The three main goals of libertarianism

[Quantum Windbag]

The ONE main goal of libertarianism: Sell out all of America to a small group of oligarchs.

Too bad you folks did a good job of selling us out to china and outsourcing tons of jobs overseas. Yes, Granny, our corporate taxes are the highest in the world. Who in their right minds would want to set up shop here, and employ people when they would never be able to survive the pressure of our business environment?

The main goal of liberalism is to tax the rich out of existence, make everyone prosper the same, equality in everyone and everything. Forgive me, but you people sound more like a bunch of utiopianists. You have more to do with communism and socialism than you do with capitalism. It's written all over your party's platform.

President Obama proposed lowering the corporate tax rates. But corporations oppose it. Why? Because there are so many loopholes in the law they end up paying a lot less or nothing. Obama proposed lowering the rate and closing the loopholes.

If you REALLY want to help out every corporation and business in America, libertarians would support a government run single payer healthcare system and end the employer based private insurance scam where insurance corporations are totally controlled by Wall Street investors.

Here is a former CEO who ran corporations...

2007

Health care: an issue that cries out for leadership.

Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.

Obama never proposed a tax cut? When was that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What state do you live in? I'll try to remember not to go there.

It doesn't matter all cops are the same and the speeding ticket business is a 6 billion dollar a year industry. That's why you see more cops sitting in their cars with radar guns than you do walking a beat.

Have you ever been to New York? Not a radar gun to be seen. I think our cab hit about 85 going up 5th avenue.

They brass of NYPD prefer to use stop and frisk to raise revenues. It lets them target minorities more effectively, and get all sorts of money from illegal drug busts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are truly an ignorant fuck, dude. Seriously.

What's worse the occasional ignorant fuck or the the delusions of grandeur libertarians develop by telling us they'll be able to fashion a new form of governance in complete opposition to human nature? Can anyone else see they're just the flip side of the Marxist coin?

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.


The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

That explains why the government was able to win the war on drugs with so little effort, free markets without regulation always implode.

Wait...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'll ask a second time. How do you plan to make American Health Care cheaper? How will government management of my health care dollars make my health care at my doctor cheaper?

That's simple. The State is omnipotent, can forcast futures, innovate better than private enterprise and creates giant amounts of revenue through production.

Explain this Einstein...

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries with lower trends in mortality rates for their adult population. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

Has any capitalistic industrialized country tumbled down any 'slippery slope to socialism' because they have a government run universal health care?

There are countries that have a lower mortality rate than the US? Last time I checked the mortality rate was exactly the same everywhere, one per person. which countries have managed to keep anyone alive forever?

 

[konradv]

That's simple. The State is omnipotent, can forcast futures, innovate better than private enterprise and creates giant amounts of revenue through production.

Explain this Einstein...

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries with lower trends in mortality rates for their adult population. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

Has any capitalistic industrialized country tumbled down any 'slippery slope to socialism' because they have a government run universal health care?

There are countries that have a lower mortality rate than the US? Last time I checked the mortality rate was exactly the same everywhere, one per person. which countries have managed to keep anyone alive forever?

Since mortality is a pre-existing condition insurance companies have a lot of nerve refusing to cover them. They could take our money and refuse to cover anything.

 

[JoeNormal]

The part where you think that there is anyone in this country that does not pay taxes.

Where in my statement "not all people pay all taxes" do you derive your belief that I think that there are people in this country that do not pay any taxes?

Do I need to explain what the word all means? Do you disagree with my specific examples of the majority of people that do not pay personal income tax? How many additional examples of particular people that do not pay particular taxes do you need to see before you agree that "not all people pay all taxes?"

What the fuck? Seriously? Does someone have to bitch slap you to explain what the word not means?

Tell me something, genius, what the fuck do you think "Not all people pay taxes" means? Either all people pay taxes, which is irrefutable when you factor in sales, use, and all the other taxes that you cannot avoid if you live in the US, or some people do not pay taxes, which is it?

Let me help you out with this.

RKMBrown said: "Not all people pay ALL taxes"

You said: "Not all people pay taxes"

"Not all people pay ALL taxes" != "Not all people pay taxes"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where in my statement "not all people pay all taxes" do you derive your belief that I think that there are people in this country that do not pay any taxes?

Do I need to explain what the word all means? Do you disagree with my specific examples of the majority of people that do not pay personal income tax? How many additional examples of particular people that do not pay particular taxes do you need to see before you agree that "not all people pay all taxes?"

What the fuck? Seriously? Does someone have to bitch slap you to explain what the word not means?

Tell me something, genius, what the fuck do you think "Not all people pay taxes" means? Either all people pay taxes, which is irrefutable when you factor in sales, use, and all the other taxes that you cannot avoid if you live in the US, or some people do not pay taxes, which is it?

Let me help you out with this.

RKMBrown said: "Not all people pay ALL taxes"

You said: "Not all people pay taxes"

"Not all people pay ALL taxes" != "Not all people pay taxes"

Everyone pays taxes.

That should be simple to disprove, just provide an example of someone, anyone, who manages to live in modern society without paying sales taxes, taxes on utilities, gasoline, or health care, or any of the hundreds of other taxes that are part of our modern society. That was, in essence, my challenge to the idiot, and he responded by admitting he could not provide an example, and still insisting that his statement that not all people pay taxes is true.

 

[JoeNormal]

Since he was making the point that raising taxes on corporations means raising taxes on people, he was right. Do you think corporate taxes are paid out of magic money?

No, I think that corporate taxes at least partially address the externalities that OhhPooPahDoo made reference to. If that raises the cost of the final product, it's still a more realistic price than it would have been without it.

All taxes are paid by people.

Let me clarify that for you.

All taxes are paid by people.

Not even poop in the pants can figure out a way to argue with that, and he routinely argues that people are not corporations.

Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?

 

[JoeNormal]

What the fuck? Seriously? Does someone have to bitch slap you to explain what the word not means?

Tell me something, genius, what the fuck do you think "Not all people pay taxes" means? Either all people pay taxes, which is irrefutable when you factor in sales, use, and all the other taxes that you cannot avoid if you live in the US, or some people do not pay taxes, which is it?

Let me help you out with this.

RKMBrown said: "Not all people pay ALL taxes"

You said: "Not all people pay taxes"

"Not all people pay ALL taxes" != "Not all people pay taxes"

Everyone pays taxes.

That should be simple to disprove, just provide an example of someone, anyone, who manages to live in modern society without paying sales taxes, taxes on utilities, gasoline, or health care, or any of the hundreds of other taxes that are part of our modern society. That was, in essence, my challenge to the idiot, and he responded by admitting he could not provide an example, and still insisting that his statement that not all people pay taxes is true.

I realize how hard it is for people like you to make inferences. But this is becoming something akin to complete coginitive failure.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, I think that corporate taxes at least partially address the externalities that OhhPooPahDoo made reference to. If that raises the cost of the final product, it's still a more realistic price than it would have been without it.

All taxes are paid by people.

Let me clarify that for you.

All taxes are paid by people.

Not even poop in the pants can figure out a way to argue with that, and he routinely argues that people are not corporations.

Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?

You should head on back to the library and read up on economics, Cork. That's a pretty fucking stupid thing to say over all. No, it's really fucking stupid.

 

[RKMBrown]

The part where you think that there is anyone in this country that does not pay taxes.

Where in my statement "not all people pay all taxes" do you derive your belief that I think that there are people in this country that do not pay any taxes?

Do I need to explain what the word all means? Do you disagree with my specific examples of the majority of people that do not pay personal income tax? How many additional examples of particular people that do not pay particular taxes do you need to see before you agree that "not all people pay all taxes?"

What the fuck? Seriously? Does someone have to bitch slap you to explain what the word not means?

Tell me something, genius, what the fuck do you think "Not all people pay taxes" means? Either all people pay taxes, which is irrefutable when you factor in sales, use, and all the other taxes that you cannot avoid if you live in the US, or some people do not pay taxes, which is it?

How did you know my IQ? Irregardless, I did not say what you accuse me of saying. I did not say not all people pay taxes. You apparently can't keep up. I said, and I'll quote it again highlighting the part that your brain keeps misfiring on, "not all people pay all taxes." Assuming you understand what all people and not all people means, all taxes includes more than one type of tax. Most people do not pay all taxes. For example, most people do not pay personal income tax. Most people do not corporate taxes. Some people don't even pay SS taxes, priest etc. Some states do not charge sales taxes, thus some people do not pay sales taxes. So you see the number of people that do not pay particular type of taxes is quite significant. Thus the phrase, "not all people pay all taxes" esp. in the context that it was used, is quite correct. Though I must admit, confusing to such as yourself. If you prefer when you read "not all people pay all taxes" you may substitute that for "while it is true that some people do not pay some types of taxes, it is almost impossible for someone to successfully avoid all types of taxes."

 

[Bfgrn]

Does forcing people to pay cartels ransom money every single month and STILL have no assurance when you have a life threatening illness your treatment will be covered or refuse to pay ransom money and face bankruptcy or even death sound like liberty to you?

Nobody was forced to purchase insurance until the individual mandate in Oblolshevikcare, you rabid screeching moonbat.

The only frothing at the mouth is coming from you. You didn't answer the question. You never do, all you continue to do is chant doctrinaire, dogma and ideology.

That is not making an argument, it is parroting. Parrots don't think, they mimic.

Good thing you don't project....Much.

REALLY Jethro? Maybe in your lollypop world of cotton candy and puppy dogs. Maybe for turds like you who just welsh off daddy and mommy and abuse the butler. Turds like you who have no responsibilities, no mortgage, no family to protect.

But for adults who DO have responsibilities, a mortgage, and a family to protect, there is no 'option' to opt out of health insurance. And us adults pay for welshers like you who wrap the Porsche daddy gave you around a tree. When they cut you out of the car, triage your spoiled ass, rush you to the hospital and perform life saving medical procedures, WE get the bill.

There most definitely IS a mandate. A taxpayer mandate. And that is not just my opinion, it is a FACT. Even your beloved right wing Heritage Foundation who came up with the individual mandate understands it...WHY don't you Jethro? Because your handlers never taught you to parrot those words.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance–even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

 

[JoeNormal]

All taxes are paid by people.

Let me clarify that for you.

All taxes are paid by people.

Not even poop in the pants can figure out a way to argue with that, and he routinely argues that people are not corporations.

Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?

You should head on back to the library and read up on economics, Cork. That's a pretty fucking stupid thing to say over all. No, it's really fucking stupid.

How do you think externalities should be dealt with?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I think that corporate taxes at least partially address the externalities that OhhPooPahDoo made reference to. If that raises the cost of the final product, it's still a more realistic price than it would have been without it.

All taxes are paid by people.

Let me clarify that for you.

All taxes are paid by people.

Not even poop in the pants can figure out a way to argue with that, and he routinely argues that people are not corporations.

Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?

All taxes are paid by people. If you disagree with that statement argue with me by providing examples of taxes that are paid by something other than people, don't try to outsmart yourself and justify taxes by claiming they make things fair.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What externalities?

Regardless, you entire post shows a massive level of economic ineptitude.

 

[JoeNormal]

What externalities?

Regardless, you entire post shows a massive level of economic ineptitude.

Bzzzzt. Try again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where in my statement "not all people pay all taxes" do you derive your belief that I think that there are people in this country that do not pay any taxes?

Do I need to explain what the word all means? Do you disagree with my specific examples of the majority of people that do not pay personal income tax? How many additional examples of particular people that do not pay particular taxes do you need to see before you agree that "not all people pay all taxes?"

What the fuck? Seriously? Does someone have to bitch slap you to explain what the word not means?

Tell me something, genius, what the fuck do you think "Not all people pay taxes" means? Either all people pay taxes, which is irrefutable when you factor in sales, use, and all the other taxes that you cannot avoid if you live in the US, or some people do not pay taxes, which is it?

How did you know my IQ? Irregardless, I did not say what you accuse me of saying. I did not say not all people pay taxes. You apparently can't keep up. I said, and I'll quote it again highlighting the part that your brain keeps misfiring on, "not all people pay all taxes." Assuming you understand what all people and not all people means, all taxes includes more than one type of tax. Most people do not pay all taxes. For example, most people do not pay personal income tax. Most people do not corporate taxes. Some people don't even pay SS taxes, priest etc. Some states do not charge sales taxes, thus some people do not pay sales taxes. So you see the number of people that do not pay particular type of taxes is quite significant. Thus the phrase, "not all people pay all taxes" esp. in the context that it was used, is quite correct. Though I must admit, confusing to such as yourself. If you prefer when you read "not all people pay all taxes" you may substitute that for "while it is true that some people do not pay some types of taxes, it is almost impossible for someone to successfully avoid all types of taxes."

Damn, I have to back up and admit I screwed up, which is a shame because I was really enjoying my rant. I missed the second all in your statement, and kept missing it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?

You should head on back to the library and read up on economics, Cork. That's a pretty fucking stupid thing to say over all. No, it's really fucking stupid.

How do you think externalities should be dealt with?

Externalities like taxes?

 

[JoeNormal]

You should head on back to the library and read up on economics, Cork. That's a pretty fucking stupid thing to say over all. No, it's really fucking stupid.

How do you think externalities should be dealt with?

Externalities like taxes?

I suppose you could consider taxes an externality albeit one that works against the interests of corporations rather than the larger number of them that work for the corporations.

 

[Bfgrn]

All taxes are paid by people.

Let me clarify that for you.

All taxes are paid by people.

Not even poop in the pants can figure out a way to argue with that, and he routinely argues that people are not corporations.

Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?

You should head on back to the library and read up on economics, Cork. That's a pretty fucking stupid thing to say over all. No, it's really fucking stupid.

Don't you believe you should take a step back, TakeAStepBack? Someone should talk to you about where babies come from before you try to tackle economics.