Grover Norquist and the Republicans have betrayed the US military!

[ishootblanks]

No offense, but I don't think its on Wells to tell you how the people in your life feel about this. Hes speaking about polls and actually has the evidence to back up his claims. In fact, he seems to be the only one with actual evidence to back up his claims.

And during the great depression, how did the USA get out of it? It sure as hell wasn't slashing taxes.



That's the thing thought, Obama isn't saying raise taxes on everyone! Hes saying the top 1% needs to make a more realistic contribution to the society in which they prosper. Asking the majority will get you a negative reaction, obviously, but there not gonna be the ones affected by the tax. So your entire argument is, well, pointless.

the USA got out of the great depression by selling military equipment and supplies to europe in order to defend themselves.. FDR's programs just strung it out over a longer period of time.. just like Obama is doing right now with his stimulus garbage.. and picking the winners and losers of corporations.. IE. Solyndra..

the 1% already pay 20% of the total federal tax revenue of the USA.. how about we jack up YOUR federal tax rate by 20%? how would that affect your personal spending habits?

[logintime]

the USA got out of the great depression by selling military equipment and supplies to europe in order to defend themselves.. FDR's programs just strung it out over a longer period of time.. just like Obama is doing right now with his stimulus garbage..

So your complaint is Obama's stimulus measures weren't large enough? Because that's pretty much what it sounds like.

the 1% already pay 20% of the total federal tax revenue of the USA.. how about we jack up YOUR federal tax rate by 20%? how would that affect your personal spending habits?

The 1% also earns far more than 20% of the nation's wealth, and is the only income level which has seen it's share of the national wealth increase over the last several years. Forgive me for not having any sympathy for them.

[Diurdi]

Any evidence?

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/he...are/204694.pdf (Read the Executive Summary).

On top of that, health insurance doesn't obey any normal laws of supply and demand. It is in the interest of the insurer to rip you off, and typically it is too late to make a difference when this happens.

If you truly believe this then you really should stop commenting on anything related to economics. It is in the interest of the insurer to rip off the customer just as much as it is in the interest of the baker to rip of his. If they defraud their customers, they will either face legal action or simply lose the customer.

The only difference with insurance is the increased moral hazard of the purchaser of the insurance.

---------- Post added 2011-11-27 at 09:10 PM ----------

Yeah, I've heard that tired old libertarian tune before.

No offence but if you consider that "old libertarian tune" then there's really no point conversing with you at all. You really don't think the corporations and the government work together to rip off the people? Sure, not all politicians or corporations do that - but it certainly is one of the biggest issues that, for example, the whole OWS movement protests against.

you fail entirely to consider the cost to the individual when economic concerns is allowed to overrule the best interest of the individual and society. Here is a hint: Economy exists to serve humanity, humanity does not exist to serve economy.

I don't think you can sound any more <mod snip> than this. The economy IS the society. We as a society have decided to embrace the division of labour where we specialize in a certain profession, and then trade the fruits of our own labour with eachother to get what we want. The economy is simply all the co-operation between people that exist.

Mod Warning: Please watch the flaming

[Yirrah]

I don't think you can sound any more <mod snip> than this. The economy IS the society. We as a society have decided to embrace the division of labour where we specialize in a certain profession, and then trade the fruits of our own labour with eachother to get what we want. The economy is simply all the co-operation between people that exist.

Well, that does nothing but confirm that you are not only incapable of participating in a discussion without insulting your opponent, you also seem to be incapable of understanding society from any viewpoint but the economical one. Society DOES contain a latticework of economical relations, but economy is just a tool, a means to an end, not an end in itself. If economy and the economists does not serve the intrests of the community, they are useless.

[Wells]

You have not provided any evidence of your claim. What I can say that is that since states with large numbers of private insurers and states with small numbers of private insurers do NOT seem to follow any pattern of cost, then your assertion does not agree with the facts. You can't just keep repeating yourself. Eventually, you either need to provide your own evidence, or explain why the evidence provided doesn't agree with you

This is the most common criticism of Austrian Economics.

Lots a theory, little bearing on reality.

[Diurdi]

you also seem to be incapable of understanding society from any viewpoint but the economical one.

One has to understand society to understand the economy in the first place.

Society DOES contain a latticework of economical relations, but economy is just a tool, a means to an end, not an end in itself. If economy and the economists does not serve the intrests of the community, they are useless.

The economy always "serves" the people so to speak, as it simply is a reflection of the actions of the community. You cannot detach the economy from the rest of society. In your last sentance there I have no idea why you included the profession "economists", how is an economist any different from any other person who practices his profession?

This is the most common criticism of Austrian Economics.

Lots a theory, little bearing on reality.

So Wells. I remember you praising Obamacare for forcing States to let insurance companies compete across State borders to reduce costs. So, you would agree with me that not allowing health insurers to compete across State borders increases the healthcare costs?

Also what I've brought up about the health industry has absolutely nothing to do with Austrian Economics. Again, 90% of everything I've learned about economics is from others than Austrians.

[Yirrah]

One has to understand society to understand the economy in the first place.

Yes, well. Taking your previous claims about society vs. economy...you know, I'll just let those speak for themselves.

The economy always serves the people so to speak, as it simply is a reflection of the actions of the community. You cannot detach the economy from the rest of society.

Which is no relation to what I said at all. Let me repeat: Society DOES contain a latticework of economical relations, but economy is just a tool, a means to an end, not an end in itself. If economy and the economists does not serve the intrests of the community, they are useless.

[Diurdi]

Which is no relation to what I said at all. Let me repeat: Society DOES contain a latticework of economical relations, but economy is just a tool, a means to an end, not an end in itself. If economy and the economists does not serve the intrests of the community, they are useless.

The economy always reflects the actions of the community. So by saying the economy does not serve the interest of the community, what you really mean is that one part of the community does not serve the interest of another part of the community . For example, a thief serves himself and possibly his family, but not the rest of the community.

The problem thus isn't the economy, but the people in it.

P.S. Why did you include "economists" in your last sentance? Are they somehow different from everyone else or what?

[Yirrah]

The economy always reflects the actions of the community. So by saying the economy does not serve the interest of the community, what you really mean is that one part of the community does not serve the interest of another part of the community . For example, a thief serves himself and possibly his family, but not the rest of the community.

The problem thus isn't the economy, but the people in it.

P.S. Why did you include "economists" in your last sentance? Are they somehow different from everyone else or what?

Economy is NOT a "part of the community", it is a tool of the community. And once that tool stops working to the benefit of society, it becomes useless, and needs to be changed so it once again benefits the society / community in the best possible way.

As for economists, they are the ones who advice on economical decision, thus they and the economical direction they advice is connected. I would have thought that self-evident.

[Diurdi]

As for economists, they are the ones who advice on economical decision, thus they and the economical direction they advice is connected. I would have thought that self-evident.

I still don't understand how this has anything to do with that sentance. Also, the advice of most economists and the actual direction of the economy are inversely connected at best.

Anyway, I'm still gonna keep saying that the economy is the community. It's one and the same. It's the same as the actions of the people in the community.

[logintime]

Anyway, I'm still gonna keep saying that the economy is the community. It's one and the same. It's the same as the actions of the people in the community.

That doesn't mean it IS the community. It means it is a part of the community. And like all parts, it can function for good or for ill, depending on how it is used.

[Diurdi]

That doesn't mean it IS the community. It means it is a part of the community. And like all parts, it can function for good or for ill, depending on how it is used.

My point is, that it's not some separate entity. All activity is economic activity - everything everyone does is part of the economy. And everything the economy reflects is just a reflection of all the choices, actions and subjective values we have.

I understand that once you define something as "everything", it loses it's meaning. But in this case it simply is the result of how we act.

[Wells]

So Wells. I remember you praising Obamacare for forcing States to let insurance companies compete across State borders to reduce costs. So, you would agree with me that not allowing health insurers to compete across State borders increases the healthcare costs?

Competing across state lines is a good thing if measures are taken. Because Ninespine is right, allowing insurers to trade across state lines creates a race to the bottom. Under ObamaCare insurers can trade across state lines if they meet certain requirements for care and such.

That way we get the best of both.

[NineSpine]

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/he...are/204694.pdf (Read the Executive Summary).

All this report says is that all of those things increase costs, but it does not propose that those things are the reason that the United States spends twice as much as any other nation on healthcare and receives garbage results.

If you truly believe this then you really should stop commenting on anything related to economics. It is in the interest of the insurer to rip off the customer just as much as it is in the interest of the baker to rip of his. If they defraud their customers, they will either face legal action or simply lose the customer.

The baker has future profits to lose by ripping off his customers. The insurer does not. If you get cancer, the insurer will likely spend more on you than you will ever pay in to them. At that point, it is in their interest for you to die. It is in their interest to find a loophole to stop covering you:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun...s/fi-rescind17

Just because legal action can come against you doesn't mean that it isn't worth it. It is FREQUENTLY more profitable to let people get hurt or die and pay the victims or their families off than it is to produce a safe product or treat your customers correctly. The obvious example is the exploding Ford Pinto. Ford found that it was cheaper to put out a defective product that killed people than it was to recall the products. This is not uncommon at all, and to pretend that this doesn't apply to insurance is insane. In fact, it applies to insurance more than any other industry, because the actual test of the quality of your insurer doesn't come until you are seriously ill.

I don't think you can sound any more <mod snip> than this. The economy IS the society. We as a society have decided to embrace the division of labour where we specialize in a certain profession, and then trade the fruits of our own labour with eachother to get what we want. The economy is simply all the co-operation between people that exist.

Mod Warning: Please watch the flaming

All economic systems are arbitrary, man-made creations full of the same amount of flaws and problems as any other man-made creation. Economic systems are unnatural, artificial constructs. They are an imposed order.

[ishootblanks]

So your complaint is Obama's stimulus measures weren't large enough? Because that's pretty much what it sounds like.



The 1% also earns far more than 20% of the nation's wealth, and is the only income level which has seen it's share of the national wealth increase over the last several years. Forgive me for not having any sympathy for them.

I should have worded that more clearly.. FDR's programs strung out the great depression longer by allowing the government to try to steer the market by paying one person to dig a hole and another to fill it in..

and you have to keep in mind.. Obama's stimulus primarily went to large unions and wall street investors.. soooo... if we give Obama more money.. what do you think will happen? he will just further prop up the ever so hated 1%..

what's the point of raising taxes on people that are just going to have the money funneled right back to them through other channels?

[Wells]

I should have worded that more clearly.. FDR's programs strung out the great depression longer by allowing the government to try to steer the market by paying one person to dig a hole and another to fill it in..

I guess its just a hole if you're artistic about your interpretation.

what's the point of raising taxes on people that are just going to have the money funneled right back to them through other channels?

So you're saying that raising taxes on the rich has no effect on revenue?

[champ3000]

I say we just tax the rich! No one can make over $100,000. If they do, we just tax it down to $100,000. A $100,000 is more than enough to live on, right? The rights of the few mean nothing to the concerns of the many! The top 1% pays 70% of the taxes??? Who cares.. they need to pay 100%!! The 50% of Americans that pay no taxes whatsoever!! Let's get that number up to 99% and we can all have trains!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[smrund]

I say we just tax the rich! No one can make over $100,000. If they do, we just tax it down to $100,000. A $100,000 is more than enough to live on, right? The rights of the few mean nothing to the concerns of the many! The top 1% pays 70% of the taxes??? Who cares.. they need to pay 100%!! The 50% of Americans that pay no taxes whatsoever!! Let's get that number up to 99% and we can all have trains!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The irony is that if people were simply banned(though 100% taxation on any income over 100k) from making such insane sums of money, it would more than likely be used by the business paying them to expand and invest.

[ishootblanks]

The irony is that if people were simply banned(though 100% taxation on any income over 100k) from making such insane sums of money, it would more than likely be used by the business paying them to expand and invest.

actually it would just cause all of the successful people to either leave the country or stop working.. otherwise 100k would have to be the 1%..

oh and congratulations Wells! you found one of the few kinda cool things built during the great depression! yet.. the depression still carried on.. and on.. and on..

the saddest part is that dam couldn't be built today because of environmental regulations.. EPA has is growing exponentially under Obama as well.. forgot to mention that!

[Felya420]

the 1% already pay 20% of the total federal tax revenue of the USA.. how about we jack up YOUR federal tax rate by 20%? how would that affect your personal spending habits?

In 2007 the top 1% controlled 34.5% of the wealth, yet according to you, payed only 20% of the taxes. This means this despite only controlling 65.5% of the wealth, the 99% pay 80% of the taxes. To break the taxes evenly on how much US wealth an individual controls, the top 1% would have to have their taxes raised by 14.5% and the tax on the remaining 99% drooped by 14.5%. In case you are really wondering how such a slant effects personal spending habits, look at our economy. Don't forget, that the bottom 99% include people that do not earn enough to be taxed and the unemployed, meaning that those of us closer to the middle, share even a greater burden than than the cumulative bottom 99%. This is reflecting your 20% estimate...

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Of course this is all moot if you want everyone in the bottom 99% to contribute the same amount as those in the top 1%, regardless what percentage of their wealth that entails. My guess that would mean you believe all those unemployed should be on the hook for thousands of dollars.