"Freedom" thread or something

Epignosis wrote: Done arguing with me again?  What's that now- the fourth time?

Well, you Libertarians are insistent on keeping your propaganda thread going in this forum that's intended for musical appreciation and discussion, and this is the ONLY active political thread any more because of you, so I feel I have to occasionally come in here and inject some truth to say to any lost lambs that you Libertarians do not hold the monopoly on truth....

Epignosis wrote: And a royal flush is by definition a straight flush.

Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: 3. You didn't read the report on healthcare I posted yesterday.  I watched your cartoon.  I'm sure I'd find it riddled with errors.  But my time is worth more than the work it would take to prove to you that a 10 of hearts is a 10 of hearts.  Good day. Way to be concerned with "the facts."

The purpose of my royal flush analogy is to demonstrate why I find it completely pointless to discuss anything with you.  When I try to demonstrate that you may be wrong, I pull out a "royal flush", but we can't ever get to discussing the "royal flush" because we spend so much time arguing over whether the first card is actually a ten of hearts or not that we never get anywhere.  You insist "it's not a ten of hearts!"  I say "look, count the hearts!  There's ten of them!  And there's a ten in each corner of the card!"  You say "well, this card came from another deck - look at the pattern on the back!"  I compare the pattern to the rest of the cards and use a microscope and measure angles painstakingly.  You say "well, if you examine the molecular composition, you'll find this isn't even a card at all!"  I analyze the molecular composition and as I'm doing so you say "no, that's not really a carbon molecule!"  I start to go into detailed analysis on why it is and you argue with me on every...single...point.  Finally I throw my hands up in disgust and say "to hell with this!  You're an idiot!  I'm out!"  But you keep this damn thread going on an on and on in order to spread your propagandist lies to innocent naive passerby.

Surely you agree, Geoff, that when a large amount of money is riding on a hand of cards, it is important that all involved agree that the winning hand actually is what it appears to be and that no cheating has taken place?

(here we go, getting sidetracked by one of your analogies again)

Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: #3 - universal healthcare.  Oh wait, that's in the works anyways, heh heh heh.  It might take a while before the insurance companies all fail and Obamacare becomes universal medicare, but I can wait.  The new law depends on private insurance companies.  I don't get why you're so happy about this.

mhm, it's adding 20-30 million people onto the messy private network we have.

Edited by JJLehto - August 16 2013 at 07:50

JJLehto wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: #3 - universal healthcare.  Oh wait, that's in the works anyways, heh heh heh.  It might take a while before the insurance companies all fail and Obamacare becomes universal medicare, but I can wait.  The new law depends on private insurance companies.  I don't get why you're so happy about this.  mhm, it's adding 20-30 million people onto the messy private network we have. You literally have no idea what you're talking about, I have realized. Pure democratic propaganda is all you spew.   I DO think it will eventually, Im talking slowly, lead to universal healthcare (Im sure you dont see why though, just that omg its universal healthcare!!) but it will happen in a slow, painful way. I actually support a universal insurance, shame the Dems have no balls and the US is so corrupt...a flat out ending of employer healthcare and implementation of a universal system would've been great, instead its going to happen painfully and chaotically I think, since it's vague and no one seems to know how to implement it and in the mean time just is a boom for the companies. Ya do realize that it's government paid for...but still run through for profit companies? At least for now.

I actually realize all of this.  Here's what else I realize - in the past, attempts have been made to set up actual, real universal healthcare in the United States and they've been shot down.  So this was our last ditch effort.  We were literally trapped within a terrible system.  So when you take that into context, Obamacare is actually quite brilliant, because it uses the system we're trapped within while actually forcing it to change and most likely will cause that system to eventually collapse, but when that collapse happens it will not be catastrophic because Medicare will be right there ready to pick up the extra people.  Badda bing badda boom universal healthcare.

The problem with the critique of Richard Reich is that you have people on here laughing at him who have no credentials themselves, while not actually addressing anything he says.  You guys are merely team players.  Culties.  "I've picked my people who are right and all your people are wrong, and I get to laugh at them whenever you bring up their names no matter how distinguished they are."  I'm done with it.  You guys keep saying I'm the one who spews propaganda, and I'm the one who is not based in reality.  There are more and more and more and more and more people waking up to the realities I've woken up to, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.  So keep living in your fantasy world where one day we'll go back to the America of 1776.

JJLehto wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: #3 - universal healthcare.  Oh wait, that's in the works anyways, heh heh heh.  It might take a while before the insurance companies all fail and Obamacare becomes universal medicare, but I can wait.  The new law depends on private insurance companies.  I don't get why you're so happy about this.  mhm, it's adding 20-30 million people onto the messy private network we have. You literally have no idea what you're talking about, I have realized. Pure democratic propaganda is all you spew.   I DO think it will eventually, Im talking slowly, lead to universal healthcare (Im sure you dont see why though, just that omg its universal healthcare!!) but it will happen in a slow, painful way. I actually support a universal insurance, shame the Dems have no balls and the US is so corrupt...a flat out ending of employer healthcare and implementation of a universal system would've been great, instead its going to happen painfully and chaotically I think, since it's vague and no one seems to know how to implement it and in the mean time just is a boom for the companies. Ya do realize that it's government paid for...but still run through for profit companies? At least for now.

JJ, here's the link again if you missed it from the other day.  I think you will find it interesting and illuminating.  It essentially shows how health care in the US became so expensive, and why moving in the direction we're heading will only make it more expensive.  Check out some of it.  I'd love to hear your thoughts! 

Speaking of Wisconsin, a defender of the PPACA issued a report showing the ills the new law would inflict on the state.

JJLehto wrote: Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: #3 - universal healthcare.  Oh wait, that's in the works anyways, heh heh heh.  It might take a while before the insurance companies all fail and Obamacare becomes universal medicare, but I can wait.  The new law depends on private insurance companies.  I don't get why you're so happy about this.  mhm, it's adding 20-30 million people onto the messy private network we have. You literally have no idea what you're talking about, I have realized. Pure democratic propaganda is all you spew.   I DO think it will eventually, Im talking slowly, lead to universal healthcare (Im sure you dont see why though, just that omg its universal healthcare!!) but it will happen in a slow, painful way. I actually support a universal insurance, shame the Dems have no balls and the US is so corrupt...a flat out ending of employer healthcare and implementation of a universal system would've been great, instead its going to happen painfully and chaotically I think, since it's vague and no one seems to know how to implement it and in the mean time just is a boom for the companies. Ya do realize that it's government paid for...but still run through for profit companies? At least for now.   JJ, here's the link again if you missed it from the other day.  I think you will find it interesting and illuminating.  It essentially shows how health care in the US became so expensive, and why moving in the direction we're heading will only make it more expensive.  Check out some of it.  I'd love to hear your thoughts!  Speaking of Wisconsin, a defender of the PPACA issued a report showing the ills the new law would inflict on the state. Thanks I'll check it out. Though luckily I have some healthcare knowledge thanks to public policy class I took at college (sorry it's not ivy league DT fan, stone me) and my time working at Aflac. I know the US healthcare market is as free as a prisoner! I believe 75+% of the markets in almost every state/city are dominated by under 3 health providers. Thanks largely to the McCarran act. Not to mention the HMO, created by law which drives costs and creates headaches. Hm those markets have really failed us!

Page 19 of that report talks about the HMOs. 

JJLehto wrote: Padraic wrote: JJLehto wrote: I actually came here to ask how yall feel about the apparent next Fed chair, Larry Summers. I feel that it's not assured that he will be the next Fed chair. No? I thought he was touted by Obama. Mainly was wondering if anyone had a clue on his views, but eh Im sure it'll be same sh*t different day!

To Geoff:   I hope you are aware that the Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen is also often referred to as Mr. Rothschild.   

rogerthat wrote: To Geoff:   I hope you are aware that the Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen is also often referred to as Mr. Rothschild.    Sorry, but though I am not libertarian, I don't really trust hardcore lefties either.  As somebody put it eloquently in a comment on an article on said economist, communism is a guilty pleasure of the well heeled.

Aside from a few "true" progressives (now relegated to outside mainstream) of course even lefty economists support outsourcing and markets, big business/banks, and remember Keynes himself said tax cuts in a recession are a good thing. Funny now guys like Krugman blasted the Wubya tax cuts, one reason being it'll increase the deficit...I thought that was the point of Keynesian thought! 

Edited by JJLehto - August 16 2013 at 12:30

rogerthat wrote: JJLehto wrote: Funny now guys like Krugman blasted the Wubya tax cuts, one reason being it'll increase the deficit...I thought that was the point of Keynesian thought!  Well, Bush is often perceived as ultra right wing, so that would not surprise me.  I have seen hardcore lefties accuse people of being rightwing fanatics with absolutely no basis or reason.   I repeat myself, but ideology clouds the mind.   In reality, Bush was much more rightwing politically than economically and that probably holds good for Reagan too.  The BJP-led trader-friendly govt of the late 90s to early noughties in India followed progressive taxation and kept indirect taxes low.  The self proclaimed Progressive Alliance led by Congress cut direct tax rates every year while increasing indirect tax...which is what Reagan did?   The thing is, neither is right or wrong ALL the time.  If you raise direct tax rates too much, it impedes capital formation and also takes away disposable income.  If you slant it too much towards indirect taxes, you risk spurring inflation.  It is a compromised effort and that's why people from both sides can be found cribbing because you can't please everyone.

Edited by JJLehto - August 16 2013 at 13:16