At 2/3/13 02:37 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
Also, it's not my fault you took the "no tax" thing as being literal. I've already corrected myself. Gonna keep misinterpreting it?
Oh, so now you're being metaphorical. Greeeeat. Now I get to guess when you're being accurate and when you're being hyperbolic? Cuz you're kinda stretching Poe's Law already.
And yes, regualtion and subsidies raise prices
No, subsidies do not. They directly lower prices. The government gives money to companies to cover profit losses from the lower prices. That's what subsidies are.
Yes, when Ronald Reagan, said that sugar imports were hurting the sugar market. So he said we had to lower the amount we imported. So, this allowed the american sugar companies, with no competition, to charge whatever the fuck they want, because they were the only option. Basically, a monopoly.
Are you confusing subsidies with tariffs?
So, how can liberals say we need to pay more, but most likely would not pay more if it weren't manditory?
Because of psychology. My rent is more important than your roads. Hell, my copy of Dark Souls is more important than protecting you from threats at home and abroad. Because I don't give a shit about you. Just like you don't give a shit about me. We're outside each-other's monkeysphere. You'll never get a nationwide voluntary payment for nationwide programs voluntarily. You may get a good return on a local scale, but why the fuck would I pay for road maintenance in Maine, where I've never been and am never likely to be?
You, yourself have complained that your tax dollars go to things you don't like, regardless of whether or not you use it or will be using it. If you;'re unwilling to pay for things you don't like, what makes you think anyone else would be?
Liberal's are all about raising taxes. So, why don't we just make taxes voluntary, and the liberals can give as much as they want?
If you want the government to go broke and collapse, sure, let's do that.
Stabilize. The country. By bombing them and killing civilians. Steel trap logic there.
Yep. Do you think WW2 was something we shouldn't have assisted in? Do you think we should have let the Germans have their way with Europe and the world? Do you think we should allow terrorist organizations to have control of a country where they can get the means to kill other civilians?
Repercussions. Actions have them. If we didn't kill civilians (accidentally, we never actually target them), then worse things would most likely happen. It is highly likely that more civilians would die if we did nothing than if we actually acted.
Military presence, offensive or not, is still a money pit and does nothing but put our troops in danger. We're not talking Japan here, who has practically no military, or Korea who is an ally. We're talking a presence in a fully hostile society. To compare a presence in non-hostile Japan, to fully hostile Afghanistan is a little ridiculous.
What do you think Japan was after WW2? Sure it's one of our strongest allies NOW. But back in 1946-1950? God no. What do you think an extended military presence in these countries is supposed to foster? It's there to provide aid and training which in turn foments good will among the populace and the government which then engenders alliance.
You keep seeing things too short-term. When you look at repercussions from a few steps back, ramifications become more clear.
Think of a chessboard. If you concentrate on the individual moves, you'll miss the larger pattern and likely lose against a decent opponent. You have to see the whole board. This includes both the local and national politics of the country we're occupying, as well as the relationship that country has with its neighbors, and those neighbors' neighbors.
See the whole board. It's larger than a few civilian deaths.
Do you believe that we should remove ever american military personnel from overseas deployment immediately or not?Depends on the case. But I'd say, in most cases, yes.
Okay, we're getting somewhere now. One step at a time.
Now, say we leave Afghanistan completely. Move everyone out and basically leave them to their own devices: what do you think happens next?
So is spending billions to change things from "probably will kill you" to "extremely unlikely to make you feel bad for a little bit"! Obvs.The fuck does this even mean?
What do you think the FDA and most safety regulations actually do?
Um, no. Govt. intervention is always bad.
We would have no space program without the government. I thought you liked NASA.
At worst it prevents innovation of technologies in an industry (IE auto industry), and at best, creates price hikes/gouging/protectionism.
NASA money has payed for itself several million times over in the innovation and technology created by the government and private corporations working on the government's dime. We wouldn't have the internet without NASA, we wouldn't have cell phones and microwaves, and hundreds if not thousands of other innovations and patents that make life what it is today.
All because of the government.
Also, I pay for my electricity. Not Obama.
Correct. Obama, personally does not pay for your electricity. Congratulations, you got me there. I bow to your superior debating skills.
So, from what power plant(s) do you get your electricity?
For like, the 6th time, things would be much cheaper if there were no subsidies or regulation on, say, power.
Wait, so now you're saying there ARE government subsidies and regulations in power? Is this you "not" contradicting yourself again?
No u.I did. My hypothesis was that schools are underfunded. You said this isn't true. So what is it?
No, you said it was bad teachers causing the dropout rate. You later mentioned underfunding, but that's only tangentially related to the actual cause.
Keep trying, we'll see if you get there eventually.
This is a test. Pass it and we can move on to the real discussion.Fuck your test, cunt.
Awwwww, you hurted my feewings. :'(
Let's keep this civil, now.
The government PHYSICALLY CANNOT pay the cost. In case you didn't notice, the government is currently 16 trillion dollars in debt. They can't pay for shit.
Debt is, really, nothing to the government. It literally prints money. It cannot go broke, and it's debts are inviolable. Government debt is still considered the single safest investment on the planet. There's a reason for that.
And no govt. service is free. It's stolen from one person's pockets, into another's.
Yes, the cost is deferred to others more able to pay for things. However, for the individual who is subsidized (there's that word again, making things cheaper) they don't pay anything for their insurance.
So, the people who can't afford their emergent care should pay for their emergent care? Whut?You do know emergency care can be affordable, right?
Some can. A set bone or a quick stitch, sure. Lifesaving surgery after a bad car accident or shooting? Yeah, notsomuch. Endoscopic surgery, which is the safest, least-invasive, and most effective kind, uses machines that cost millions of dollars to produce and cost tens if not hundreds of thousands to purchase. As does the entire network of nurses, staff and infrastructure necessary for it all to work. You're still in your utopic vision of everything magically being cheaper, without actually looking at the mechanisms or doing the math.
Technology, doesn't need to be expensive. Nor does medicine. Nor do test and procedures. They are that way because of govt. protectionism.
Of course they are. *eyerollie*
It's not hard at all to build an fMRI machine. In fact, it should only cost about 5 dollars. There isn't a vast network of individuals, companies, and procedures necessary to build a large superconducting magnet or anything. Anyone could do it, and it's only the government who keeps those brilliant folks who can make a $5 fMRI machine out of business.