Pro-Hillary Media Bias

[thatfeel]

Planned parenthood is not a public institution. It is a private not-for-profit organization (corporation) that receives over a half billion in federal funds annually.

Implying?

Texas! Your problem. Your fellow Texans elect these people (including your governor). I had no idea that a governor had total control of the Texas budget. No legislators involved at all?

You're basically arguing semantics at this point.

Let's not act like governors can't enact line-item vetoes. But you and I both know in American politics policies represent those who paid the most for the office. So sure, let's play to your semantic point. Legislators that are deep in the pockets of private interests tend to work closely with campaign individuals that also represent their interests in getting them elected. It's not "just a coincidence" that he was our governor and at the same time conveniently sided with legislators that also supported cuts to public education. Don't be naive.

Also, I do my part in exercising my right to vote. But I'm just 1 guy.

 

[Tictac]

I don't like 'big money' or public choice economics interest group crap any more than you do. But if you're going to get the money out, get ALL of it out. So long as one group can throttle another with government, it's just time until people you don't like are doing the throttling.

My naïveté died when I worked in DC during the '86 Tax Reform Act and then continued consulting to people and groups inside the Beltway. They still call me and pay me to look at programs and data and tell them what I see. What they do with it after that would be comical it it didn't screw things up so badly.

You're one guy, so am I, so is each voter. The whole idea of democracy or a democratic republic is that no one of us or small group of us knows what's good for the most of us.

 

[EyeBRollin]

LOL at the socialists who have no logic left and resort to insults.

They really do think Governmemt is more efficient and somehow the solution to everything.

It is more efficient at providing services. That's why fees go up or quality goes down when industries are privatized. Someone has to pay the shareholders.

Well, I did say 'especially' which means not only are you innumerate, you are illiterate too.

Since you deflected to the 'monetary sovereign' track after getting your ass kicked on US public finance and delusional 9/11 Trutherism, you red herring to something else you can type words about but have no comprehension of.

How many insults can you fit in one post?

Insults mean you're losing.

Who was the IMF's first monetary emergency and in what year genius?

Which is tied to our conversation how?

You are a silly, ignorant narcissist. I don't have the time and you don't have the skill to talk about anything involving numbers.

Go watch YouTube reruns of your Truther bullsh*t gibberish. Come back here and type about it making an even bigger fool of yourself.

Fortunately you are of no consequence. Thanks for providing some entertainment as you prance around proudly being ever wrong but never in doubt.

Provide evidence disputing the claims I've made in this thread. Evidence.

1. You did say "defund public institutions", thus there is no strawman.
2. Prove they are trying to cripple the USPS.
3. FedEx and UPS are still making a profit while the USPS struggles to break even at best and lose massive amounts of moneyat worst.

1. Privatization is the goal of the GOP. How many examples do you need? Hold on to your Social Security, they are coming for that too

2. This was already explained. USPS is the only entity, public or private, that has to pre-fund pensions 75 years in advance.

3. FedEx and UPS use the Post Office for non-profitable routes because they are inferior. USPS isn't breaking even because of what was explained in #2.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Profitable institutions do not need public funding.

Then why do they seek government contracts, hmmm?

The Private Sector has no wealth without the Government. Since your the numbers expert, you should know that the total Private Sector wealth is equal to the Federal debt liability. This whole exercise is double-entry accounting, kids.

 

[Tictac]

Insults mean you're losing.

If so, you'd have been done pages back junior. I qualified my statement. You either didn't or couldn't read it. Your problem bud.

And since you are such a brilliant public finance expert, why don't you know that among the first IMF bailouts (for sovereign insolvency) was Great Britain in 1976 when they flushed the pound sterling and took a £4,000,000,000 IMF loan.

Categorical staments like 'sovereign governments cannot become insolvent' are ridiculous. Saying is doesn't make it true. Typing it over and over doesn't make it true. Stamping your feet like an 8 year old whole saying it doesn't make it true.

You cannot refute self declared 'facts' with evidence and then deride those who don't agree with you. Middle school debate club members know that. But not you. True believers like you declare what a fact is and prance around like ninnies when people present alternatives backed up by all kinds of peer reviewed research. You aren't interested in facts or evidence. You want to believe in 9/11 conspiracies. Go ahead. We need the laughs here anyway.

 

[EyeBRollin]

In the US, it is illegal to run a daily courier service with cheaper rates than the USPS. Otherwise, a private one would certainly exist and would easily outperform the USPS.

No, they wouldn't.

 

[Tictac]

No, they wouldn't.

"This isn't an argument, it's contradiction!
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
No it isn't
Yes it is.
Tisn't.
Tis..."
Monty Python.

You're your own old joke.

 

[EyeBRollin]

And since you are such a brilliant public finance expert, why don't you know that among the first IMF bailouts (for sovereign insolvency) was Great Britain in 1976 when they flushed the pound sterling and took a £4,000,000,000 IMF loan.

They didn't flush the pound sterling. It is still used today.

Oopf!

Categorical staments like 'sovereign governments cannot become insolvent' are ridiculous. Saying is doesn't make it true. Typing it over and over doesn't make it true. Stamping your feet like an 8 year old whole saying it doesn't make it true.

You're claim is that a sovereign government with sovereign control over its own fiat currency can become insolvent, thus unable to pay its own bills with its own currency. Read that over a few times and get back to me with how stupid you sound.

You cannot refute self declared 'facts' with evidence and then deride those who don't agree with you. Middle school debate club members know that. But not you. True believers like you declare what a fact is and prance around like ninnies when people present alternatives backed up by all kinds of peer reviewed research. You aren't interested in facts or evidence. You want to believe in 9/11 conspiracies. Go ahead. We need the laughs here anyway.

'

No evidence, yet again.

 

[Tictac]

They didn't flush the pound sterling. It is still used today.

Let me know when you convert a British Poind into sterling.

Take witnesses. It will be the first time it's happened since 1976.

It's a fiat currency now and has been for 40 years.

Sovereigns can 'print money' until the currency is worthless. It can pay its bills in its own currency, IF and on,y if they would be accepted as payment. Now tell me that hasn't happened.

"No evidence yet again". As opposed to your categorical nonsense. When you know how to respond to gibberish with "evidence" (Pro Tip: using your own posts is the best place to find gibberish), let us know will you. You gave no facts to dispute. You blurt out hilarious opinions and call them facts. The only possible response is laughter.

This is your low grade invitation of Pee Wee Herman's 'I know you are but what am I', a favorite of middle school debate club rejects. L

Have fun Pee Wee.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Sovereigns can 'print money' until the currency is worthless. It can pay its bills in its own currency, IF and on,y if they would be accepted as payment. Now tell me that hasn't happened.

Of course it is accepted as payment. No country can tell the US it has to stop paying its own bills in its own currency. That's the whole point of being monetarily sovereign. That's why the US can never become Greece.

I already explained this. A sovereign nation becomes insolvent only through foreign debt or political instability (i.e. losing war). War reparations are foreign debt.

And Jesus Christ, what do you think interest rates and taxes are for? Picking our nose?

"No evidence yet again". As opposed to your categorical nonsense. When you know how to respond to gibberish with "evidence" (Pro Tip: using your own posts is the best place to find gibberish), let us know will you. You gave no facts to dispute. You blurt out hilarious opinions and call them facts. The only possible response is laughter.

This is your low grade invitation of Pee Wee Herman's 'I know you are but what am I', a favorite of middle school debate club rejects. L

Have fun Pee Wee.

 

[Tictac]

So the only sovereign insolvency in recent history is Greece you say. Ignore the British Pound that I explained to you as carefully as you ignored it.

Okay Pee Wee.

 

[thatfeel]

An exchange with government is a one-sided exchange, but you do have a choice. You can opt not to pay your taxes. The potential consequences are: fines, seizure of assets, imprisonment, and if you resist arrest, injury or death. This is how government amasses its wealth - it may remind you of another famous organization.

These are not "consequences" like the consequence of stealing merchandise and getting caught.

Injury and death is a stretch. But otherwise all other reasonable outcomes of not paying your taxes are the terms and agreements you accept, whether you understand it at the time or not, when you agree to accept jobs or compensation from reporting entities that pay out in US dollars. When you agree to purchase land or housing typically those are subject to property tax. If you don't understand the contract you're agreeing to when you do these things and you think that an "exchange with the government is one-sided" you shouldn't be entering these contracts. Without the government there would be no one to enforce land ownership rights, unless you want to do that all by yourself in which case you're basically living with the foxes and lions, aka anarchy.

If you don't agree to the terms you're free to not accept jobs or wages in government issued currency, you're free to not own land or property, and so on and so forth.

 

[thatfeel]

How is the Government more efficient at providing services??? They do not ever need to show a profit or viability, hence they have no manner for really controlling costs.

Look at Obamacare, the involvement of Government has caused costs to skyrocket.

God. The US spends more per capita than any other nation in the world on it's glorious privatized healthcare system and yet somehow still turns out to be one of the worst in providing efficient and quality care. It gets completely wrecked by countries that invest more in the public sector and guess what, have a single payer system.

Complete privatization of public services is not a good thing. Private entities are accountable only to shareholders, governments are accountable to the people. Public and private sector competition would actually be good but the case made by all right wingers is the extreme position of "end the fed".

Again, a great case for limiting the power of Governments so that lobbyists can purchase "favors" like this.

You're basically saying if there's no government to corrupt then there wouldn't be any corruption. Let that simmer in your brain.

I would use the USPS too for money-losing routes, it makes perfect economic sense. But don't assume that those routes are profitable for the USPS. Or if you are, then prove it.

FedEx SmartPost and UPS SurePost are the absolute pinnacle of corporate inefficiency. These two literally are looking to cheap out wherever they can to save a few bucks without passing on any of the savings to the consumer. The package gets dumped onto USPS who then must take an extra day to sort it and then deliver. I highly doubt that it really saves FedEx/UPS much money to not just have the package loaded onto the truck the day it's actually at the warehouse. Instead the consumer gets the short end of the stick and the shipper saves.

"Well the point of a business is to make a profit." unfortunately doesn't matter if the entire basis of your argument is that privatization is always inherently good and more efficient than the public sector.

 

[Tictac]

You're basically saying if there's no government to corrupt then there wouldn't be any corruption. Let that simmer in your brain.

Nice fallacy of absolutes ya got there.

He said 'limited government', not 'no government'.

Literacy is your friend. Read before you reply.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Private companies are accountable to the shareholders....which mean they MUST serve the customers (the people). Moreso they MUST do it without obfuscation (Governments friend).

You mean they must serve the rich people. Ain't no shareholders in the ghetto.

 

[Alvafe]

1. Private companies are accountable to the shareholders....which mean they MUST serve the customers (the people). Moreso they MUST do it without obfuscation (Governments friend).
2. Tictac already corrected you on this. I am saying LIMITED Government, not NO Government.
3. If FedEx and UPS were inefficient, they would be out of business. But apparently they are not. If they are so bad, why are they still in business?

since you are using fed ex and UPS and we do have both here plus the goverment one, I tell you this, in price only the goverment rulled one is ok, but don't expect it to get there on time for anything or if it will get without some damage, but then you see problems with the people who work on it and the time it get for then do anything and since no one can fire then it only make things worse


so lets get down to this left and right the problem is more goverment ahving power and using it to control the population, how to do so?

that is what you need to ask, how you control population, by implanting a ideology who makes everything you do ok, and they have to obey you, so what is more likely for someone to use? a liberal idea of lets makes teh goverment weaker and let people ahve his rights and power to do what they consider right, or lets use a ideology of you need to think about your country, we are a unity, we need to help everyone, so you have to give over 60% of your annual gains to the state so they can, take care of the health system, previdence, security (since well you can't own weapons for self defense), news and such(since well the state will give a lot of money for propaganda saying how good they are) because hey you are a retard who can't take care of yourself.

a fat state means things will not work, chances for corruption will raise becasue the state can't control himself to prevent corruption, see north korea, exteme left, now saying they are using a atomic bomb, even china who is the only ally from North korea is not liking it, see cuba too extreme control over the news and internet is a rare sight there, also in both you can't own land, everything is state, cars in both don't exist. then you can also see venezuela, since teh state decide all commerce owner are trying to steal the poor freeze all the prices so now they have lack of food, basic daily things, even toilet paper are lacking, why simple you can't keep a market making the market buy a item for 10 and sell it for 1.

and don't even let me get on how slavery work is used on china, working over 12 hours a day to get cents of dolar per hour of work, the suicides who happens there is not for "fun"

trust on a dude who lives on a country who is passing over a impeachment process, left does not get anywhere, is just a ideology to control the masses, if captalism failed, communinst don't even survived that long to fail, it just kills people outright

 

[thatfeel]

you have to give over 60% of your annual gains to the state so they can, take care of the health system, previdence, security (since well you can't own weapons for self defense), news and such(since well the state will give a lot of money for propaganda saying how good they are) because hey you are a retard who can't take care of yourself.

The difference in coercion between a 35% top marginal tax rate and 39% is actually pretty trivial. Many inhabitants of the top tax bracket would be happy to play their part in a policy that raised enormous amounts of revenue from those most able to provide it. Even those who would fight tooth and claw to keep the rate low would not actually feel a major change in their quality of life once forced to give up the Bush tax cut. Yet those same billions could mean more robust space exploration or greater subsidy for higher education or better funding for poverty relief initiatives. The coercion of taxation is a negative, but only in minds twisted by ideological extremism is that negative a magical ultimate force that automatically outweighs every possible good that could be accomplished through collective action.

Of course, the real problem with the anti-tax sentiments of right-libertarians is their willful ignorance when it comes to the social context of wealth. Even the ones smart enough to recognize Ayn Rand as an imbecile are still unable to get past the absurd notion that great fortunes spring unaided from sheer acts of will by tycoons. Even for the very few who never benefited from public education and/or business relationships with government entities still should recognize that they are doing business with federally (or internationally) stabilized currency, shipping along public roads, hiring publicly educated workers, etc. That they should be called upon to give back more than 2% of their income in exchange for countless forms of support that make their wealth possible is entirely reasonable.

Yet this petulance extends beyond short-sighted rejection of the state's many legitimate roles in facilitating economic achievement. There is also much willful ignorance when it comes to the indirect benefits of social services that some might characterize as charity. Even those with the funds to buy the best services modern medicine has to offer still have their clothes laundered, their dishes washed, golf clubs caddied, etc. by people who often have little or no access to healthcare.

A proper universal healthcare system not only drives up domestic investment returns by driving down preventable absenteeism and disability, but it also drives down contagion which anyone not living like a Howard Hughes recluse risks on a daily basis. That some people refuse to acknowledge it does not change the fact that everyone in a society is engaged in some level of interdependence. This is just one example of the blunder involved in looking at rising social minima as "charity." To some extent, there is a humanitarian basis for these policies, but there are also many self-serving reasons why the already-rich should support measures that improve the quality of life for the presently-poor . . . even when that support requires a measure of taxation that is involuntary for those who voted against such policies.

 

[Tictac]

The difference in coercion between a 35% top marginal tax rate and 39% is actually pretty trivial. Many inhabitants of the top tax bracket would be happy to play their part in a policy that raised enormous amounts of revenue from those most able to provide it. Even those who would fight tooth and claw to keep the rate low would not actually feel a major change in their quality of life once forced to give up the Bush tax cut. Yet those same billions could mean more robust space exploration or greater subsidy for higher education or better funding for poverty relief initiatives. The coercion of taxation is a negative, but only in minds twisted by ideological extremism is that negative a magical ultimate force that automatically outweighs every possible good that could be accomplished through collective action.

Of course, the real problem with the anti-tax sentiments of right-libertarians is their willful ignorance when it comes to the social context of wealth. Even the ones smart enough to recognize Ayn Rand as an imbecile are still unable to get past the absurd notion that great fortunes spring unaided from sheer acts of will by tycoons. Even for the very few who never benefited from public education and/or business relationships with government entities still should recognize that they are doing business with federally (or internationally) stabilized currency, shipping along public roads, hiring publicly educated workers, etc. That they should be called upon to give back more than 2% of their income in exchange for countless forms of support that make their wealth possible is entirely reasonable.

Yet this petulance extends beyond short-sighted rejection of the state's many legitimate roles in facilitating economic achievement. There is also much willful ignorance when it comes to the indirect benefits of social services that some might characterize as charity. Even those with the funds to buy the best services modern medicine has to offer still have their clothes laundered, their dishes washed, golf clubs caddied, etc. by people who often have little or no access to healthcare.

A proper universal healthcare system not only drives up domestic investment returns by driving down preventable absenteeism and disability, but it also drives down contagion which anyone not living like a Howard Hughes recluse risks on a daily basis. That some people refuse to acknowledge it does not change the fact that everyone in a society is engaged in some level of interdependence. This is just one example of the blunder involved in looking at rising social minima as "charity." To some extent, there is a humanitarian basis for these policies, but there are also many self-serving reasons why the already-rich should support measures that improve the quality of life for the presently-poor . . . even when that support requires a measure of taxation that is involuntary for those who voted against such policies.

Lotta words for not much sense. Government is essential, for limited things. And business and government have always existed together. The people that commenced our modern governments 'consent of the governed' agreed to transfer to government certain things to do under the presumption that it would be better for all. So far, so good.

Great fortunes do spring forth from tycoons unaided. By the time the US government paid any attention to Microsoft, it had a market capitalization about equal to GMs. The examples of other 'tycoons' (cute word) are too numerous to list.

As for the 'Bush tax cuts' they became Obama's the day he first signed their extension (untouched) to this day (with some adjustments allowed by Congress on Obama's third extension).

If you think what we have now is anything like capitalism you are wrong. Since about Woodrow Wilson's time, government and big business, slightly later big labor, fused together into crony capitalism and has been getting worse ever since. No one in DC in government or those who cater to them give a rat's ass about citizens, voters or taxpayers.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Bernie won Wisconsin today. All eyes are on New York, two weeks from now. It's a must-win for both Hillary and Bernie.

 

[Alvafe]

The difference in coercion between a 35% top marginal tax rate and 39% is actually pretty trivial. Many inhabitants of the top tax bracket would be happy to play their part in a policy that raised enormous amounts of revenue from those most able to provide it. Even those who would fight tooth and claw to keep the rate low would not actually feel a major change in their quality of life once forced to give up the Bush tax cut. Yet those same billions could mean more robust space exploration or greater subsidy for higher education or better funding for poverty relief initiatives. The coercion of taxation is a negative, but only in minds twisted by ideological extremism is that negative a magical ultimate force that automatically outweighs every possible good that could be accomplished through collective action.

Of course, the real problem with the anti-tax sentiments of right-libertarians is their willful ignorance when it comes to the social context of wealth. Even the ones smart enough to recognize Ayn Rand as an imbecile are still unable to get past the absurd notion that great fortunes spring unaided from sheer acts of will by tycoons. Even for the very few who never benefited from public education and/or business relationships with government entities still should recognize that they are doing business with federally (or internationally) stabilized currency, shipping along public roads, hiring publicly educated workers, etc. That they should be called upon to give back more than 2% of their income in exchange for countless forms of support that make their wealth possible is entirely reasonable.

Yet this petulance extends beyond short-sighted rejection of the state's many legitimate roles in facilitating economic achievement. There is also much willful ignorance when it comes to the indirect benefits of social services that some might characterize as charity. Even those with the funds to buy the best services modern medicine has to offer still have their clothes laundered, their dishes washed, golf clubs caddied, etc. by people who often have little or no access to healthcare.

A proper universal healthcare system not only drives up domestic investment returns by driving down preventable absenteeism and disability, but it also drives down contagion which anyone not living like a Howard Hughes recluse risks on a daily basis. That some people refuse to acknowledge it does not change the fact that everyone in a society is engaged in some level of interdependence. This is just one example of the blunder involved in looking at rising social minima as "charity." To some extent, there is a humanitarian basis for these policies, but there are also many self-serving reasons why the already-rich should support measures that improve the quality of life for the presently-poor . . . even when that support requires a measure of taxation that is involuntary for those who voted against such policies.

you just forget one thing, it don't work like that, what I describe and what you quoted is what is on my country, if you put a percent of your gains for everyone who get paid more will pay more taxes that is ok, the problem is they won't do it, the ones who get the most money are politicians, and they don't produce anything, they are parasites, and they jsut want to keep they power, so they will keep the whole things on bare minimum and if people die for lack of a working healthy system who is not over loaded, also take note the really good professionals on any area will try working on private company, why? better carrer plan and better pay, the ones who work for goverment are normally people who can't produce much and need that stability with is given to any goverment employee, they can't be fired for not working right, its like a snow ball.

you need to understand this too, if you give people who don't know how they can control they money it will not help then, in fact they will go even more broke becasue they can't control they spending, I know people who are paid far more then me and don't ahve money because they spend it all on useless things, and when they want to do something diferent they can't for lack of money, or even worse get more debt to do so.

most of you wanted to fix or left ideals to fix would be far more usefull if invested on education, not only the basic ones but a little more and remove most bias from religion and other ideologies, with most teachers can't do, most have left inclinations, I hate history teachers telling me being a slave was better then be a salary men

now remember when you start to pay over 80% of a product or service price being tax only if you can keep what you wish for without a problem., just so you know gasoline here on my country is on goverment control, im paying now around 4 per liter of gas, a full tank i'm spending around 110,120 each 2-3 weeks, now if i'm not mistaken on US all refinary and gas is private company who do the work, you pay somewhere around 2 per galon right? so per liter you should be paying cents. so are you sure having teh goverment put his hands on things a good thing? its just to keep people under control