Best GOP Candidate

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The push for a single payer national healthcare.

Already disproven in this thread.

Got anything else? Maybe links to go with it?

No, we don't do better because of it. Food that the tax payer is paying for is rotting in silos.

You still haven't shown a link for this.

It would certainly be better if the people making that food were doing something else that wasn't an economic drain on the economy.

It's not a drain on the economy, it's money the government injects into the economy. That is, by definition, an economic gain.

Well, if I had a dollar for every time I have heard this comment from lefties, I would be rich! If I added up the amount of money that lefties have dismissed, from one program or another, that is being wasted... we probably wouldn't have a budget deficit.

Which do you think would cost more money, the $14 Billion lost in bailing out the automotive companies, or their immediate collapse and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs?

Why do some companies get interest free loans... and don't even have to pay it back in full?

Good ol' boys take care of one another.

If we are spending money on it, it isn't a boost. It is a drain. The internet was a boost, the invention of mass production of automobiles was a boost... paying farmers to grow crops that will never be sold is not a boost.

Basic economics disagrees with you. The initial investment in the economy (government expenditure) multiplies several times over, and increase aggregate demand. Government expenditure helps the economy. And as I said before, in this case it directly feeds back through lower food prices.

See above where you talked about $14B isn't much.

It's not, it makes food much more affordable and provides us with a myriad of goods in effectively infinite supply.

BECAUSE WE ARE PAYING FOR IT.

Then it impacts the budget, not the economy.

So let me ask you this, then. If government expenditure hurts the economy so much, then why did the largest government spending programs in history create the largest economic recovery and boom in history?

You can farm without subsidies, we have the technology.

Technology has nothing to do with it.

How many people can one farmer support now?
Why do we have so many more than we need then?
This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

You still haven't proven that we have "more than we need!"

Your argument is so unprogressive it amazes me. Why not subsidies horse drawn carraige drivers? You could apply almost all the same arguments to this idea...

I'm not even going to address this, it's such a ridiculous red herring.

I suppose the subsidies may be lower in the UK... but it is pretty outrageous how much we are spending to keep people in agricultural jobs that could be providing more needed services and not needing to be paid to stay afloat.

Actually they're higher in the EU.

Allow me to explain, for a moment, just what purpose agricultural subsidies serve. They arose in during the Great Depression to preserve our farming industry, because so many farmers were not making enough money to survive (because of the economy!), and thus going into bankruptcy and selling the family farm. Bad weather and a bad economy made their returns on produce very unstable and unpredictable. Subsidies helped to smooth over that unpredictability a bit by providing farmers with at least some income on which they could absolutely depend, and thus continue to plant and grow food even though prices and production were both bad. With this predictability of income comes more willingness to invest further, and in things that perhaps might not have been if farmers were left purely to their own financial devices.
Because of this increased income from subsidies, the "market price" that farmers sell at is lower, since their profits from sale need not outpace their expenditure in production. That is good for us, the consumer. Everybody in the country wins.

The only losers in this equation are unsubsidized farmers, who do have to behave fully according to market principles, but there are effectively none in the United States. Where they exist is in other countries to whom we sell, or in which we sell, which are too poor to be able to afford to subsidize their own farmers in order to level the playing field. The unsubsidized farmers cannot compete in the market and lose money, and eventually their farms.

So, subsidized food should only be sold in a country with subsidizes farms. If we restricted their sale to our own country, then the feedback from government investment would be complete. If we restricted sale to other subsidized countries (like much of Europe) then there would at least be fairness in competition, and still no one gets hurt.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Actually, we are discussing opinion. We are using facts to support our ideas, but we are clearly having a philosophical debate here. This is obvious.

Partly, yes. But not regarding definitions of things like socialist and liberal.

Ummmm... do you not remember when Hillary Clinton tried to do it? Barack Obama has stated many times that he wants, in the end, a single payer system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk (this shows Obama, Barney Franks, and some other official member of the Democratic Party talking about it).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vLJ6xObc_o (this is Bernie Sanders, who is, I believe, the only official socialist to have a seat in our congress... the Dems gladly let him caucus with them. Soros is a supporter of this gentleman).
I could definitely spend more time to find more clips, but I think the Obama one is the only one that is needed.

All that happened within a relatively short period of time. It was quickly abandoned.

And get this: Sanders (who is a social democrat, not a socialist) caucuses with the Democrats because they are closer to him politically than the Republicans are, and the Dems are more than happy to have another person on their side against the GOP. It's typical political alliance-making.

I don't really care about George Soros, and the fact that you keep bringing him up only shows that you've watched way too much Fox News. I didn't even know who this man was until watching O'Reilly and Beck foam at the mouth over him.

I call the Nazis socialist! Just because they were racists doesn't mean they weren't socialist... That's why they were called NATIONAL socialists... They were quite socialist.

And you would be wrong! They were called National Socialists as a propaganda ploy to try and steal working-class votes from the Social Democratic Party.

Generally true, but when that one thing makes up such a huge percentage of the economy... it does.

And what thing is that of which you speak? Unless you're suggesting that the largest single part of the US budget, and a significant part of the US economy, become privatized.

 

[kochman]

I did provide links about single payer...
I am not going to do all your homework for you... tons of food rots in silos, look it up yourself if you want. That's up to you bud.

If the government injects money into the economy, it is not an economic gain, it is an expense. The government doesn't create wealth, it takes it from taxpayers as part of a social contract.
That money could be spent on other things, allowing lower taxes (or in this case, a closer to balanced budget through less spending)... which is better for the economy than spending it to maintain farmers whose food goes to waste.

In the long run, I think the loss of those jobs, to be replaced by jobs which don't need to be subsidized, it clearly better for a nation... whether it be GM, farmers, whoever.

The economy is impacted by the budget... the signs of that are everywhere... governments collapsing, etc, due in large to debt from overspending.

In the end, you will not convince me that subsidizing farmers is a good thing... sorry. It's an expense every year, and we have a debt and deficit issue.

 

[kochman]

I don't really care about George Soros, and the fact that you keep bringing him up only shows that you've watched way too much Fox News. I didn't even know who this man was until watching O'Reilly and Beck foam at the mouth over him.

I don't have cable... I haven't had it for years. I don't watch O'Reilly or Beck.
Thanks for your assumptions, but maybe you should stick to what you know rather than assuming what influences me?

And what thing is that of which you speak? Unless you're suggesting that the largest single part of the US budget, and a significant part of the US economy, become privatized.

Please do not use Wikipedia as a source! It is not accurate.
The defense spending is not the largest part of the US budget buddy... sorry. Social welfare programs WAY outwiegh it. Social Security by itself was $2B more, that's one single program (whereas the military are at least 3 programs, army, navy, air force)... If you start adding the entitlements together, they vastly outspend the military... and that is during 2 wars!!!
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I did provide links about single payer...
I am not going to do all your homework for you... tons of food rots in silos, look it up yourself if you want. That's up to you bud.

I've spent the better part of an hour putting together each of these responses to you, which are full of researched links. I even busted out my old macro econ textbook so that I could explain something to you. How dare you tell me to "do my own homework" when I have spent so much time doing yours?

If the government injects money into the economy, it is not an economic gain, it is an expense. The government doesn't create wealth, it takes it from taxpayers as part of a social contract.
That money could be spent on other things, allowing lower taxes (or in this case, a closer to balanced budget through less spending)... which is better for the economy than spending it to maintain farmers whose food goes to waste.

Christ almighty. This is not hard. The government spending money in the economy is just like individuals or companies spending money in the economy. It is by definition a benefit and not a drain. Read what I wrote, what I linked to, and for the love of God put on your thinking cap for once. You're just repeating over and over the same thing you've said, with no consideration at all for my posts or my points. There is no attempt at discussion on your part at all, it is just an opinion-screaming-fest.

In the long run, I think the loss of those jobs, to be replaced by jobs which don't need to be subsidized, it clearly better for a nation... whether it be GM, farmers, whoever.

In the long-run, we're all dead.

The economy is impacted by the budget... the signs of that are everywhere... governments collapsing, etc, due in large to debt from overspending.

Neither of those is happening, much less because of the other.

In the end, you will not convince me that subsidizing farmers is a good thing... sorry. It's an expense every year, and we have a debt and deficit issue.

Because you insist on shutting your eyes, plugging your ears, and screaming over and over "I'm right, you're wrong! It can't be true! It's not true!"

I'm leaving this nonsense "discussion," it's proven to be nothing but a huge waste of time and effort (again). If you have any interest in reviving it, PM me and let me know you've discovered critical thinking.

 

[kochman]

Just because someone doesn't agree with you... it doesn't mean they aren't thinking and they are wrong. That is great that you have your macroeconomics book out, but that doesn't mean that you are 1) interpreting correctly, 2) citing a version that is correct.

You are asking me to provide links, when I do, you immediately blow them off, so it is a waste of time on my part.

 

[Ajidica]

I'm still waiting on how Obama's intent for the ACA was socialist despite being less comprehensive then the plan passed by Otto "Commie-Smasher" Bismark.

 

[kochman]

I'm still waiting on how Obama's intent for the ACA was socialist despite being less comprehensive then the plan passed by Otto "Commie-Smasher" Bismark.

Well, keep waiting. I'm not touching that one, I don't know anything about the Bismark plan, and it doesn't really matter to this conversation... It was quite some time ago, in another country.

 

[Ajidica]

Well, keep waiting. I'm not touching that one, I don't know anything about the Bismark plan, and it doesn't really matter to this conversation...

It matters quite a bit. The Bismark plan was a comprehensive health plan in Germany. The ACA, even at its start, was not that. Since you claim we should look at intents, lets do it. Why would Otto von Bismark who had outlawed the Socialist Party propose a law that is more 'socialist' then Obama's initial idea about the ACA?

In short, you are throwing around terms that you find distasteful in a hope to convince others of that persons unworthiness. In short, you are doing the slightly more eloquent version of calling someone gay simply because you don't like them. To paraphrase the Wanda Sykes PSA "Don't call someone socialist when you really mean something else." Now, there are many perfectly valid critiques you can make of Obama and the ACA, but is it not better to level assertions against him that actualy make sense rather then serving the purpose of playground insults?

 

[kochman]

It matters quite a bit. The Bismark plan was a comprehensive health plan in Germany. The ACA, even at its start, was not that. Since you claim we should look at intents, lets do it. Why would Otto von Bismark who had outlawed the Socialist Party propose a law that is more 'socialist' then Obama's initial idea about the ACA?

In short, you are throwing around terms that you find distasteful in a hope to convince others of that persons unworthiness. In short, you are doing the slightly more eloquent version of calling someone gay simply because you don't like them. To paraphrase the Wanda Sykes PSA "Don't call someone socialist when you really mean something else." Now, there are many perfectly valid critiques you can make of Obama and the ACA, but is it not better to level assertions against him that actualy make sense rather then serving the purpose of playground insults?

Uh, ok...
I really don't care about Bismark, it is irrelevant to today... The percentage of the economy that he was interfering with was also WAY smaller back then as well.

I don't consider socialist an insult at all, much less a playground insult. It's just a view that I am opposed to. I really don't like the insinuation that I am some kind of bigot, by the way.

Please, tell me, as per Wanda's brilliant statement, what do I really mean?

Is this where I get called a racist because I don't like some of Obama's policies? I love that. It's so intelligent.

 

[Ajidica]

The percentage of the economy that he was interfering with was also WAY smaller back then as well.

In the 1880s his social insurance programs were the first in the world and became the model for other countries and the basis of the modern welfare state.[37] Bismarck introduced old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance.

For the time, that was quite alot. Since your distaste of Wikipedia, even on well known and basic facts is understood, perhaps you would prefer if I broke out my European History textbook?

I don't consider socialist an insult at all, much less a playground insult. It's just a view that I am opposed to.

If you are opposed to socialists, they why are you wasting your time calling non-socialists a socialist?

Please, tell me, as per Wanda's brilliant statement, what do I really mean?

Is this where I get called a racist because I don't like some of Obama's policies? I love that. It's so intelligent.

Call things what they are, not what you consider them to be. The world CFC OT would be a much better place.

Moderator Action: Please keep things civil or I'll go Socialist Nazi on you all an close it down.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kochman]

Why do lefties get so up at arms when people call Obama a socialist? I really don't get that. He had an extremely left wing voting record in congress, and is on the record making many statements that fit under socialist.

I will just do what lone wolf said and call him a pinko... jeez.

You guys might want to lighten up a bit.

Moderator Action: Yes lightening up would be good for all.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Arakhor]

You seem to have as much a bee in your bonnet about "socialism" as you do about Islam. In political debates, people tend to prefer precise terms without woolly words designed to confuse the issue. Describing Hitler and Bismark as socialist is about as useful as calling me right-wing.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Technology has nothing to do with it.

Actually, technology has a lot to do with it, and we do technically have the technology to farm without subsidies:
The ox pulled plow, natural fertilizers, etc. etc.
If you want a return to food without subsidies, all of this can make it possible, by raising the prices of production over the price of transit.

 

[Ajidica]

Why do lefties get so up at arms when people call Obama a socialist?

Because he isn't a socialist in any meaningful metric and being compared to Obama annoys actual socialists.

I really don't get that. He had an extremely left wing voting record in congress,

Simply being left wing does not make one a socialist.

and is on the record making many statements that fit under socialist.

Examples please. Hopefully these examples are more substantiative then "We need to fix the broken system and assure every American has access to comprehensive health care". I can find televised statements by Nixon saying the same thing.

 

[kochman]

You seem to have as much a bee in your bonnet about "socialism" as you do about Islam. In political debates, people tend to prefer precise terms without woolly words designed to confuse the issue. Describing Hitler and Bismark as socialist is about as useful as calling me right-wing.

I didn't call Bismark a socialist. I haven't said anything about Bismark other than I don't really know the plan Adija is referring to, and I don't find it worthwhile to research.

Hitler's government was socialist in nature. I don't think he actually was a socialist... he was more concerned about Jews... but he did want to strongly take care of his "people", to the point where there were all sorts of programs designed to put people to work, for the government, well beyond the bureaucracy required to run a government. It was a sick and twisted form of socialism... I mean, the guy even had state run/funded breeding grounds for crying out loud... a whole new social program the likes of which were deeply disturbing.
But that is really moot in the end.

 

[Ajidica]

and I don't find it worthwhile to research.

Ignorance is blissful strength.

Hitler's government was socialist in nature.

Please detail to me when Hitler dissolved private property and transfered ownership of the means of production to the proletariat while abolishing the Bourgeosie as a class.

Hitler had no claims to a socialist tradition after he purged the Strasserites and Rohm at the Night of the Long Knives.
If you consider Hitler to be a socialist, then by the same logic you must consider the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea to be a democratic-republic like the US.

 

[GamezRule]

Kochman, you probably won't see why I am asking this, but define "socialism" in your own terms.

 

[ParkCungHee]

but he did want to strongly take care of his "people", to the point where there were all sorts of programs designed to put people to work, for the government, well beyond the bureaucracy required to run a government.

If that's your idea of "socialism" then the entire U.S. Constitution is a work of socialism as it's full of bureaucracy beyond what's required to run a government.

 

[kochman]

Well, it's off the topic and I don't care to engage in it anymore... my humblest apologies to all those who were offended by calling some members of the democrat party socialists, including the president... but that's how I see it.