Honest Political Question

[Archaic_Entity]

Rather than attempt to respond to the whole post, I'll just hit my points. I feel like everyone else will do the same. I just am amazed that you're responding to just about everything. My text in some different color... we'll go with red.

I remember that one. It was the Dave Chappelle show. I tried to find video online, but I couldn't find it. There are just too many good clips to wade through.

I enjoy his show. I think a lot of people missed the fact that he was giving comedic satire to the state of a nation, they just saw something funny.

I think I get what Fletch is trying to say, and he's mostly correct. I just don't think private charity can help everyone worth helping. Also, when times are tough, as they are now, charitable contributions fall. There is simply less that people have that they can give. This leads to good workers not being able to find jobs, creating a self-reinforcing downward spiral. But if you introduce a little temporary intervention, it can be stopped.

Times are tough, so people need to save money to make it through everything. That becomes harder to do when they're taxed more, and when their money is less valuable due to inflation (if I understand everything correctly). Therefore, they're less likely to be charitable because their money is being taken, and what money they have is worth less than it was before so they need to save more.

If, on the other hand, they were not taxed and they were able to save more money. If the government was not creating the inflation by introducing fake billions of dollar (that they can't back up) to 'stimulate' the economy. And if the government's spending was aimed at making the dollar more valuable via eliminating debt then I think you would find multiple things happening. Now, this is an uneducated guess on things, to be honest, but I could see that people are able to save more to live comfortably themselves. Those that are on hard times despite their character would find help from private charity due to people knowing they're good for it, or just good people in general. Private, widespead charities would most likely see increased donations to help end suffering. And with the value of the dollar rising, that would more likely stimulate the failing economy and start producing more jobs that are longer term than many of the jobs designated by stimulus packages.

If you can find family or friends to help you and support you, of course that's better than relying on government help, but it should be there as a last resort. Not everyone has family or friends or even a church that has much to spare. In the most poverty-stricken areas, this is more likely than not the case.

To be honest, I dreaded even asking for money from my family. My dad's family is out of jobs, too. They live in Charlotte, NC and Charlotte has one of the highest lay-off/unemployment rates. It wasn't that people had much to spare, it's that people know my character and know I'll do whatever I can to help them as well.

I understand that welfare is good in some ways. A man laid off and trying to look for work in a bad economy can rely on unemployment and welfare temporarily. The problem is that the system is so unchecked that many people are simply welfare addicts. They know it'll get them by and they don't care about trying to get off of it, and they squeeze the system. What that does is make the system bad... because I guarantee that it happens on such a wide scale that there's no way to justify it.

I agree that it taking of property, and even that it is regular, just on that it is wrong, and so it isn't theft.

I assume you're saying it's not wrong. Where I disagree is that it's the government attempting to play the modern day Robin Hood when it has no right. We're not looking a feudal system where the rich simply are and the poor simply are not. We're looking at a system where people earn their keep. Some people are definitely pampered by their parents' money, but like Fletch said, they shouldn't be blamed for that. Their parents succeeded, so what right do you or the government have to say that their success is a mute point? What right does the government have to 'take from the rich and give to the poor'? As far as I'm concerned, none. And I am the poor. I have >$30 in my account right now, and I will continue to eek by until something turns in my favor, by my hands... not by 'Robin Hood'. Redistribution of wealth without consent is theft, and therefore it is wrong.

I was posing a hypothetical situation to make a point. If you are given the choice, you'll choose to live. Life can be that clear cut.

People do die of hunger in this country. Do you think they didn't fight for their life?

Living and dying is different from stealing and not, as I think many people have clearly proved. To quote Tupac in the song 'Changes'

But some things will never change
try to show another way but you stayin' in the dope game
Now tell me what's a mother to do
bein' real don't appeal to the brother in you
You gotta operate the easy way
"I made a G today" But you made it in a sleazy way
sellin' crack to the kid. " I gotta get paid,"
Well hey, well that's the way it is

The point illustrated is that many people choose the easy way, and the easy way is to play the outlaw's game. Steal and deal. Tupac's message in that song was on point (and I'm a Biggie fan, so that's saying a lot): many poor people are perfectly fine to instigate and perpetuate their own plight because it's easier than doing what it takes to get out of that system.

Also... we're still definitely not ready to see a black President, it clearly wasn't heaven sent.

 

[hornadylnl]

"I'm not advocating the same reward for different effort. I'm advocating equal opportunity to try." tuoder

sorry, I'd use the quote feature and snip but it's almost impossible on the iPhone.

The only method that you propose to provide that equal opportunity to try is to forcibly take from a person who has no responsibility to the other. Are you asserting theft is less repugnant than unequal opportunity?

True, a poor black kid in the projects isn't as likely to be a fortune 500 CEO as Bill Gates's son. But you are ignoring the fact that Bill Gates worked to provide those opportunities for his son while the black kid from the projects dad probably bailed on the mother and left him in squalor. If your own parents don't give a f about you, that doesn't place their responsibilty on me.

I suppose the homeless guy Will Smith played didn't realize that he couldn't improve his life without a government program.

Take a look at how successful minorities who refuse to be slaves to the affirmative action school of thought are treated by the left. They are worse than traitors to the left. How dare they aspire to achieve something on their own without the "help" the left says they need.

Yes, poverty sucks. I still believe that enslaving the producers to "help" the poor is worse than poverty itself. That poor black kid may never be a CEO but he sure can work to break the cycle for his children. If that means working 3 jobs to be able to afford to get out of the ghetto and his children into a better school than that is HIS responsibility to his children.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm not for the total elimination of welfare but I think once you live off of others, you give up some of your freedoms. Part of being free is being self sufficient. You want to sign up for welfare? Fine, the G men show up to your house and have a garage sale. All tv's are gone. All game systems are gone. All Tommy gear and fubu are gone. 24" rims are gone. All non essential items will be taken away and the bare necessities will be provided. Since you don't have tv to watch all day, you can now report to the local city office, hwy department to put in a days work for your provisions. Living on the dole should be humiliating and more painful than earning your own way.

 

[Fletch]

Here, after Greenspan stepped down, he admitted that his totally deregulationist stance was flawed:
Greenspan Concedes to `Flaw' in His Market Ideology (Update2) - Bloomberg.com

How could he have said it was flawed if he never had it?

Later, he clarified by saying that unregulated capitalism was the best alternative for a free and democratic society:

Interview With Alan Greenspan - ABC News

It doesn't even begin to dawn on you that Greenspan is essentially arguing for Keynesian economics, just like I've been saying he supports all along, does it? I'll address this further below.

Also, you are the one of the most ardent users of the ad hominem here. Quotes:

...

And so on with the mentions of needing to learn this or that, or needing to read a book, etc. I sincerely doubt that you did not intend this to be insulting.

You are wrong. They are not meant to be insulting, they are meant to indicate a basic fact. As I've said, I've been studying the Austrian school since you were playing with Hot Wheels. I know what they have to say, and nothing you've attributed to them matches up. Not even a little bit. Again, you're making a statement along the lines of "I don't like McDonald's because they don't serve hamburgers". I'm here to tell you: I've actually been to a McDonald's, and by God they do serve hamburgers.

Speaking of which:

I've already covered this. Greenspan abandoned Austrian economics when he went to work for the Fed. He converted to Keynesian economics, and followed the policy prescriptions thereof.

If you think Austrians approve, in any way, the manipulation of the interest rate, once again, you have not studied Austrian economics. Interest rate manipulation is usually covered by about chapter 5 or 6.

Again, have you actually read anything beyond someone else's summary?

Capitalism does not include government intervention in business. If you equate interventionist policy with capitalism, you are wrong. At best, you are describing mercantilism, which is not capitalism.

Greenspan seems to be of the opposite impression.

Unlike you, I do not rely on Greenspan for my understanding of Austrian economics. I've told you, over and over and over again, that Greenspan abandoned Austrian thinking when he joined the Fed. He abandoned Austrian thinking in the very act of joining the Federal Reserve, because the AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OPPOSES THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE! That you don't know this extremely simple fact speaks volumes about your knowledge regarding Austrian economics.

My God, man. There is no other way to say it: you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to be insulting about this, I don't want to hurt your feelings, I don't want you to feel bad or go all emo on me, but it's a simple fact. Nothing you've stated with regard to the Austrian school bears any relationship to reality, with the exception of the one point about Austrians being generally opposed to any sort of intervention.

Your idea of capitalism does not include intervention. Many other's does.

You know whose idea DOESN'T? The FRIGGIN AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS! This is the point I've been trying to drill into your head for I don't know how long now -- your understanding of the Austrian school is entirely limited to other people's summaries and opinions of it. I can think of 3 introductory texts right off the top of my head, without any effort whatsoever, that state non-intervention as a principle that should be followed. We're talking introductory texts here, not Human Action.

I know you'll never crack a single one of these, being satisfied as you are that whatever blurb you've got is the Gospel, but I feel compelled to list them anyway, just in case there's someone else reading that might actually want to learn something. They are, in rough order of accessibility:

Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression, by Dr. Mary Ruwart
Economics for Real People, by Gene Callahan
Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt

Anyone who has read any of these will be able to verify that what I have said about the Austrian school is true. I'd offer to buy them for you, but you have fully convinced me that you're not interested in learning a damned thing.

 

[JetGirl]

I quoted darn near everything.

Just because you quoted it, doesn't mean you comprehended it. There's a difference.

 

[antsi]

That's an interesting assertion. If it isn't profitable to accept Medicare, then why do hospitals do it. They aren't required to.

I want to say this again. I work in the health care industry. I know how billing works, both government and private. This has been my profession for 14 years. You can't snow me by throwing out facile comebacks.

Hospitals aren't technically required to accept Medicare, but they face all kinds of regulatory sanctions and penalties if they don't. Among other things, if they have an ER they aren't allowed to turn Medicare/caid patients away. So essentially the government is saying "you don't have to participate in Medicare, but you have to treat the patients anyway."

"What planet are you living on?" isn't an ad hominem. It's a metaphorical way of saying "what you are saying is so alien to my experience, you might as well be coming from another planet." I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt by this vicious insult, but it is a simple fact that I have been working in US hospitals, both public and private, in three different states, for the last 14 years and the things you are saying about health care are simply contrafactual to everything I have experienced during that time. You obviously have no real-world experience in the US health care system and have not made any attempt to educate yourself about it. Nobody who's looked at health care finance in any serious way disputes that medicare cost shifting is a real phenomenon. There is some marginal debate about exactly how much cost shifting there is, and some left wing writers have basically said cost shifting is a good thing because it forces private insurors to subsidize public pay patients, but I've never run into anyone - until you - who tries to flat out deny that the phenomenon exists.

Medicare reimbursement rates, as I understand it, are not going to be cut, but the rate of increase is going to be reigned in.

I'm not sure what is the source from which you derived this "understanding," but it is flat-out wrong.

Congress passed a 21% across the board cut in medicare reimbursement rates. Late, Congress voted to delay this measure for three months, and it's possible they could delay it again, but this isn't a change in the rate of increase. It is a 21% decrease.

Medical News: Medicare Pay Cut Goes into Effect on Monday - in Practice Management, Reimbursement from MedPage Today

Wouldn't this be evidence that Medicare is placing downward pressure on the cost of healthcare for senior citizens, thus benefiting everyone?

It's not really "downward pressure" unless costs are cut in the entire system. If you take a cup of water out of Eagle Creek and dump it into White River, you haven't made the world drier. You've simply moved some water from one place to another. That's what's happening right now with Medicare. The overall cost of health care provided in this country isn't going down. Medicare is paying less, others are paying more, and the overall cost is increasing. How does this "benefit everyone?"

The point I was trying to illustrate is clarified above.

Could you please link to the post where you "clarify" this, or copy and paste your response? Because I can't find anywhere that you actually defend your assertion about Medicare administrative costs, or your frankly laughable notion that higher treatment costs cause the percentage of administrative cost to increase.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I've dropped out of this thread because you can't reason with someone who knows nothing yet knows everything and I don't want another timeout for using the T word (rhymes with bowl).

You've got to understand you are debating someone that has shown up to the proverbial gun fight unarmed. The only argument you're going to get is whatever can be gleaned from cliff notes, erroniously regurgitated from an Internet article or professor's ramblings last week, or a misinterpreted misrepresentation by Jon Stewart.

The problem with today's children is that many of them have been handed something for free their whole life. They don't understand that stuff isn't free and that that we don't want to replace mommy and daddy. The socialist microcosim that is the family is supposed to culminate in an explosion from the cacoon at adulthood. Parents no longer prepare their kids for the real world. Kids think the cacoon is their world.

I want to say this again. I work in the health care industry. I know how billing works, both government and private. This has been my profession for 14 years. You can't snow me by throwing out facile comebacks.

Hospitals aren't technically required to accept Medicare, but they face all kinds of regulatory sanctions and penalties if they don't. Among other things, if they have an ER they aren't allowed to turn Medicare/caid patients away. So essentially the government is saying "you don't have to participate in Medicare, but you have to treat the patients anyway."

"What planet are you living on?" isn't an ad hominem. It's a metaphorical way of saying "what you are saying is so alien to my experience, you might as well be coming from another planet." I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt by this vicious insult, but it is a simple fact that I have been working in US hospitals, both public and private, in three different states, for the last 14 years and the things you are saying about health care are simply contrafactual to everything I have experienced during that time. You obviously have no real-world experience in the US health care system and have not made any attempt to educate yourself about it. Nobody who's looked at health care finance in any serious way disputes that medicare cost shifting is a real phenomenon. There is some marginal debate about exactly how much cost shifting there is, and some left wing writers have basically said cost shifting is a good thing because it forces private insurors to subsidize public pay patients, but I've never run into anyone - until you - who tries to flat out deny that the phenomenon exists.



I'm not sure what is the source from which you derived this "understanding," but it is flat-out wrong.

Congress passed a 21% across the board cut in medicare reimbursement rates. Late, Congress voted to delay this measure for three months, and it's possible they could delay it again, but this isn't a change in the rate of increase. It is a 21% decrease.

Medical News: Medicare Pay Cut Goes into Effect on Monday - in Practice Management, Reimbursement from MedPage Today



It's not really "downward pressure" unless costs are cut in the entire system. If you take a cup of water out of Eagle Creek and dump it into White River, you haven't made the world drier. You've simply moved some water from one place to another. That's what's happening right now with Medicare. The overall cost of health care provided in this country isn't going down. Medicare is paying less, others are paying more, and the overall cost is increasing. How does this "benefit everyone?"



Could you please link to the post where you "clarify" this, or copy and paste your response? Because I can't find anywhere that you actually defend your assertion about Medicare administrative costs, or your frankly laughable notion that higher treatment costs cause the percentage of administrative cost to increase.

 

[jsgolfman]

If I didn't know better, I'd say he was Keynes himself re-incarnated because neither of them knows sound economic policy.

 

[onviousluu]

I love that tuodor is somehow the only one in this entire thread that is beyond resorting to cheap insults.

Awesome.

Just to be clear, every time you insult someone while having a discussion, you only make yourself look more educated and smarter than the other guy. It works every time, trust me.

 

[JetGirl]

I love that tuodor is somehow the only one in this entire thread that is beyond resorting to cheap insults.

Awesome.

Excuse me??

 

[onviousluu]

Excuse me??

I realize that the general feeling from everyone in this thread is that tuodor is an a-hole for not believing in Austrian economics to a T, but with that said I believe he truly wants to have a friendly discussion.

(and just to be clear, this is only a friendly reminder that maybe people should relax a little)

That is no reason for anyone to get angry at him and resort to insults, as many have. (In fact I can go to the trouble of quoting those particular insults if need be.)

I say this only because I appreciate that someone is willing to argue a viewpoint on an Indiana gun board that is other than a typical Republican's view point.

 

[JBusch8899]

I'm working on becoming better informed on some of the current political issues. I don't pretend to be absolutely ignorant, but I also do not want to believe that my viewpoints are absolutely without fault, either. I am honestly looking for help and not attempting to start flames in any way. And, I don't plan to respond with any smart mouthed responses.

Now, I have seen the Republicans provide tax cuts, but allow the nation's deficit to skyrocket. Also, I've seen Democrats tax people to the hilt, but drastically reduce the deficit. Now, without placing blame as to how we got where we currently are, is there a way to get out of this? Is there a way to get rid of our deficit; reinstitute Bush's tax breaks, which are ending; provide more tax cuts in the future and return some of the power to the states, which many say is currently in the hands of the federal government? All suggestions are welcomed as long as you can also discuss the ramifications.

For instance, we simply stop all welfare programs. If so, the result will be the "states may have to..." Some suggestions may sound harsh, but may still be the right way to go. Your thoughts?

THIS IS A FREE ZONE

Solution: Return to the constitution and realistically return to the 17 specific powers that the framers intended of the federal government.

 

[Fletch]

I realize that the general feeling from everyone in this thread is that tuodor is an a-hole for not believing in Austrian economics to a T, but with that said I believe he truly wants to have a friendly discussion.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not angry with tuoder at all, and certainly not for disbelieving in Austrian economics. My problem is not that he doesn't believe; my problem is that he has no idea what it says, yet claims to know.

It is not an insult to say that your opponent is factually wrong. When your opponent makes a statement that is simply untrue, he doesn't get to have "his truth" vs. "your truth"... he's just wrong. Nothing is served by failing to point that out.

I say this only because I appreciate that someone is willing to argue a viewpoint on an Indiana gun board that is other than a typical Republican's view point.

If you think Republicans are Austrian, or that I am arguing an essentially Republican viewpoint, you have not been paying attention. Republicans are no more capitalist or in favor of free markets than Democrats. The only difference is that the Republican party pays lip service to the idea of free markets, without truly embracing or supporting them.

 

[jsgolfman]

I realize that the general feeling from everyone in this thread is that tuodor is an a-hole for not believing in Austrian economics to a T, but with that said I believe he truly wants to have a friendly discussion.

(and just to be clear, this is only a friendly reminder that maybe people should relax a little)

That is no reason for anyone to get angry at him and resort to insults, as many have. (In fact I can go to the trouble of quoting those particular insults if need be.)

I say this only because I appreciate that someone is willing to argue a viewpoint on an Indiana gun board that is other than a typical Republican's view point.

It has nothing to do with believing Austrian economics, it has to do with understanding it. He doesn't, yet continues in his diatribe. Not to mention the fact that he's trying to espouse the virtues of Keynesian economics with apparently the same depth of knowledge. Again, I repeat my earlier question, has he read the general theory? I suggest he hasn't. I also recommended he read the failure of the new economics by Hazlitt which would move this discussion along quite a bit as it would help in his understanding of we Austrians.

 

[antsi]

I say this only because I appreciate that someone is willing to argue a viewpoint on an Indiana gun board that is other than a typical Republican's view point.

He's not the only one criticizing Republicans. There are lots of people on this board who are fed up with the Republicans, and I'm one of them.

I can respect anyone's informed disagreement in a discussion whatever their political views. But when they throw out assertions that are factually untrue - especially when they are so preposterously untrue, and in a field of my professional expertise - I'm going to call them on it.

 

[onviousluu]

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not angry with tuoder at all, and certainly not for disbelieving in Austrian economics. My problem is not that he doesn't believe; my problem is that he has no idea what it says, yet claims to know.

It is not an insult to say that your opponent is factually wrong. When your opponent makes a statement that is simply untrue, he doesn't get to have "his truth" vs. "your truth"... he's just wrong. Nothing is served by failing to point that out.



If you think Republicans are Austrian, or that I am arguing an essentially Republican viewpoint, you have not been paying attention. Republicans are no more capitalist or in favor of free markets than Democrats. The only difference is that the Republican party pays lip service to the idea of free markets, without truly embracing or supporting them.

Sure, I won't argue.

 

[dross]

Also, the guy reveals himself when you address his point carefully and rather than respond to what you said, he shifts his argument to another point. In one case with me, he argued a point, I proved him wrong, and his shift in effect was the opposite of his original argument.

To me, he appears to be a young guy, pretty smart, who simply can't admit when he's talking about things he doesn't know, so he paints himself into a rhetorical corner.

I was once the same way twenty or so years ago. The faster you begin to admit the things you don't know, the faster you'll get wisdom.

 

[tuoder]

I think this is the last time I'm going to do this to myself. If I missed someone, I'm sorry. I'm typing this instead of sleeping.

Rather than attempt to respond to the whole post, I'll just hit my points. I feel like everyone else will do the same. I just am amazed that you're responding to just about everything. My text in some different color... we'll go with red.

I really shouldn't respond to everything directed at me. I'm terrible at picking my battles and avoiding a tempting discussion. I gave up on the "I hate Liberals" thread. I should probably ask to be banned from this subforum so I'm not tempted. I wonder if I'd be humored.

I enjoy his show. I think a lot of people missed the fact that he was giving comedic satire to the state of a nation, they just saw something funny.

He did both. Most people limited their discussion to the more quotable portions of the show.

Times are tough, so people need to save money to make it through everything. That becomes harder to do when they're taxed more, and when their money is less valuable due to inflation (if I understand everything correctly). Therefore, they're less likely to be charitable because their money is being taken, and what money they have is worth less than it was before so they need to save more.

I agree on the point about more taxation leading to less donation, I just don't think the relationship is linear. I don't think every dollar taxed is a dollar gone from the church, one for one.

If, on the other hand, they were not taxed and they were able to save more money. If the government was not creating the inflation by introducing fake billions of dollar (that they can't back up) to 'stimulate' the economy. And if the government's spending was aimed at making the dollar more valuable via eliminating debt then I think you would find multiple things happening. Now, this is an uneducated guess on things, to be honest, but I could see that people are able to save more to live comfortably themselves. Those that are on hard times despite their character would find help from private charity due to people knowing they're good for it, or just good people in general. Private, widespead charities would most likely see increased donations to help end suffering. And with the value of the dollar rising, that would more likely stimulate the failing economy and start producing more jobs that are longer term than many of the jobs designated by stimulus packages.

Inflation in the United States is among the lowest in the world. Some quick Googling pulls up a number of -0.7% last year according to the CIA World Factbook.

Deflation is usually associated with poor economic times, generally speaking. The Great Depression was the largest deflationary period in the U.S. on record. It's associated with lowered consumption. It encourages people to save instead of spend.

To be honest, I dreaded even asking for money from my family. My dad's family is out of jobs, too. They live in Charlotte, NC and Charlotte has one of the highest lay-off/unemployment rates. It wasn't that people had much to spare, it's that people know my character and know I'll do whatever I can to help them as well.

I understand that welfare is good in some ways. A man laid off and trying to look for work in a bad economy can rely on unemployment and welfare temporarily. The problem is that the system is so unchecked that many people are simply welfare addicts. They know it'll get them by and they don't care about trying to get off of it, and they squeeze the system. What that does is make the system bad... because I guarantee that it happens on such a wide scale that there's no way to justify it.

All I can really tell you is that, from my experience, the people I've witnessed on some kind of welfare program needed it. I know TANF has a 60 month lifetime limit. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act curtailed a lot of abuses of the system. I think as long as you have a system, you'll have abuse. That's not proof we should have a system for those who need it.

I assume you're saying it's not wrong. Where I disagree is that it's the government attempting to play the modern day Robin Hood when it has no right. We're not looking a feudal system where the rich simply are and the poor simply are not. We're looking at a system where people earn their keep. Some people are definitely pampered by their parents' money, but like Fletch said, they shouldn't be blamed for that. Their parents succeeded, so what right do you or the government have to say that their success is a mute point? What right does the government have to 'take from the rich and give to the poor'? As far as I'm concerned, none. And I am the poor. I have >$30 in my account right now, and I will continue to eek by until something turns in my favor, by my hands... not by 'Robin Hood'. Redistribution of wealth without consent is theft, and therefore it is wrong.

I think that's a pretty broad definition of theft. Is the money spent on roads I'll never drive on theft? I think that tax money should be spent on the needs of the community, not just me.

Living and dying is different from stealing and not, as I think many people have clearly proved. To quote Tupac in the song 'Changes'

But some things will never change
try to show another way but you stayin' in the dope game
Now tell me what's a mother to do
bein' real don't appeal to the brother in you
You gotta operate the easy way
"I made a G today" But you made it in a sleazy way
sellin' crack to the kid. " I gotta get paid,"
Well hey, well that's the way it is

The point illustrated is that many people choose the easy way, and the easy way is to play the outlaw's game. Steal and deal. Tupac's message in that song was on point (and I'm a Biggie fan, so that's saying a lot): many poor people are perfectly fine to instigate and perpetuate their own plight because it's easier than doing what it takes to get out of that system.

Also... we're still definitely not ready to see a black President, it clearly wasn't heaven sent.

Some poor people make money in sleazy ways, but they're very much in the minority.

I've dropped out of this thread because you can't reason with someone who knows nothing yet knows everything and I don't want another timeout for using the T word (rhymes with bowl).

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make the other person stupid.

What do you mean that you got a time-out? I'm new to this forum, is that something Mods give out?

You've got to understand you are debating someone that has shown up to the proverbial gun fight unarmed. The only argument you're going to get is whatever can be gleaned from cliff notes, erroniously regurgitated from an Internet article or professor's ramblings last week, or a misinterpreted misrepresentation by Jon Stewart.

I'm sorry to hear you think so poorly of me.

The problem with today's children is that many of them have been handed something for free their whole life. They don't understand that stuff isn't free and that that we don't want to replace mommy and daddy. The socialist microcosim that is the family is supposed to culminate in an explosion from the cacoon at adulthood. Parents no longer prepare their kids for the real world. Kids think the cacoon is their world.

I'm fairly certain my life is the real world. Working your way through college as an adult is as real as any other experience I've had. I don't think I've lived a terribly sheltered life. Maybe I'm wrong.

If I didn't know better, I'd say he was Keynes himself re-incarnated because neither of them knows sound economic policy.

I'm not really sure how to respond to this. Clearly you and Keynes and I have a difference in understanding. I hardly think that's the same as saying neither of us knows anything about economics.

I love that tuodor is somehow the only one in this entire thread that is beyond resorting to cheap insults.

Awesome.

Just to be clear, every time you insult someone while having a discussion, you only make yourself look more educated and smarter than the other guy. It works every time, trust me.

I don't know how to feel about it. I mean, clearly my intelligence is being insulted, but when I point it out, it's denied! Maybe they don't think they're being insulting. Maybe they think saying I don't know anything adds something to the discussion. I don't know.

Excuse me??

I find it interested that you only offer a rebuke, and no intellectual content at all. Do you disagree?

I realize that the general feeling from everyone in this thread is that tuodor is an a-hole for not believing in Austrian economics to a T, but with that said I believe he truly wants to have a friendly discussion.

(and just to be clear, this is only a friendly reminder that maybe people should relax a little)

That is no reason for anyone to get angry at him and resort to insults, as many have. (In fact I can go to the trouble of quoting those particular insults if need be.)

I say this only because I appreciate that someone is willing to argue a viewpoint on an Indiana gun board that is other than a typical Republican's view point.

I think what's really critical here is that people think, after they've found a lot of people who agree with them, that they are right, or that they understand something that others don't. Rebuking and insulting those who disagree helps to ensure that only those who agree will continue to have the discussion. This is hardly unique to this forum, but the degree of it found here is astounding. I'll likely bid a retreat from the politics section as many others have.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not angry with tuoder at all, and certainly not for disbelieving in Austrian economics. My problem is not that he doesn't believe; my problem is that he has no idea what it says, yet claims to know.

I find it ironic that you criticize me for claiming to have knowledge I don't have, because you don't know what knowledge I have or don't have.

It is not an insult to say that your opponent is factually wrong. When your opponent makes a statement that is simply untrue, he doesn't get to have "his truth" vs. "your truth"... he's just wrong. Nothing is served by failing to point that out.

If that was all you did, there wouldn't be an issue on discussing the civility of the discourse. But you went on quite a bit from there, as you do below.

If you think Republicans are Austrian, or that I am arguing an essentially Republican viewpoint, you have not been paying attention. Republicans are no more capitalist or in favor of free markets than Democrats. The only difference is that the Republican party pays lip service to the idea of free markets, without truly embracing or supporting them.

The Republican party claims free-market ideals any time their donors would ask them to.

It has nothing to do with believing Austrian economics, it has to do with understanding it. He doesn't, yet continues in his diatribe. Not to mention the fact that he's trying to espouse the virtues of Keynesian economics with apparently the same depth of knowledge. Again, I repeat my earlier question, has he read the general theory? I suggest he hasn't. I also recommended he read the failure of the new economics by Hazlitt which would move this discussion along quite a bit as it would help in his understanding of we Austrians.

I have made no diatribe. In fact, I think I've mostly been very calm. Perhaps I'm wrong.

The problem I have is not the parts of Austrian economics I don't understand, it's the parts I do (a rep to whoever picks out who I'm paraphrasing).

He's not the only one criticizing Republicans. There are lots of people on this board who are fed up with the Republicans, and I'm one of them.

I can respect anyone's informed disagreement in a discussion whatever their political views. But when they throw out assertions that are factually untrue - especially when they are so preposterously untrue, and in a field of my professional expertise - I'm going to call them on it.

Good on you for it!

Sure, I won't argue.

You'd be the first! (kidding)

Also, the guy reveals himself when you address his point carefully and rather than respond to what you said, he shifts his argument to another point. In one case with me, he argued a point, I proved him wrong, and his shift in effect was the opposite of his original argument.

On one of your points, I argued sloppily. For that I am sorry. What I was getting at was that I don't think that private insurance is miles more efficient than public insurance.

To me, he appears to be a young guy, pretty smart, who simply can't admit when he's talking about things he doesn't know, so he paints himself into a rhetorical corner.

There are many subjects on which I'm a mile wide and an inch thick.

I was once the same way twenty or so years ago. The faster you begin to admit the things you don't know, the faster you'll get wisdom.

I believe we agree on that.

"I'm not advocating the same reward for different effort. I'm advocating equal opportunity to try." tuoder

sorry, I'd use the quote feature and snip but it's almost impossible on the iPhone.

The only method that you propose to provide that equal opportunity to try is to forcibly take from a person who has no responsibility to the other. Are you asserting theft is less repugnant than unequal opportunity?

I don't think it's theft, and I don't think it's the only way. I do think it can work and does work.

True, a poor black kid in the projects isn't as likely to be a fortune 500 CEO as Bill Gates's son. But you are ignoring the fact that Bill Gates worked to provide those opportunities for his son while the black kid from the projects dad probably bailed on the mother and left him in squalor. If your own parents don't give a f about you, that doesn't place their responsibilty on me.

Maybe it makes me a bleeding-heart liberal, but I think you should suffer for your own choices, not others, as much as possible in life. That's the sort of thing we tried to get away from all those years ago. There ought to be upward mobility for those willing to work for it.

I suppose the homeless guy Will Smith played didn't realize that he couldn't improve his life without a government program.

The movie was called "The Pursuit of Happyness"(sic). I didn't say that they were necessary for everyone in every situation. I'm saying it will help. It certainly would have been easier for a man such as him.

Take a look at how successful minorities who refuse to be slaves to the affirmative action school of thought are treated by the left. They are worse than traitors to the left. How dare they aspire to achieve something on their own without the "help" the left says they need.

I don't think the left says they need it, it says some need it, and many would benefit from it greatly.

Yes, poverty sucks. I still believe that enslaving the producers to "help" the poor is worse than poverty itself. That poor black kid may never be a CEO but he sure can work to break the cycle for his children. If that means working 3 jobs to be able to afford to get out of the ghetto and his children into a better school than that is HIS responsibility to his children.

I hardly think welfare is any kind of slavery.

Forgive if it sounds naïve, but I think that if that poor black kids has the skills and the drive, and works hard enough, he ought to have an equal shot.

I'm not for the total elimination of welfare but I think once you live off of others, you give up some of your freedoms. Part of being free is being self sufficient. You want to sign up for welfare? Fine, the G men show up to your house and have a garage sale. All tv's are gone. All game systems are gone. All Tommy gear and fubu are gone. 24" rims are gone. All non essential items will be taken away and the bare necessities will be provided. Since you don't have tv to watch all day, you can now report to the local city office, hwy department to put in a days work for your provisions. Living on the dole should be humiliating and more painful than earning your own way.

In spirit, I'm with you there. It should suck to be on welfare. I don't know about having no entertainment at all, but it should be hard, and it is hard.

It doesn't even begin to dawn on you that Greenspan is essentially arguing for Keynesian economics, just like I've been saying he supports all along, does it? I'll address this further below.

I'm quite aware of what Greenspan argues.

You are wrong. They are not meant to be insulting, they are meant to indicate a basic fact. As I've said, I've been studying the Austrian school since you were playing with Hot Wheels. I know what they have to say, and nothing you've attributed to them matches up. Not even a little bit. Again, you're making a statement along the lines of "I don't like McDonald's because they don't serve hamburgers". I'm here to tell you: I've actually been to a McDonald's, and by God they do serve hamburgers.

The guy says he's an Austrian disciple, he talked like it, he acted like it, and he hung out with Rand herself. I've got a clip of him saying he was in error in believing completely in the Austrian School. If that doesn't convince you, I doubt I can.

Unlike you, I do not rely on Greenspan for my understanding of Austrian economics. I've told you, over and over and over again, that Greenspan abandoned Austrian thinking when he joined the Fed. He abandoned Austrian thinking in the very act of joining the Federal Reserve, because the AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OPPOSES THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE! That you don't know this extremely simple fact speaks volumes about your knowledge regarding Austrian economics.

I'm aware the Austrian school opposes the existence of anything like the Fed. Greenspan was never in a position to decide if there should be a Fed. But he was put in charge of it, and followed the Austrian prescription for how such a thing should be run, if it must be run. If you read what he writes, and listen to what he says, Austrian economics prescribes low interest rates to encourage investment. He was disowned ex post facto by Ron Paul and his followers.

There's no need for caps lock here.

My God, man. There is no other way to say it: you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to be insulting about this, I don't want to hurt your feelings, I don't want you to feel bad or go all emo on me, but it's a simple fact. Nothing you've stated with regard to the Austrian school bears any relationship to reality, with the exception of the one point about Austrians being generally opposed to any sort of intervention.

I respond to this mostly above.

I do rather think you'd like me to feel bad. I can't really see any other reason to speak to a person in this way. If you thought I was simply mistaken, why hurl insults and engage in theatrics?

You know whose idea DOESN'T? The FRIGGIN AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS! This is the point I've been trying to drill into your head for I don't know how long now -- your understanding of the Austrian school is entirely limited to other people's summaries and opinions of it. I can think of 3 introductory texts right off the top of my head, without any effort whatsoever, that state non-intervention as a principle that should be followed. We're talking introductory texts here, not Human Action.

This is also mostly addressed above.

How do you know where I get my information from?

I know you'll never crack a single one of these, being satisfied as you are that whatever blurb you've got is the Gospel, but I feel compelled to list them anyway, just in case there's someone else reading that might actually want to learn something. They are, in rough order of accessibility:

Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression, by Dr. Mary Ruwart
Economics for Real People, by Gene Callahan
Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt

Anyone who has read any of these will be able to verify that what I have said about the Austrian school is true. I'd offer to buy them for you, but you have fully convinced me that you're not interested in learning a damned thing.

Have you considered reading from those who disagree with you? Is your mind made up already?

Just because you quoted it, doesn't mean you comprehended it. There's a difference.

What I meant is that whatever I said and replied to is there to see. You said I didn't reply to what was said, and I did.

I want to say this again. I work in the health care industry. I know how billing works, both government and private. This has been my profession for 14 years. You can't snow me by throwing out facile comebacks.

It only appeared facile because the flaw I found in the reasoning was so simple.

Hospitals aren't technically required to accept Medicare, but they face all kinds of regulatory sanctions and penalties if they don't. Among other things, if they have an ER they aren't allowed to turn Medicare/caid patients away. So essentially the government is saying "you don't have to participate in Medicare, but you have to treat the patients anyway."

Yeah, the government says you can't turn away car accident victims and, if you participate in our programs, we'll pay for it. This is neither here nor there on the main point that it is ultimately profitable to accept Medicare, or they wouldn't do it. The benefits, on the whole, outweigh the costs.

"What planet are you living on?" isn't an ad hominem. It's a metaphorical way of saying "what you are saying is so alien to my experience, you might as well be coming from another planet." I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt by this vicious insult, but it is a simple fact that I have been working in US hospitals, both public and private, in three different states, for the last 14 years and the things you are saying about health care are simply contrafactual to everything I have experienced during that time. You obviously have no real-world experience in the US health care system and have not made any attempt to educate yourself about it. Nobody who's looked at health care finance in any serious way disputes that medicare cost shifting is a real phenomenon. There is some marginal debate about exactly how much cost shifting there is, and some left wing writers have basically said cost shifting is a good thing because it forces private insurors to subsidize public pay patients, but I've never run into anyone - until you - who tries to flat out deny that the phenomenon exists.

You make two different points here, so I'll address them separately.

I don't see how asking me if I'm an alien could be intended to be anything but insulting, and I don't see how you could think it's acceptable to do so. Don't your arguments stand on their own merits? Why insult me as well?

Secondly, I have no doubt that shifting occurs, only that it's not an insurmountable problem, and that hospitals still benefit from Medicare payments. They are paid for services that would not have otherwise been rendered to the elderly and disabled or destitute.

I'm not sure what is the source from which you derived this "understanding," but it is flat-out wrong.

Congress passed a 21% across the board cut in medicare reimbursement rates. Late, Congress voted to delay this measure for three months, and it's possible they could delay it again, but this isn't a change in the rate of increase. It is a 21% decrease.

Medical News: Medicare Pay Cut Goes into Effect on Monday - in Practice Management, Reimbursement from MedPage Today



It's not really "downward pressure" unless costs are cut in the entire system. If you take a cup of water out of Eagle Creek and dump it into White River, you haven't made the world drier. You've simply moved some water from one place to another. That's what's happening right now with Medicare. The overall cost of health care provided in this country isn't going down. Medicare is paying less, others are paying more, and the overall cost is increasing. How does this "benefit everyone?"

As I've said way unthread, I'm aware of the problems with compensation rates, and that they've been difficult to set. What I find weird about this one is that most of the outcry on this bill is not about the decrease itself, but the lack of a permanent solution.

I don't think it's as simple as you're saying. I doubt the relationship is totally linear between the decrease in Medicare payouts, and the increase everywhere else. I think there is still overall downward pressure. We shall see.

Could you please link to the post where you "clarify" this, or copy and paste your response? Because I can't find anywhere that you actually defend your assertion about Medicare administrative costs, or your frankly laughable notion that higher treatment costs cause the percentage of administrative cost to increase.

I don't think that exactly what I said. I believe I asserted that more treatments per patient leads to higher administrative costs per patient. I believe you can find this upthread.

 

[1032JBT]

HOLY SUPER-QUOTE BATMAN!!!!!!!! (hell that ones big enough, lets include Robin in there too)

 

[JetGirl]

Excuse me??

I find it interested that you only offer a rebuke, and no intellectual content at all. Do you disagree?

This was not directed at you.
It was in reponse to onviousluu's comment and directed at him. It's why I quoted him and he responded to me. I'm not sure why you think it was stated to you.

See original post below:

I love that tuodor is somehow the only one in this entire thread that is beyond resorting to cheap insults.

My response to this ^:
I suppose if someone mistook posting facts and quotes as "cheap insults", then it might look like those posters were engaged in something other than a genuine dialog with opposing sides. Otherwise, I have to say "no"...
Not every single poster in this entire thread has resorted to cheap insults.

I realize that the general feeling from everyone in this thread is that tuodor is an a-hole for not believing in Austrian economics to a T

This ^ is also untrue. Just because you know someone doesn't understand a concept because they haven't taken time to read/comprehend it, doesn't make them an "a-hole". It just makes them a little disingenuous for leading others to believe that they have.