyone else to do so, the only difference is that with government you don't have the choice to refuse the service and with private industry you do. Also to try and say that someone who is against government monopolies is being somehow hypocritical to use the services provided by said monopolies is also ridiculous, why shouldn't they use those services after all its their taxes that are paying for them and they don't have any other choice. The same thing goes for public schools, the people who send their kids there are already paying for school once in the form of taxes, meaning that they may not be able to afford a private school because that would require them having to pay for school twice, which many people can't afford because the market for low and medium end schools has been taken over by the government. Basically its pointless to try and say "BUT YOU DRINK PUBLIC WATER" when they either don't have a choice, can't afford to pay for the same service twice or both.[/QUOTE] Yet there are no drawbacks to any of those things being taken over by the government, the only reason to take a stance against it is to incite fear in others or out of sheer ignorance.
[QUOTE=Novistador;28115094]This is an asinine argument and I'm pretty sure your intelligent to realize this fact. Just because the government controls a certain service doesn't mean that its impossible for anyone else to do so, the only difference is that with government you don't have the choice to refuse the service and with private industry you do. Also to try and say that someone who is against government monopolies is being somehow hypocritical to use the services provided by said monopolies is also ridiculous, why shouldn't they use those services after all its their taxes that are paying for them and they don't have any other choice. The same thing goes for public schools, the people who send their kids there are already paying for school once in the form of taxes, meaning that they may not be able to afford a private school because that would require them having to pay for school twice, which many people can't afford because the market for low and medium end schools has been taken over by the government. Basically its pointless to try and say "BUT YOU DRINK PUBLIC WATER" when they either don't have a choice, can't afford to pay for the same service twice or both.[/QUOTE] If it was a private industry, and people had to pay for it, poor families wouldn't be able to afford it, as the business would most likely charge a flat rate. Not to mention the fact that if a private business fucks up, it's not like you can vote the CEOs out of office like with government officials.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28115074]Canada has the conservatives in office as well, yet we manage to not ban abortion and gay marriage, keep our healthcare, and not invade countries randomly[/QUOTE] Thats because Canadian conservatives are just religious liberals. Canadian politics consists of one big party with no real idealogical differences that just sits around all day making plays for popularity and nit picking.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;28115101]I'd imagine you would be after Clegg kinda didn't do what he promised.[/QUOTE] Was bound to happen after they got into bed with the consies. Don't know what I was expecting, the Lib Dems have always been a weak choice politically, and have never had a really stable platform (They tend to adjust their platform to side with popular opinion, then team up with whoever gets the majority. Should be interesting if they ever win an election by landslide, in a 'Oh god we're all going to die' way.) But yeah, blaming Obama for the increase in debt is pretty foolish, it's going to grow organically, no matter what try and do to stop it. Honestly, I'm not sure there is a way you can keep a debt that large from snowballing out of control
Every country has a huge national debt. Deal with it.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;28115153]If it was a private industry, and people had to pay for it, poor families wouldn't be able to afford it, as the business would most likely charge a flat rate. Not to mention the fact that if a private business fucks up, it's not like you can vote the CEOs out of office like with government officials.[/QUOTE] If they provide a non satisfactory service for the amount payed then you stop paying them for the service and they either change or go out of business.
[QUOTE=Novistador;28115104]Yes, public education is also Socialist.[/QUOTE] The problem with making an argument against it is that if we went back to only private education, we'd effectively be going back to when only the rich became educated and the poor worked shitty jobs and had no way of getting out of their station in life.
[QUOTE=Miskav;28115138]Yet there are no drawbacks to any of those things being taken over by the government, the only reason to take a stance against it is to incite fear in others or out of sheer ignorance.[/QUOTE] I never said that there were no drawbacks to those services being taken over by the government. I said that that particular form of argument that I quoted was wrong.
[QUOTE=Novistador;28115218]If they provide a non satisfactory service for the amount payed then you stop paying them for the service and they either change or go out of business.[/QUOTE] Imagine you are part of a minority that thinks the service is bad. You stop paying, the service is just outright gone, and no change is in sight. Going back to the problem of a flat rate, if the price doesn't go up as the income of the customer goes up like with taxes, then the business/government has even less money to get things done, leading to shoddier service overall.
Fun fact, even at 5% interest rates, we would never be able to pay off the interest.
[QUOTE=Winslow;28115278]Fun fact, even at 5% interest, We would never be able to pay off the debt.[/QUOTE] I think we've established it's unpayable by now.
I often get the most truth out of something by listening to a few media outlets; something left, something central, and something right. I then weigh how strong each of their opinions were (Opinions in journalism? Oh well.) on a particular piece of news and average it out. To be on topic - As far as our national debt & deficit goes, let's focus on economic growth so we can actually pay some of it off. Halting spending does slow the increase, but there is also no huge ways to reverse the increase.
Before any more comments about socialism being evil, watch this. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RwPpbX6GO8[/media] Personally, I say screw your views, if we need a socialist approach and it works, then so be it. If we need a democratic approach to a problem, then alright. Imagine the chaos ensuing in a democratic nation that refused to create a FDA and a National Highway Safety Standards Committee because they were socialist in design. If humans would just stop bitching over their views and accept a proposed solution for a problem...
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;28115221]The problem with making an argument against it is that if we went back to only private education, we'd effectively be going back to when only the rich became educated and the poor worked shitty jobs and had no way of getting out of their station in life.[/QUOTE] In such a situation incredibly poor people would indeed probably end up with an education that was poorer in some ways, But I have a really hard time beveling that those ways would be in educational quality itself. Perhaps the school building themselves would be less elaborated, perhaps they would use old textbooks, perhaps they would hire younger more inexperience teachers, I don't know but the idea that if government didn't legislate outcomes people would just send their kids to a school whos only lesson was video games, screwing around, and innacurate history is silly. I'll also throw it out that that providing scholarships for talented children regardless of their economic situations is something which would be incredibly adventagous for people who could afford it to do considering what they could acomplish in adulthood. Not to mention the fact that I don't see charities drying up and dissapearing anything soon and I don't see there being an enormous population of people who were so unable to provide for their offspring as to tax these institutions to the max. I mean I've been to some pretty shitty Canadian public schools and I can't imagine they could get away with charging very much for tuition.
i find it very strange how you guys can just peg down something as socialist saying universal healthcare or education for all is socialist is simply wrong because it implies that only socialism advocates those things which is plain wrong
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;28115285]I think we've established it's unpayable by now.[/QUOTE] Mistyped, I meant the interest. The interest alone is unpayable.
[QUOTE=Monomiro;28115326]Before any more comments about socialism being evil, watch this. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RwPpbX6GO8[/media] Personally, I say screw your views, if we need a socialist approach and it works, then so be it. If we need a democratic approach to a problem, then alright. Imagine the chaos ensuing in a democratic nation that refused to create a FDA and a National Highway Safety Standards Committee because they were socialist in design. If humans would just stop bitching over their views and accept a proposed solution for a problem...[/QUOTE] The idea that people who decide to eat poison, and pay for the privilege in a society that allowed free production and distribution of food and drugs is silly, as is the idea that they would simultainiously start building roads with 90 degree turns off cliffs where drunk driving was legal. The government stopping them is not the only reason that people don't kill themselves on a day to day basis. And assuming there was a dangerous or mislabeled drug being sold the maker can easily be sued for either fraud, or negelagence or whatever charge accurately describes the damage they have caused. I can't imagine that Such drugs or roads would maintain customers, and the profits required to operate for very long.
[QUOTE=Novistador;28115378]Perhaps the school building themselves would be less elaborated, perhaps they would use old textbooks, perhaps they would hire younger more inexperience teachers, I don't know but the idea that if government didn't legislate outcomes people would just send their kids to a school whos only lesson was video games, screwing around, and innacurate history is silly. [/QUOTE] Old textbooks and inexperienced teachers tend to lead to poor quality of education. As for the last line here, let me break it up. Video games cost money that the poorer schools wouldn't have, "screwing around" would be less of a problem in public schools (I can't 100% certainly determine this, as the severity of this "screwing around" wasn't mentioned), and back to the first point: historically inaccurate teaching would go on due to the abundance of old textbooks and inexperienced teachers you mentioned.
We just need a couple dozen Zimbabwe bills and we'll be all paid off.
[QUOTE=Winslow;28115445]Mistyped, I meant the interest. The interest alone is unpayable.[/QUOTE] That is quite a shame.
[QUOTE=thisispain;28115381]i find it very strange how you guys can just peg down something as socialist saying universal healthcare or education for all is socialist is simply wrong because it implies that only socialism advocates those things which is plain wrong[/QUOTE] Don't presume that anyone, (save for some specific American right wing people who engage in the same kind of political vagueness that I described in Leftists earlier) are simply pegging things as socialist and therefore wrong, without putting any thought into what the word socialist means. Although there are other people that advocate similar ideas (progressive conservatives, fascists to some extent,) Their justification for such ideas is fairly similar and is massively influenced by Socialist thinkers, or people who tryed to twist their words to their ideology. But if you want to be very specific you could say that things like public education or universal healthcare are forms of redistribution of wealth, which is an idea very central to socialism.
[QUOTE=Novistador;28115579]Don't presume that anyone, (save for some specific American right wing people who engage in the same kind of political vagueness that I described in Leftists earlier) are simply pegging things as socialist and therefore wrong, without putting any thought into what the word socialist means. Although there are other people that advocate similar ideas (progressive conservatives, fascists to some extent,) Their justification for such ideas is fairly similar and is massively influenced by Socialist thinkers, or people who tryed to twist their words to their ideology. But if you want to be very specific you could say that things like public education or universal healthcare are forms of redistribution of wealth, which is an idea very central to socialism.[/QUOTE] The justification Fascists use for government take over of industry is generally 'national security', whereas Socialists generally use the reason of improving efficiency or equality. They aren't really the same. And that last bit is only true if you think that an education and decent healthcare are on par with having money.
[QUOTE=Novistador;28115475]The idea that people who decide to eat poison, and pay for the privilege in a society that allowed free production and distribution of food and drugs is silly, as is the idea that they would simultainiously start building roads with 90 degree turns off cliffs where drunk driving was legal. The government stopping them is not the only reason that people don't kill themselves on a day to day basis. And assuming there was a dangerous or mislabeled drug being sold the maker can easily be sued for either fraud, or negelagence or whatever charge accurately describes the damage they have caused. I can't imagine that Such drugs or roads would maintain customers, and the profits required to operate for very long.[/QUOTE] The only problem with your way of thinking is that there really are people that stupid in this world, unfortunately, though your way would reintroduce natural selection into the population.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;28115491]Old textbooks and inexperienced teachers tend to lead to poor quality of education. As for the last line here, let me break it up. Video games cost money that the poorer schools wouldn't have, "screwing around" would be less of a problem in public schools (I can't 100% certainly determine this, as the severity of this "screwing around" wasn't mentioned), and back to the first point: historically inaccurate teaching would go on due to the abundance of old textbooks and inexperienced teachers you mentioned.[/QUOTE] Look, I'm not trying to claim that in a private education system people who are wretchedly poor would get the same quality of education as those who are comfortable economically. But the idea that their education would be useless or inadequate is unfounded. Not to mention the fact that you totally ignore the possibility of charity funded schools and scholarships. Let me also go out on a limb here and guess that your working under the assumption that under a governmental system that had private education, and no other social services people would just get progressively poorer and poorer until they can't afford anything and just die. This is not the case, Socialism produced equality, Capitalism produced Inequality in amounts of wealth, but that doesn't mean that the majority of people are poor, only that there are some people who are much richer than them. So realize that the amount of people who are so poor as to only afford a useless education, and cant be covered by charity is a minority, not a majority. [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;28115651]The justification Fascists use for government take over of industry is generally 'national security', whereas Socialists generally use the reason of improving efficiency or equality. They aren't really the same. And that last bit is only true if you think that an education and decent healthcare are on par with having money.[/QUOTE] Universal healthcare and public education take money, or resources, or wealth, from people who are capable of producing alot of it, and gives it to people who are not capable of producing alot of wealth.(for whatever reasons, maybe their less competent, maybe its because of their social environment, or whatever its irrelevant to this specific point) This is taking wealth from one person and REDISTRIBUTING it to other people, for whatever reason. Weather a paper money or gold, or rocks or whatever are the medium of exchange dosen;t change this fact.
[QUOTE=Novistador;28115765]Look, I'm not trying to claim that in a private education system people who are wretchedly poor would get the same quality of education as those who are comfortable economically. But the idea that their education would be useless or inadequate is unfounded. Not to mention the fact that you totally ignore the possibility of charity funded schools and scholarships. Let me also go out on a limb here and guess that your working under the assumption that under a governmental system that had private education, and no other social services people would just get progressively poorer and poorer until they can't afford anything and just die. This is not the case, Socialism produced equality, Capitalism produced Inequality in amounts of wealth, but that doesn't mean that the majority of people are poor, only that there are some people who are much richer than them. So realize that the amount of people who are so poor as to only afford a useless education, and cant be covered by charity is a minority, not a majority. [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] Universal healthcare and public education take money, or resources, or wealth, from people who are capable of producing alot of it, and gives it to people who are not capable of producing alot of wealth.(for whatever reasons, maybe their less competent, maybe its because of their social environment, or whatever its irrelevant to this specific point) This is taking wealth from one person and REDISTRIBUTING it to other people, for whatever reason. Weather a paper money or gold, or rocks or whatever are the medium of exchange dosen;t change this fact.[/QUOTE] The quality of American education today isn't even that great. To go any lower [B]would be inadequate[/B].
[QUOTE=Novistador;28115475]The idea that people who decide to eat poison, and pay for the privilege in a society that allowed free production and distribution of food and drugs is silly, as is the idea that they would simultainiously start building roads with 90 degree turns off cliffs where drunk driving was legal. The government stopping them is not the only reason that people don't kill themselves on a day to day basis. [b]And assuming there was a dangerous or mislabeled drug being sold the maker can easily be sued for either fraud, or negelagence or whatever charge accurately describes the damage they have caused. [/b] I can't imagine that Such drugs or roads would maintain customers, and the profits required to operate for very long.[/QUOTE] do you even realize how many holes there are in this? what if the problem doesn't manifest itself immediately? what if it comes 7-8 years later? you expect the people to just find out by themselves what is causing them to throw up blood or whatever it causes?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.