Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Economy

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-22-2011, 03:49 PM
noonereal noonereal is offline
Abby Normal
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
I suggest its not reasonable because it will only happen when the next ice age reaches hell.
I agree of course but that does not change the morality of it. Also if the teabaggers abandon reality in politics, if they were socially conscious and educated my proposal could be their platform and I would join. Of course they would lose Fox as a sponsor.

Quote:
Hmmm...we've got a Prez willing to choke off oil exploration and leave us at the mercy of other countries for our oil supplies.
This is your usual unrelated nonsense.

Quote:
All the while he's pursuing a dubious energy strategy that has caused gas prices to creep upward (that's right, Bush and his Halliburton buddies are no longer in office to blame the run up in oil prices on), essentially funding his pursuit of alternative energy "on the backs of the poor."

They set the template in place, now the oil companies and wall street simply plug in.


Quote:
Increasing oil prices eventually filter through the economy, and increase the price of finished goods as well as food prices. Looks like the poor are gonna get hit again.
This is not what we were talking about but this is accurate. The Bush figure prints are evident.

Quote:
Oh yeah, and the poor are still asked to pony up for Senators and their boondoggles: that latest finding Harry Reid and company on a joy ride paid for by the poor so Reid can go rub elbows with his casino buddies.
Again, as usual off subject but to be expected. what you don't get Whell is that I don't care how my POL is labeled, if he does something not suited to the betterment of the country I don't defend him. I am not at all like you where party comes before country.


Thanks for the link but I am done with reading your links. I have wasted much too much time on that road. Speak for yourself.

thanks
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-22-2011, 04:23 PM
d-ray657's Avatar
d-ray657 d-ray657 is offline
Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
It's also nice to know that the House of Representatives will spend our tax dollars to protect the sacred concept of marriage from, well, you know, those folks. Hey, what's 500 grand here and there?

Regards,

D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-23-2011, 08:27 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
This is your usual unrelated nonsense.
thanks
Right. Don't let the facts get in the way.

Actually, the response it right on point. You want to claim that conservatives cut spending on the backs of the poor or the working class. Its senseless rhetoric, as if reductions in government spending only come at the expense of a certain group of people.

How can it be that increases in government spending only benefit the poor, and reductions in tax burden or reductions in spending only benefit the rich? How can it be that (the argument is made by some on this forum) we must tax the rich because they make the heaviest use of infrastructure, but decreasing government spending then hurts the poor the most? How can it be that unemployment benefits are stimulative (as the left would have us believe), but the idea that the government returning capital to the free market so that it can be put to productive use is not stimulative? How can it be that record levels of consumer debt is "bad", but record levels of public debt should be allowed to increase unabated? How can it be that health care for a fee managed in the private managed in the private sector is too expensive largely due to overconsumption and government interference in the marketplace, but single payer unrestricted access to medical care will be less expensive and more efficient (and free of political considerations which may impact delivery of services)?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-23-2011, 09:03 AM
d-ray657's Avatar
d-ray657 d-ray657 is offline
Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Right. Don't let the facts get in the way.

Actually, the response it right on point. You want to claim that conservatives cut spending on the backs of the poor or the working class. Its senseless rhetoric, as if reductions in government spending only come at the expense of a certain group of people.

How can it be that increases in government spending only benefit the poor, and reductions in tax burden or reductions in spending only benefit the rich? How can it be that (the argument is made by some on this forum) we must tax the rich because they make the heaviest use of infrastructure, but decreasing government spending then hurts the poor the most? How can it be that unemployment benefits are stimulative (as the left would have us believe), but the idea that the government returning capital to the free market so that it can be put to productive use is not stimulative? How can it be that record levels of consumer debt is "bad", but record levels of public debt should be allowed to increase unabated? How can it be that health care for a fee managed in the private managed in the private sector is too expensive largely due to overconsumption and government interference in the marketplace, but single payer unrestricted access to medical care will be less expensive and more efficient (and free of political considerations which may impact delivery of services)?
Objection. The questions assume facts not in evidence.

Regards,

D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-23-2011, 09:11 AM
noonereal noonereal is offline
Abby Normal
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Right. Don't let the facts get in the way.

you presented no facts as always, you presented an unrelated link
your game continues

Quote:
Actually, the response it right on point. You want to claim that conservatives cut spending on the backs of the poor or the working class. Its senseless rhetoric, as if reductions in government spending only come at the expense of a certain group of people.
get a clue, the less you have the more it hurts when you receive less

I just don't get you insistence on blind devotion to the robber barons.

Have you ever reflected on this in private or therapy? Would you like to explore it in PM? I may be able to guide you to some self awareness.

Quote:
How can it be that increases in government spending only benefit the poor, and reductions in tax burden or reductions in spending only benefit the rich?
How could you of not noticed that I do not play this game with you?


Quote:
How can it be that (the argument is made by some on this forum) we must tax the rich because they make the heaviest use of infrastructure, but decreasing government spending then hurts the poor the most?
I was just listening to the Rolling Stones.

Quote:
How can it be that unemployment benefits are stimulative (as the left would have us believe), but the idea that the government returning capital to the free market so that it can be put to productive use is not stimulative?
this is common sense.


Quote:
How can it be that record levels of consumer debt is "bad", but record levels of public debt should be allowed to increase unabated?
Who is it that advocates this? Your imaginary liberal?


Quote:
How can it be that health care for a fee managed in the private managed in the private sector is too expensive largely due to overconsumption and government interference in the marketplace, but single payer unrestricted access to medical care will be less expensive and more efficient (and free of political considerations which may impact delivery of services)?

That's a mouthful but I think what you are trying to say is that you don't understand that government can run healthcare more cheaply than private insurance. You should read up on it then. It's really simple enough to figure out on your own and we have a terrific model , Medicare available for you to look at.




Whell, you never learn here. Never. I believe you are the only poster here that I have learned nothing from and has learned nothing in his time here. Unless you engage in discussion you will continue to stay stagnant. That is ashame because this is clearly not an intellect problem but rather a choice.
Understanding why you have cut yourself off from reason in political regards may be of benefit to you.

I am gonna throw on some more Stones myself.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-23-2011, 09:14 AM
BlueStreak's Avatar
BlueStreak BlueStreak is offline
Area Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
Coffees ready! WooHoo! Nothing like a good Hawaiian blend in the French Press!

Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-23-2011, 09:28 AM
noonereal noonereal is offline
Abby Normal
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak View Post
Coffees ready! WooHoo! Nothing like a good Hawaiian blend in the French Press!

Dave
i am gonna go with a little goat's head soup this morning.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-23-2011, 10:23 AM
merrylander's Avatar
merrylander merrylander is offline
Resident octogenarian
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
The facts are that Canada's Single Payer plan has less overhead than Blue Cross/Blue Shield spends in just the state of Masachussets. It also does not have any seven figure executives and bargains prices with Big Pharma, example Florence's BP medication is $599 for a 90 day supply, in Canada it is under $250. Novartis must still be making a profit at those prices because they still supply the Canadian market. We so enjoy being screwed that we keep spreading the myth that America is paying for all the research. If you believe that line of malarkey we are having a special on the Bay Bridge next week. Does this answer your How come?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt

Last edited by merrylander; 04-23-2011 at 11:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-23-2011, 10:35 AM
BlueStreak's Avatar
BlueStreak BlueStreak is offline
Area Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
i am gonna go with a little goat's head soup this morning.
"Angie, Angie, when will those clouds all disappear?"

Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-23-2011, 01:50 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
get a clue, the less you have the more it hurts when you receive less
Well, if that's your logic, they don't you think the government is being cruel and heartless by doling out a mere pittance, and keeping the poor in poverty? Why not just pay out $50K a year to anyone who falls below a particular income level. Or why not just raise minimum wage so that everyone can make at least $50K per year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
That's a mouthful but I think what you are trying to say is that you don't understand that government can run healthcare more cheaply than private insurance. You should read up on it then. It's really simple enough to figure out on your own and we have a terrific model , Medicare available for you to look at.
If Medicare is your model of a efficient and solvent system, then it no wonder you think single payer is a wonderful thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
Whell, you never learn here. Never. I believe you are the only poster here that I have learned nothing from and has learned nothing in his time here. Unless you engage in discussion you will continue to stay stagnant. That is ashame because this is clearly not an intellect problem but rather a choice.
Understanding why you have cut yourself off from reason in political regards may be of benefit to you.
Projection. Very interesting.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.