I think you are wrong in believing subsidizing increases affordability.[/quote]
It doesn’t if it prevents real competition from allowing the free market to set prices (as with sugar I believe).
It might under some circumstances – for example, if price subsidies keep small family farmers in business enough to keep agribusinesses from achieving a sufficient monopoly to then raise prices even further (we’re probably beyond that situation now, but it may have been true a generation or so ago). Sort of a broken free market preventing an even more broken free market?
You forgot to mention she runs a Socialist State, one where every resident get a check from taxes you and I pay for.
[/quote]LOL. You keep going, Pitt. You just keep diggin’ yourself a deeper hole. You’re more clueless than I thought.
For those who care, google Alaska Permanent Fund. Rest assured, your Lower 48 taxes are not going into Alaska’s citizens’ pockets.
[/quote]
The lower 48 are paying for their Socialim[/quote]
So then… you should like her… right?[/quote]
I thought you were the one that did not want me to lump all you SO CALLED CONSERVATIVES together, now you think I am a socialist. This is where I think you all are jack offs No offense meant :)[/quote]
HAHA! I’m only lumping you in as a socialist because YOU labeled liberal policy as such. Socialism was YOUR word reference, not mine. But correct me if IÃ??Ã?¢??m wrong, arenÃ??Ã?¢??t you one of the guys that constantly reprimands conservative for calling the current administration socialist.
If what you are talking about in Alaska (which doesn�?�¢??t even appear to be true) is in fact socialist, then so are social security, universal healthcare, the takeover of gm, cap and tax, green energy bill anything, progressive taxation, essentially any social program at all. They are all forms of income redistribution. By your qualifications, all of these things are socialist, right? So it is fair to call liberals socialist?
[/quote]
Personally I do not think all Socialism is bad, just as I think a strong Public Sector is a very good thing. But I can not put the cart before the horse and say that a free market is the best for America or if Government runs all things is the best. Some things like infrastructure, health care, Education, and food should (at least) be subsidized so every body can afford them.[/quote]
I think you are wrong in believing subsidizing increases affordability.[/quote]
I think most people can afford food , most Cities have a section 8 housing program, Higways, electric, schools ( I know they could be better ) all are subsidised or are social programs
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Some things like infrastructure, health care, Education, and food should (at least) be subsidized so every body can afford them.[/quote]
Hence KILLING any and ALL personal drive and ingenuity this country once possessed. This is the core of why Socialism is a bad thing.
I think most people can afford food , most Cities have a section 8 housing program, Higways, electric, schools ( I know they could be better ) all are subsidised or are social programs[/quote]
Say tuition is 5000 a year.
Say we start giving grants to students whom don’t have money.
Demand goes up, price goes up.
Now tuition is 8000 a year. There are going to be a group of people who could have afforded 5000 who cannot afford 8000. Now the really poor can go and people who were just getting by can’t. In addition the poor kid that would have been able to work his way through college is now dependent on a grant to go.
In a situation like this you also end up screwing up other markets. Class size increases, classes taught per prof increase, education quality goes down. As the supply of college grades goes up, demand doesn’t. Now college grads start making less, being under employed, and just plane being un-employed.
You see this kind of fuck ups in pretty much every market.
I think most people can afford food , most Cities have a section 8 housing program, Higways, electric, schools ( I know they could be better ) all are subsidised or are social programs[/quote]
Say tuition is 5000 a year.
Say we start giving grants to students whom don’t have money.
Demand goes up, price goes up.
Now tuition is 8000 a year. There are going to be a group of people who could have afforded 5000 who cannot afford 8000. Now the really poor can go and people who were just getting by can’t. In addition the poor kid that would have been able to work his way through college is now dependent on a grant to go.
In a situation like this you also end up screwing up other markets. Class size increases, classes taught per prof increase, education quality goes down. As the supply of college grades goes up, demand doesn’t. Now college grads start making less, being under employed, and just plane being un-employed.
You see this kind of fuck ups in pretty much every market.[/quote]
This is shown in how each time student loans are increased (ease of obtaining one, max. amounts, etc.) tuition is raised (for other reasons too of course), as does average student debt. Universities/colleges are a business and can’t charge more than the market will bear, else there are too many empty seats.
And as for those schools where the tuition is just utterly astoundingly high and simply an incredible burden on the students or their families, ordinarily the school boasts that half the students or more have their tuition waived on account of their family income.
Gee isn’t that sweet, but it results in the other students being made to pay at LEAST double, even ignoring the effect ND describes above.
The “kindness” to one student winds up being an at least equal extra burden on another. Additionally, the student who can go vs the one who cannot is now the one with a $50K/year family income getting a free ride while the one with the $70K/year family income, who would have been willing to pay were it not for cost being doubled, now cannot go.
The latter is punished for his family producing goods or services that were more valuable and thus earning more.
Oh, but that’s good, isn’t it? It’s socially enlightened.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And as for those schools where the tuition is just utterly astoundingly high and simply an incredible burden on the students or their families, ordinarily the school boasts that half the students or more have their tuition waved on account of their income.
Gee isn’t that sweet, but it results in the other students being made to pay at LEAST double, even ignoring the effect ND describes above.
The “kindness” to one student winds up being an at least equal extra burden on another. Additionally, the student who can go vs the one who cannot, both for financial reasons, is now the one with a $50K/year family income vs the one with the $70K/year family income.
The latter is punished for his family producing goods and services that were more valuable.
Oh, but that’s good, isn’t it?[/quote]
It’s a self-perpetuating spiral – grants/loans increase so tuition increases, necessitating increasing grants/loans, necessitating…
Same with insurance – before everyone had insurance the medical community couldn’t charge whatever they wanted as patients couldn’t afford that out-of-pocket. As insurance became more prevalent prices increased (because the insured patients didn’t care what it cost because insurance paid for it) so insurance became more necessary, etc. etc. until today where costs are out-of-control and competition/free market don’t apply.
-Pushing government controlled health care
I really dont understand the push against national healthcare. People, especially the talking heads, freak out about the unemployment rate, pointing out how it hurts the average American. Well, we could lessen the impact of unemployment on those folks by giving them national healthcare.
Now, perhaps you are mostly concerned with the government controlling healthcare. The only other option is privately controlled healthcare. Wait dont we already have that? And dont people routinely get screwed out of coverage? And cant most poor people not afford that? The point of having a government option is to force the private insurers to lower their rates and provide the best coverage possible so that consumers will chose their product (insurance) over the government plan. This wont affect people who can afford good protection, but will help the financially worse-off to be insured. The only foreseeable downside is for those super-rich fucks who dont want to pay a small (but increased) percentage of their fortune to help those less fortunate.
Pushing cap and trade
Cap and trade on pollution. Duke Energy Chief Executive Jim Rogers and Shell Oil Co President Marvin Odum met moderate lawmakers, seeking ways to push such a bill in the Senate that has made little progress…Nevertheless, some major U.S. companies are pushing for a bill that would include this cap-and-trade system, saying it would create a modern energy economy and thousands of jobs. (Reuters).
But I mean that cap and trade shit sounds terrible. We definitely shouldnt try to limit pollution using market forces (enforced by the government) in a way that increases jobs and helps the economy. Forcing heavily polluting factories to either invest in cleaner technology, or to buy a larger amount of allowable pollution is fucking retarded.
-Bowing to foreign leaders
As opposed to holding their hand for ten minutes straight? I dont really see anything wrong with either action. I think it is a pretty good idea to remain on good terms with the Saudis so we can get our oil.
-Ignoring the Iran problem
Yeah we should go in with troops and topple their government there without careful consideration of a plan, that usually works well.
-Tripling the national debt
National debt in 9/30/2000: 5,674,178,209,886.86
National debt in 9/30/2008: 10,024,724,896,912.49
Who was president during that span? And unless there is some graph out there that Im not finding, the national debt as of today is not $30T, which would be triple the national debt that Obama inherited from Bush. I guess you could say the national debt currently (under Obama) is triple the national debt of 1988. So fuck him.
However, national debt during a recession should go up. In order to get us out of a recession, government spending should increase significantly to stimulate the economy and to pay unemployment benefits. This increase in government spending, combined with the slowed growth of the GDP (which is the definition of a recession), national debt is going to rise. Therefore, the increase in national debt during the Bush years of the last recession (beginning in March 2007) to the beginning of Obamas term (this recession ended in Dec 2009), is wholly justified. But attacking Obama for tripling the national debt is not.
-Failed jobs stimulus package
The jobless rate does indeed continue to rise. However, the recession technically just ended (Dec 2009), and it is typical to see the jobless rate continue to rise for some time after the end of a recession. There is a lag between when a recession ends, and a fall in unemployment. We should see the unemployment rate lower very soon.
-Waffling over sending more troops to Afghanistan (when the lead generals were begging for more)
Bush didnt send enough troops there to begin with, then largely ignored Afghanistan for the remainder of his presidency.
-Letting the White Hose be over run with lobbyist, when he specifically campaigned against such things.
What is the difference in the amount of lobbyists between now and even going back to the H.W. Bush years? Washington is filled with lobbyists and has been for a long time. I dont think there has been a specific change between presidencies, and any conservative (meaning someone who is not going to absolutely revolutionize our government) is going to be stuck with this. It is a problem, but one that probably wont get changed because those lobbyists are powerful, and there would be a large outcry from the opposite party of any president who tried to change this that that president is trying to stifle the other party.
-Not being able to address a 6th grade class without a teleprompter.
Everyone uses a teleprompter. Everyone. except Bill OReilly those fucking thing[s] suck?? hahah
I seem to have missed Cash for Clunkers. Im not sure what you meant by buying assets and destroying them, but Cash for Clunkers certainly didnt work. At least not as planned. Most people bought Toyotas, though, and now everyone wants to return them and jump on the offers from the American automakers…so maybe it did work! hahaa
I think Cash for Clunkers was a brilliant move, providing economic benefit under the guise of environmental protection. It kills two birds with one stone, please two very large and influential lobbies at once (automotive & environmental).
There’s going to be another civil war in this country very sooon…all I know is that even though my opinion basically doesn’t mean squat to anybody “important” I am going to be kicking a fuckload of ass when shit hits the fan.
I consider myself an Independent in all rights to the word…but lately I’ve been understanding more of the conservatives points of views than the liberals.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yes, it’s a tremendous economic benefit to destroy billions of dollars worth of vehicles.[/quote]
The way it was handled, yes.
I’m wondering if it could have been done in a way to be effective. Say restrict the clunkers to those with the very worst mileage/pollution, and restrict the new cars to those with much better gas mileage. Plus efficiently recycling the clunkers for scrap and parts.
I kinda remember studies back when gas prices were relatively high (Carter years?) that it would be more cost effective to buy new cars for everyone who had an old guzzler (cheaper than than drill for the difference in oil). I looked and can’t find any reference of this, and don’t remember how valid the studies were.
No offense meant :)[/quote]