Greatest thread to human civilization : capitalist greed - Stephen Hawkin

[bripat9643]

Lying? Do you mean like the President when he said "if you like your doctor . . " knowing it wasn't the truth?

For 97% of Americans that was true. A statement that is 97% true hardly qualifies as the lie of the year.

It does when the claim of PERIOD was part of it. That means 100%.

For something to be a lie, it only has to apply to ONE situation when the claim was it wouldn't apply to any.

The only reason something like Obamacare got put in place is because you bleeding hearts who think people who don't have something are owed it aren't willing to do it yourself. You think if you want it, the rest of us should support it.

Health care in America was an issue over 100 years ago. HRC & President Clinton tried and failed to reform a system which was too costly and left to many people in the gutter. They failed, Obama and Pelosi did not.

Fools believe what was passed is Socialism, others feed this ignorance for political advantage, and yet the drug and insurance industries seem content.

Before the PPACA chaos existed: the poor and uninsured were treated at great cost in the ER's, and once stable they were transferred to public hospitals, putting great pressure on the budgets of local government. Health insurance policies rose every year by double digits for those of us insured, and deductibles and the cost of meds did too.

Can the problems with the PPACA be fixed, Yes! and they should be, but not by a Congress or another Bush in the Oval. Those who say they want to destroy it are lying - if they ever repeal it chaos on steroids will be the result.

When as large of a percentage get subsidies funded by someone else to buy what they say they couldn't afford before and it's a result of what you support, it is socialism.

Anything like Obamacare needs to be done away and let those of you who believe someone without healthcare coverage deserves it pay their premiums with your own money. If you aren't willing to provide to them personally what you say the rest of us should be forced to do, you have no argument. Taxpayers don't owe them coverage.

Your definition of socialism is yours alone.

Taxpayers pay for the uninsured and did so well before the passage of the PPACA. That you don't understand that simple fact is proof positive you too are clueless.

Yep, socialism. The fact that government has done something in the past doesn't make it right.

 

[Brain357]

They[Republicans] have the majority and you have a lot of excuses.

too stupid!!! A veto is not an excuse!!

Does the liberal have the IQ to understand?

What have they even proposed? What has been vetoed? You are too accepting of incompetence.

 

[bripat9643]

When as large of a percentage get subsidies funded by someone else to buy what they say they couldn't afford before and it's a result of what you support, it is socialism.

Anything like Obamacare needs to be done away and let those of you who believe someone without healthcare coverage deserves it pay their premiums with your own money. If you aren't willing to provide to them personally what you say the rest of us should be forced to do, you have no argument. Taxpayers don't owe them coverage.

Your definition of socialism is yours alone.

Taxpayers pay for the uninsured and did so well before the passage of the PPACA. That you don't understand that simple fact is proof positive you too are clueless.

It involves redistribution of wealth and that is a major tenet of socialism. Try looking it up.

I understand that taxpayers paid for it before. It was wrong then. Since Obamacare did nothing to change that fact, what good did it do to solve the problem of one person being forced to support another? Like I said, if you aren't willing to voluntarily do what you say is OK to force others to do, that's proof you're nothing more than a loud mouth bleeding heart good for nothing.
Tell me why taxpayers should be forced to fund healthcare for anyone? What's wrong with those of you who say someone that doesn't have getting it funding it yourself?

Your ideological beliefs are not in concert with the vast majority of our citizens; that you are a loud and proud callous conservatives is your right, but it is morally indefensible.

I'm not surprised a bunch of socialist aren't willing to admit what they support is socialist.

If a vast majority of people said 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it so?

It's not morally defensible to force one person to support another yet you defend it daily?

Socialism has saved civilization. Socialism has reined in capitalism. That had to be done.

How did socialism save civilization? Precisely the opposite is the case.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What have they even proposed? .

100% stupid and liberal as always!! They have proposed Balanced Budget Amendments, govt shut downs, debt ceilings, killing Obamacare, privatized SS, vouchers for education, tax cuts etc etc

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??

 

[bripat9643]

It involves redistribution of wealth and that is a major tenet of socialism. Try looking it up.

I understand that taxpayers paid for it before. It was wrong then. Since Obamacare did nothing to change that fact, what good did it do to solve the problem of one person being forced to support another? Like I said, if you aren't willing to voluntarily do what you say is OK to force others to do, that's proof you're nothing more than a loud mouth bleeding heart good for nothing.
Tell me why taxpayers should be forced to fund healthcare for anyone? What's wrong with those of you who say someone that doesn't have getting it funding it yourself?

Your ideological beliefs are not in concert with the vast majority of our citizens; that you are a loud and proud callous conservatives is your right, but it is morally indefensible.

I'm not surprised a bunch of socialist aren't willing to admit what they support is socialist.

If a vast majority of people said 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it so?

It's not morally defensible to force one person to support another yet you defend it daily?

Socialism has saved civilization. Socialism has reined in capitalism. That had to be done.

So your morals are OK to force on others?

My morals? You don't get it at all. Callous disregard for the poor, aged, young and invalid is by its very nature immoral. It's not my morals, it was true and old when Socrates walked on the earth.

There's nothing moral about forcing others to pay for you pet causes and calling it "charity." When you contribute your own money to the poor, then you can call yourself "moral." Otherwise you're just a sanctimonious thug.

 

[bripat9643]

It really has been fascinating to watch during Obama's term, as the hardcore Left has become FAR more comfortable with defending and promoting socialism.

His administration really has been a turning point.
.

Examples of "promoting socialism" seem to be missing. Please elucidate with examples.

Oh, and I would like someone to detail how the private for profit sector is always better, cheaper and more effective than a government agency.

Hmmm, can you give a single example of where it isn't?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How did socialism save civilization? .

Well, it did slowly starve to death 120 million souls. That was proof positive that socialism is the most evil force in all of human history. Only the retarded and liberals find
the lesson too complex to grasp!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Otherwise you're just a sanctimonious thug.

its true, nothing justifies liberal violence more than their sanctimony!!

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."--- C.S. Lewis

 

[bripat9643]

Your post does not account for the Wackernagel Effect or Moore's Law in calculating ballistic coefficients off the meplat.
SOrry. That's a fail, son.

You've been knocked out and you're swinging at nursing staff next week.

LOL. Come back when you'ev studied the implications of the Pitt Doctrine on entropy and can bring some actual knowledge here.

I took some econ. This doesn't change our policy, how it works, what it is and that it works exceptionally for our economy, where you're wrong and failed in refuting.

LOL! You took "some Econ." Yeah, you blew an Econ major in the bathroom is probably what you meant.
Your posts indicate deep ignorance of the Bernouli Curve and Stromboli Theorem.

oh no. A peerless, unemployed professor draws curves that makes him conclude that protection doesn't include exports, no matter what reality says.

Protection doesn't include exports because of the definition of protection, nimrod. Who does limiting exports "protect?"

 

[bripat9643]

100% stupid it was not until the 20th Century that medicine could be helpful at all. Before that there was very very little

Ed Jenner invented the vaccines in 1776. Waaay before 20th century.

:"the vaccines." The Salk Vaccine was invented in 1776? The papillomavirus vaccine was invented in 1776? Or do you mean one specific vaccine, namely smallpox, that was invented then? Because you are committing a fallcy here.

The first vaccine. That established the base work for the rest of the vaccines, more were created during the XIX century and further development was made during the XX century.
Timeline of vaccines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

capitalism created the wealth and population that made medical research possible on a huge scale!! In the Civil War for example if you got wounded you died. Simple

Stop with the superlatives.

Tens of thousands were wounded that lived. Many simply recovered, many had limbs amputated. Its laughable to see anyone make these shrill ITS ALL OF EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME assertions. Relax. Present actual facts, dump some water on your head to put the fire out, and speak calmly.

Advancements in most fields were brought about because individual human beings had a passion for the thing they were working on or researching, not because they had a huge pile of money.

Let's have some clarity among the flailing of hands shall we.

Wrong. Most advances occurred because people knew they could make a huge pile of money.

 

[bripat9643]

Examples of "promoting socialism" seem to be missing. Please elucidate with examples.

Oh, and I would like someone to detail how the private for profit sector is always better, cheaper and more effective than a government agency.

The private, for profit sector must constantly look out for waste. If they have a lot of waste, it cuts into their profit. A government agency only needs a politician to push for more funding and raising taxes to provide more money. A business can raise prices but only to a point. If the government raises taxes, what option do people have but pay them. For example, if the local school district wants more money, they raise the millage rate to get more money and it comes in property taxes. If you don't pay those property taxes, even if you own the property, it can be taken.

The private sector can collude with its competition to set prices and raise them with no explanation or only a flimsy excuse. The Private sector is not beholden to the people, a legislator who violates the trust of his constituency can be kicked out of office, a CEO can't be held accountable by The People; but The People's representatives can in terms of criminal and civil sanctions.

We live in a nation, as do most who live in Western Democracies, where the public and private sectors co-exist. They do so when it benefits The People.

There is no proof we get a better deal from the private sector than we do from the public one. There are more checks on public works than on private ones and most government brick and mortar projects are done by private firms who bid on the projects.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were tossed under the bus for good reason.

Wow thats quite a country you live. I should visit it sometime.
In the US companies compete with each other and do not collude on prices. The few examples that are publicized of collusion are publicized precisely because they are few. And the US is prosecuting them.
How many legislators are kicked out of office for violating public trust? Yeah none.
THere is no accountability in public works. How many people were fired in the Obamacare website fiasco? Yeah, none. There is your accountability.

Government contractors are Private Sector, not Public servants. And as a home owner (several in fact) and Public Service Manager I've found private sector contractors to be less responsible and more dishonest than the public employees.

ROFL! I've seen public employees sleeping on the job.

You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

 

[Programmer]

You've been knocked out and you're swinging at nursing staff next week.

LOL. Come back when you'ev studied the implications of the Pitt Doctrine on entropy and can bring some actual knowledge here.

I took some econ. This doesn't change our policy, how it works, what it is and that it works exceptionally for our economy, where you're wrong and failed in refuting.

LOL! You took "some Econ." Yeah, you blew an Econ major in the bathroom is probably what you meant.
Your posts indicate deep ignorance of the Bernouli Curve and Stromboli Theorem.

oh no. A peerless, unemployed professor draws curves that makes him conclude that protection doesn't include exports, no matter what reality says.

Protection doesn't include exports because of the definition of protection, nimrod. Who does limiting exports "protect?"

I'm referring to the trade restriction on exporting crude oil. This policy benefits US refiners and is part of our energy and national security policy. It's a very significant player when it comes to the price of energy. Our strategic oil reserves play roles from national security to currency here in the U.S.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL. Come back when you'ev studied the implications of the Pitt Doctrine on entropy and can bring some actual knowledge here.

I took some econ. This doesn't change our policy, how it works, what it is and that it works exceptionally for our economy, where you're wrong and failed in refuting.

LOL! You took "some Econ." Yeah, you blew an Econ major in the bathroom is probably what you meant.
Your posts indicate deep ignorance of the Bernouli Curve and Stromboli Theorem.

oh no. A peerless, unemployed professor draws curves that makes him conclude that protection doesn't include exports, no matter what reality says.

Protection doesn't include exports because of the definition of protection, nimrod. Who does limiting exports "protect?"

I'm referring to the trade restriction on exporting crude oil. This policy benefits US refiners and is part of our energy and national security policy. It's a very significant player when it comes to the price of energy. Our strategic oil reserves play roles from national security to currency here in the U.S.

How does restricting oil exports benefit U.S. refineries?

 

[Programmer]

I took some econ. This doesn't change our policy, how it works, what it is and that it works exceptionally for our economy, where you're wrong and failed in refuting.

LOL! You took "some Econ." Yeah, you blew an Econ major in the bathroom is probably what you meant.
Your posts indicate deep ignorance of the Bernouli Curve and Stromboli Theorem.

oh no. A peerless, unemployed professor draws curves that makes him conclude that protection doesn't include exports, no matter what reality says.

Protection doesn't include exports because of the definition of protection, nimrod. Who does limiting exports "protect?"

I'm referring to the trade restriction on exporting crude oil. This policy benefits US refiners and is part of our energy and national security policy. It's a very significant player when it comes to the price of energy. Our strategic oil reserves play roles from national security to currency here in the U.S.

How does restricting oil exports benefit U.S. refineries?

This promotes localizing refinement of our oil to the United States in the first place. There's always going to be competition for U.S. refiners, but there's always going to be a market. Essentially this makes BP a US refinery when they want to exploit our resources. Before this Rabbi guy got all crazy, I made the point that consumer economies (of which energy we are) favor contrary trade policy to export driven economies.

 

[Andylusion]

It involves redistribution of wealth and that is a major tenet of socialism. Try looking it up.

I understand that taxpayers paid for it before. It was wrong then. Since Obamacare did nothing to change that fact, what good did it do to solve the problem of one person being forced to support another? Like I said, if you aren't willing to voluntarily do what you say is OK to force others to do, that's proof you're nothing more than a loud mouth bleeding heart good for nothing.
Tell me why taxpayers should be forced to fund healthcare for anyone? What's wrong with those of you who say someone that doesn't have getting it funding it yourself?

Your ideological beliefs are not in concert with the vast majority of our citizens; that you are a loud and proud callous conservatives is your right, but it is morally indefensible.

I'm not surprised a bunch of socialist aren't willing to admit what they support is socialist.

If a vast majority of people said 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it so?

It's not morally defensible to force one person to support another yet you defend it daily?

Socialism has saved civilization. Socialism has reined in capitalism. That had to be done.

So your morals are OK to force on others?

My morals? You don't get it at all. Callous disregard for the poor, aged, young and invalid is by its very nature immoral. It's not my morals, it was true and old when Socrates walked on the earth.

It's the left that has a callous disregard for the poor, not the right.

Conservatives routinely are more generous and charitable than the left-wing. The left wing assumes that government should help the poor, not them. Thus they rarely give to charity, or anyone.

Moreover, you don't see left-wingers ever saying that they themselves should pay more tax to fund these programs, but instead claim that "the 1% should pay more!".

So not only do they not support charity directly, but they don't even support the programs they claim are there for the poor.

In short, left-wingers are routinely, and consistently the least caring people on the planet.

 

[Brain357]

What have they even proposed? .

100% stupid and liberal as always!! They have proposed Balanced Budget Amendments, govt shut downs, debt ceilings, killing Obamacare, privatized SS, vouchers for education, tax cuts etc etc

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??

Balanced budget and cut taxes? Haha. Gov shut downs? You must be joking.

 

[Andylusion]

It really has been fascinating to watch during Obama's term, as the hardcore Left has become FAR more comfortable with defending and promoting socialism.

His administration really has been a turning point.
.

Examples of "promoting socialism" seem to be missing. Please elucidate with examples.

Oh, and I would like someone to detail how the private for profit sector is always better, cheaper and more effective than a government agency.

The fact the USPS has a legal monopoly, and hasn't made a profit would seem to be one indication.

Another would be Amtrak that has never made a profit.

The largest bank bail out of the entire sub-prime crisis was Freddie and Fannie, would be another.

How many examples would you like?

 

[Andylusion]

Its so amusing to see posters on a message board calling Stephen Hawking an idiot. He is the Einstein of our age.

He is right of course. I would add all the rest is just talk as Global Warming is the one thing we will not stop and have never seen before. Physics and chemistry are about to decide which species survive the next mass extinction, which has already begun, and which will go gone. Humans will likely suffer massive losses and if not go extinct come perilously close.

The worst part is most humans don't have a clue about what is coming and soon to arrive. Much like the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Something wicked this way comes.

Ya. I was struck by that, too. What I will say is if one believes that the world can be a better place, and one knows the history of unfettered capitalism, then intelligent people would acknowledge that capitalism needs to be tempered... tempered by wage and hour laws; tempered by child labor laws; tempered by OSHA regulations; tempered by laws preventing monopolies.

ony people who are very ignorant or who have no sense of social responsibility think that capitalism should be unfettered. so it isn't surprising that Stephen hawking, someone who has spent his life studying the way our world works, would understand some of that. I don't know how far he goes in those beliefs though. It's an interesting discussion to have.... well, except when one has it with people who are so ignorant that they fancy themselves smarter than Stephen hawking.

Social Responsibility is what dictators use to oppress the public.

Unfettered Capitalism, is what socialists call socialism that doesn't work, so they can promote more socialism. Unfettered Capitalism is what built this country, and quite frankly, the standard of living in this country rose faster in the 1800s than it has in the 'regulated' capitalism of the 1900s, and now we're going broke.

 

[Brain357]

Its so amusing to see posters on a message board calling Stephen Hawking an idiot. He is the Einstein of our age.

He is right of course. I would add all the rest is just talk as Global Warming is the one thing we will not stop and have never seen before. Physics and chemistry are about to decide which species survive the next mass extinction, which has already begun, and which will go gone. Humans will likely suffer massive losses and if not go extinct come perilously close.

The worst part is most humans don't have a clue about what is coming and soon to arrive. Much like the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Something wicked this way comes.

Ya. I was struck by that, too. What I will say is if one believes that the world can be a better place, and one knows the history of unfettered capitalism, then intelligent people would acknowledge that capitalism needs to be tempered... tempered by wage and hour laws; tempered by child labor laws; tempered by OSHA regulations; tempered by laws preventing monopolies.

ony people who are very ignorant or who have no sense of social responsibility think that capitalism should be unfettered. so it isn't surprising that Stephen hawking, someone who has spent his life studying the way our world works, would understand some of that. I don't know how far he goes in those beliefs though. It's an interesting discussion to have.... well, except when one has it with people who are so ignorant that they fancy themselves smarter than Stephen hawking.

Social Responsibility is what dictators use to oppress the public.

Unfettered Capitalism, is what socialists call socialism that doesn't work, so they can promote more socialism. Unfettered Capitalism is what built this country, and quite frankly, the standard of living in this country rose faster in the 1800s than it has in the 'regulated' capitalism of the 1900s, and now we're going broke.

Show that is true.

 

[Andylusion]

Whatever it was that was keeping the pro-socialism and anti-capitalist voices down clearly isn't doing so any more. This should be interesting. .

IMHO Economic times get tough and the socialist "gub'mint take someone elses shit and gimme free stuff!" mentality comes to the surface, times get good and all of sudden everyone is pro-capitalism again.

Of course if gub'mint would stop attempting to manipulate the marketplace so much times would never get so tough in the first place......

In my sick little world, the success of most endeavors hinges on the identification of, and respect for, equilibrium. Personally, and I don't think we're going to agree on this, it looks pretty clear to me that we have lost the equilibrium that is required to keep capitalism functioning at an optimum level for all. In other words, yeah, the disparity between top and bottom is too large right now to maintain a healthy society for long, and we're seeing that manifest.

But here's what scares me: As you point out, we tend to knee-jerk, maybe that's a standard human frailty. And what concerns me is this current push towards a Euro-socialist system will go too far.

On a spectrum, and we'll disagree on this too, I'm about half way between where we are now and a Euro-socialist system. BUT I can easily see the Left gaining TOO much momentum and taking it too far.

There, chew on THAT one for a minute.
.

========
The pendulum swings both ways. It has been on the Conservative side much longer than normal and it is way overdue to swing back to the Liberal side. Excesses of unregulated capitalism have brought us the last depression with the stock market problems and banking system problems --- all traceable to unrestrained greed and unregulated capitalism.

No, ignorance is the problem. The fact you blame unregulated capitalism, when the banking system is the absolute most regulated aspect of our economy, is case and point.