Chalenge to the Fiscal Conservative

[SmilezRoyale]

[i spelled Challenge without the extra L because i didn't have enough writing space for the title :P]

Just before you say anything, this isn't MY homework, it's one of those things that i'm curious about. Sort of my way of playing devil's advocate. Please do not say 'someone assigned this to you for homework' if that was the case i would say so, and you would notice a much more 'teacher' like writing criteria.

Right, so i hear among many fiscal conservatives that Obama's social engineering would destroy the country. Now, saying this as so is really nothing more than just saying it.

How many of you can provide a compelling argument [At least more so than those presented in favor of] that programs such as [or similar to] the ones proposed by Barack Obama with the intention of doing any one or all of the following;

- fixing 'poor' income distribution in the united states. [This can also be debunked by showing that the problem is non existent, or in relatively other industrial states of the world, not a problem [When one sets their standards too high everything seems to be a crisis, for example]]
- Raising unemployment
- Bringing people affordable health care

I'm NOT going to talk about energy policies only because they are too separate from these 3 things i mentioned before.

You can take the challenge or make it harder [such would be advantageous to the security of your philosophy] by defending big government [with your own compelling argument] I don't want to make a long 'criteria' of what is compelling and what is not, but i will try to play devils advocate.

[adrshepard]

Wait, so are you challenging fiscal conservatives to prove those programs will "destroy the country" (or at least screw it up a bit) or are you encouraging people to challenge you with arguments supporting the programs?

[SmilezRoyale]

At 9/6/08 12:58 AM, adrshepard wrote: Wait, so are you challenging fiscal conservatives to prove those programs will "destroy the country" (or at least screw it up a bit) or are you encouraging people to challenge you with arguments supporting the programs?

The first one, Yes, the second one, sort of. I encourage people to make the challenge harder with arguments supporting the programs.

[Al6200]

At 9/5/08 10:17 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

How many of you can provide a compelling argument [At least more so than those presented in favor of] that programs such as [or similar to] the ones proposed by Barack Obama with the intention of doing any one or all of the following;

- fixing 'poor' income distribution in the united states. [This can also be debunked by showing that the problem is non existent, or in relatively other industrial states of the world, not a problem [When one sets their standards too high everything seems to be a crisis, for example]]

It would be quite literally impossible to create complete income equity without destroying all civilization. Consider that no one would want to have any responsibility, or do more work than anyone else

Who would go to medical school (even if the government subsidized all educational costs, going to school is difficult and time consuming) if it would pay the same amount to make fries at McDonalds? Who would be willing to be a manager if there was no extra pay?

- Raising unemployment

Are you saying that labor unions and the minimum wage raise unemployment (in which case you'd be right)?

The argument against labor unions acting as monopolies is that they force companies to pay extra money to their employees, when that money could be better spent on lowering prices or investing in infrastructure.

- Bringing people affordable health care

I agree with universal healthcare for ethical reasons, but the case against it is that universal healthcare can only work through force. Consider a person in a nation with universal healthcare who has large amounts of money to spend on very advanced health care. This person would probably prefer to go to a country with free healthcare so that they can get good services, rather than stay on a waitlist in their home country. This isn't just a hypothetical, many upper class Canadians go to upstate New York for their health care because it is immediate and of better quality.

The result of this is that a state which has universal healthcare must either accept that people will leave or enter the country in order to exploit and abuse the system (draining the nation's resources), or use force to keep them within the borders.

If you're looking for a comprehensive defense of fiscal conservatism, I'm going to recommend Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".

[Snayke]

At 9/6/08 02:08 PM, Al6200 wrote: I agree with universal healthcare for ethical reasons, but the case against it is that universal healthcare can only work through force. Consider a person in a nation with universal healthcare who has large amounts of money to spend on very advanced health care. This person would probably prefer to go to a country with free healthcare so that they can get good services, rather than stay on a waitlist in their home country. This isn't just a hypothetical, many upper class Canadians go to upstate New York for their health care because it is immediate and of better quality.

The result of this is that a state which has universal healthcare must either accept that people will leave or enter the country in order to exploit and abuse the system (draining the nation's resources), or use force to keep them within the borders.

You know, private healthcare can exist in a nation with universal health. In my eyes, universal healthcare is just making sure that people who don't have access to healthcare, can get it. Might be as simple as seeing your local GP or as extreme as surgery. In Australia, there is both public and private healthcare. No one goes without healthcare. Some claim that universal healthcare is impossible financially, which is utter bullshit. Your point lies within the assumption that private healthcare is non-existant in a state that has universal healthcare, which is untrue. Universal healthcare does not mean you get 5 star treatment. It means you get necessary treatment. About to die? Yes, you will be treated so you can live. Want excellent treatment and a nurse to suck your dick? Goto a private hospital.

As for the topic at hand, I believe that the budget should reflect the needs of the economy, the core being the most necessary of spending. You don't run a budget deficit when economic growth is too fast nor do you run a budget surplus when the economy is growing too slow or is headed for negative growth.

Also, unemployment will not ever be zero in a stable economy. It shouldn't even be really really low (depending on the country). One of the funny things of economics is that too much of one thing results in the direct opposite of what it was meant to quell. If unemployment became too long, it could actually propell unemployment due to massive inflation caused by cost-push inflation. That is a situation in which the government should be using its budget to intervene.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 9/6/08 02:08 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 9/5/08 10:17 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

How many of you can provide a compelling argument [At least more so than those presented in favor of] that programs such as [or similar to] the ones proposed by Barack Obama with the intention of doing any one or all of the following;

- fixing 'poor' income distribution in the united states. [This can also be debunked by showing that the problem is non existent, or in relatively other industrial states of the world, not a problem [When one sets their standards too high everything seems to be a crisis, for example]]

It would be quite literally impossible to create complete income equity without destroying all civilization. Consider that no one would want to have any responsibility, or do more work than anyone else

Who would go to medical school (even if the government subsidized all educational costs, going to school is difficult and time consuming) if it would pay the same amount to make fries at McDonalds? Who would be willing to be a manager if there was no extra pay?

Most liberals will agree that total equality is idealistic, but many will argue that a MORE equal society [not perfect, simply more] is within reach with certain social engineering from the government. In terms of equitability, i'm talking about the level that is desired by presidential candidate Barack obama.

- Raising unemployment

Are you saying that labor unions and the minimum wage raise unemployment (in which case you'd be right)?

lol sorry, LOWERING unemployment.

Naturally Obama wants more americans employed even if by the beleifs of some those ideals conflict with the result of his policy meant to acheive the goal. [the law of opposites, i guess] if you feel that way, then the point is to prove it.

The argument against labor unions acting as monopolies is that they force companies to pay extra money to their employees, when that money could be better spent on lowering prices or investing in infrastructure.

i'll play devils advocate for this, though my argument is more emotional than fiscal, doesn't this mean that companies will simply focus less on getting proper levels of compensation to employers and focusing on company expansion?

- Bringing people affordable health care

I agree with universal healthcare for ethical reasons, but the case against it is that universal healthcare can only work through force. Consider a person in a nation with universal healthcare who has large amounts of money to spend on very advanced health care. This person would probably prefer to go to a country with free healthcare so that they can get good services, rather than stay on a waitlist in their home country. This isn't just a hypothetical, many upper class Canadians go to upstate New York for their health care because it is immediate and of better quality.

where did you learn that fact? i thought canada was revered for it's great health care system.

The result of this is that a state which has universal healthcare must either accept that people will leave or enter the country in order to exploit and abuse the system (draining the nation's resources), or use force to keep them within the borders.

Based on the assumption that government healthcare is of poor quality, [once again, devils advocate] with all of the talk in the majority of this nations media in love of the socialist system, it seems like one can only assume government healthcare is more efficient than private healthcare.

If you're looking for a comprehensive defense of fiscal conservatism, I'm going to recommend Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".

i've already purchased a book by ludwig van mises called 'socialism', apparently it's a strong rebuttal of the socialist system.

[SmilezRoyale]

Er... is that really the best you people can do?

[n64kid]

All I read was the first and last post, so excuse me if I touch on something already covered.

At 9/5/08 10:17 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Right, so i hear among many fiscal conservatives that Obama's social engineering would destroy the country. Now, saying this as so is really nothing more than just saying it.

I try to explain and elaborate this in my thread.

How many of you can provide a compelling argument [At least more so than those presented in favor of] that programs such as [or similar to] the ones proposed by Barack Obama with the intention of doing any one or all of the following;

Compelling argument against it, since you're challenging fiscal conservatives?

- fixing 'poor' income distribution in the united states. [This can also be debunked by showing that the problem is non existent, or in relatively other industrial states of the world, not a problem [When one sets their standards too high everything seems to be a crisis, for example]]

There is an income gap, but 90% of household incomes are within $90,000 of each other. Once you reach the top 1%, which is 330,000 a year, it just jumps from there.

- Raising unemployment

Raising employment? You let the largest creators of jobs (corporations) keep more of the money they earn to expand and increase operations.

- Bringing people affordable health care

Ease the burden of R&D to the companies that provide it, create a healthier America so less people need it, and return some taxes back to the company if they pass the savings on to consumers.

I'm NOT going to talk about energy policies only because they are too separate from these 3 things i mentioned before.

Kay.

You can take the challenge or make it harder [such would be advantageous to the security of your philosophy] by defending big government [with your own compelling argument] I don't want to make a long 'criteria' of what is compelling and what is not, but i will try to play devils advocate.

This thread is kind of confusing. Fiscal conservatives favor small government and Obama is the one who wants larger government.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 9/8/08 05:10 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Er... is that really the best you people can do?

Wouldn't a true fiscal conservative just reply that all of those (income distribution, unemployment and affordable health care) are market forces and that, under the guidance of laizzes faire policies the market will sort itself out?

Because, all of this to me, is just problems of the government meddilling in something that they should stay way out of.

[TheMason]

First of all, you have to seperate "fiscal conservatives" from party ID. For example, George Bush is in terms of his economic policy most definately NOT a fiscal conservative. He is something worse than a tax and spend liberal...he is a spend and cut hybrid.

To demonstrate you have to look at what has happened in the economy over the last few years:

1) The .com bubble burst. Over night state and federal budget surpluses became deficits. How? When people lost money on their internet stocks...their investments went from being taxable to being a tax deduction. Without doing anything to tax RATES, tax REVENUE went down. (Not Bush's fault.)

2) A spate of corporate scandals such as Enron and Tycho rocked the financial sector which hurt public faith and confidence in the markets. This suppressed market activity further reducing incoming tax revenues. (Not Bush's fault.)

3) Attempted to protect the steel industry from international competition. The problem with this; we lost more jobs in other sectors than we protected in the steel industry. (Not Bush's fault.)

4) Bush is actually pretty liberal if you stop and think about it. He created a Medicare drug benefit that cost well over $1 Trillion. He spent billions in Africa on AIDS relief. No Child Left Behind was a compromise with Ted Kennedy that spent money like a drunken sailor...but not wisely. In a time of decreasing tax revenues Bush increased spending. Now I know what Bush's critics are going to sing: THE IRAQ WAR! Well...even with OEF and OIF...Social Security and Medicaid are the out of control expenses that is consuming over 50% of the federal budget. (Bush's fault.)

5) Bush then cut taxes when tax revenues were going down and spending was going up. WHAT THE FUCK!!!! This does not make sense. (This is Bush's FATAL mistake.)

Now I'm looking at Obama. Hate to break it to you, but with Obama's plans...the only difference between him and Bush is that Obama will raise your taxes while spending irresponsibly. Thus Obama 1 would be Bush 3.

If you want to challenge "fiscal conservativism" my answer is look at the last eight years when we did not have it and tell me Big Government works.

[Ravariel]

At 9/8/08 06:37 PM, TheMason wrote: Now I'm looking at Obama. Hate to break it to you, but with Obama's plans...the only difference between him and Bush is that Obama will raise your taxes while spending irresponsibly.

Only if "you" make over $250,000 a year. Otherwise it'll reduce your tax burden.

Don't get me wrong, there are other issues with Obama's tax plan (windfall profit tax and estate tax come to mind) but this is not one of them.

Rundown on what the tax plans of both candidates mean for peeps.

We need to cut back spending like crazy... and the Fannie/freddie thing isn't helping (though it'll probably be better for everyone in the long run)... and that's a whole 'nother thread.

[TheMason]

At 9/9/08 12:24 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 9/8/08 06:37 PM, TheMason wrote: Now I'm looking at Obama. Hate to break it to you, but with Obama's plans...the only difference between him and Bush is that Obama will raise your taxes while spending irresponsibly.

Only if "you" make over $250,000 a year. Otherwise it'll reduce your tax burden.

I don't think anyone's tax burden should be reduced right now. And I'm kinda tired of all this anti-rich sentiment about "paying their fair share". The highest incomes pay 35% of their income in taxes. The lowest incomes pay less than 10% (as a grad student making less than $25K last year, my tax burden was 7.5%). Furthermore, it has been proven that the rich pay the bill for the rest of us. This appears to come from a conservative rag but the figures reflect what I have seen in other sources. NG posters like sources, and I didn't want to dig too deeply, so:

"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul-dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per-cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent-those below the median income level-now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don't include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."

Don't get me wrong, there are other issues with Obama's tax plan (windfall profit tax and estate tax come to mind) but this is not one of them.

Rundown on what the tax plans of both candidates mean for peeps.

We need to cut back spending like crazy... and the Fannie/freddie thing isn't helping (though it'll probably be better for everyone in the long run)... and that's a whole 'nother thread.

There are problems with both tax plans and neither candidate gets it right and both candidates will continue us down the track to depression. Obama will get us there faster, I fear. Afterall he wants to introduce spending projects that will equal the military budget (a target of choice among liberals), social security or medicare/aid. His plan will introduce taxes to pay for it. However, he recently came out and said he would not mess with the Bush tax cuts if we were in recession since it would hurt the economy.

Well Mr. Obama does this mean you're going to cut federal spending and do nothing about healthcare? Because if you do not raise taxes...you cannot afford to effect what "change" you want to. You will be making the same stupid policy decisions that Bush had made (hence: Bush 3). Expanding the federal government's scope and size...but not bringing in the revenue to pay for it.

But then the Chinese will probably bail us out...again.

SOURCE: Who pays the taxes.
Great article: The Shockingly Liberal Legacy of George Bush.

[TheMason]

At 9/8/08 05:19 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 9/5/08 10:17 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: - fixing 'poor' income distribution in the united states. [This can also be debunked by showing that the problem is non existent, or in relatively other industrial states of the world, not a problem [When one sets their standards too high everything seems to be a crisis, for example]]

There is an income gap, but 90% of household incomes are within $90,000 of each other. Once you reach the top 1%, which is 330,000 a year, it just jumps from there.

Furthermore the US has a per capita GDP of $45,800. This is eighth in the world. In terms of powerhouse economies we are the only one in the top ten. In rank order:

1) Qatar
2) Luxemborg
3) Bermuda
4) Jersey
5) Norway
6) Brunei
7) Singapore
8) United States
9) Guernsy
10) Cayman Islands

Notice something about the list? No other major powers are on it. I hate to break it to you Smilez my friend, but the "income gap" is political manipulation...and just doesn't exist.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 9/9/08 11:34 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 9/8/08 05:19 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 9/5/08 10:17 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: - fixing 'poor' income distribution in the united states. [This can also be debunked by showing that the problem is non existent, or in relatively other industrial states of the world, not a problem [When one sets their standards too high everything seems to be a crisis, for example]]

There is an income gap, but 90% of household incomes are within $90,000 of each other. Once you reach the top 1%, which is 330,000 a year, it just jumps from there.

Furthermore the US has a per capita GDP of $45,800. This is eighth in the world. In terms of powerhouse economies we are the only one in the top ten. In rank order:

1) Qatar
2) Luxemborg
3) Bermuda
4) Jersey
5) Norway
6) Brunei
7) Singapore
8) United States
9) Guernsy
10) Cayman Islands

Notice something about the list? No other major powers are on it. I hate to break it to you Smilez my friend, but the "income gap" is political manipulation...and just doesn't exist.

I'm not defending my convictions, i'm only seeing if those who dislike big government have a strong backing for why they feel this way. [I'm not one of them]

I said that in arguing a case, you CAN argue that a central planning advocate places expecations too high, and do this by showing the US's current standing, however, you're list of 10 on the bottom was not referenced.

[Der-Lowe]

At 9/9/08 11:34 AM, TheMason wrote: Notice something about the list? No other major powers are on it. I hate to break it to you Smilez my friend, but the "income gap" is political manipulation...and just doesn't exist.

The "income gap" he referred to was a gap in income distribution in the US Economy, not a gap between the average incomes in the US with other countries.