• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul must have read my posts here :)

conservativeguy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
405
Location
ATL
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I was wondering when the gentleman was going to finally see the light and call BOCare what is truly is - FASCISM.:cool:

Paul: Obama health care more fascism than socialism
It's doubtful whether anyone opposes President Obama's health care law more than Ron Paul, but the Texas congressman said Wednesday that the sweeping legislation is not socialized medicine — contrary to claims made by his fellow presidential contenders Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain.

Instead, Mr. Paul called the Affordable Care Act “corporate medicine leading toward fascism,” insisting that his definition was much worse.

“It's not socialized medicine, but it's characteristic and creates the same things,” he said in comments before the Congressional Health Care Caucus, which invited him to speak on Capitol Hill.

“You always have shortages on socialized medicine, but you always have shortages when you have government intervention — like we do now.

You keep the businessman involved, but the businessman makes a lot of profit and he's in bed [with] and gets protection from the government,” said Mr. Paul, one of a handful of doctors who serve in Congress. “That's not a very good alternative. They're both very bad and some of the bad aspects would overlap.”

Mr. Obama had originally hoped for a universal health care system where a public option would compete with private plans on insurance exchanges, but was forced to compromise when his plan appeared politically untenable.

While the final law dramatically expands Medicaid, it still depends on Americans obtaining private insurance plans through state-based exchanges.

Nonetheless, some candidates vociferously opposed to the overhaul — namely, Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Cain — still say it's socialized medicine.

“In some socialized medicine countries, you can’t get a CAT scan in nine months, let alone an operation,” Mr. Cain said, speaking before the caucus two weeks ago. “We have the best health care system in the world. And ... if we allow this government sponsored socialized medicine approach to prevail, we will no longer have the best health care system in the world.”
 
My stance on the healthcare debate is that taxpayers should have the freedom to directly allocate their individual taxes...aka pragmatarianism.

Pragmatarianism would make the entire debate a moot point. Taxpayers would be able to directly allocate as much of their taxes as they wanted to public healthcare and the amount of funds that public healthcare received would determine the percentage of the population that qualified for coverage. This dynamic would allow public and private healthcare organizations to indirectly compete for funding. Everybody would benefit from this competition.

So...if you had to choose one or the other...would you choose for Ron Paul to be elected president or would you choose for taxpayers to be allowed to directly allocate their taxes?
 
My stance on the healthcare debate is that taxpayers should have the freedom to directly allocate their individual taxes...aka pragmatarianism.

Pragmatarianism would make the entire debate a moot point. Taxpayers would be able to directly allocate as much of their taxes as they wanted to public healthcare and the amount of funds that public healthcare received would determine the percentage of the population that qualified for coverage. This dynamic would allow public and private healthcare organizations to indirectly compete for funding. Everybody would benefit from this competition.

So...if you had to choose one or the other...would you choose for Ron Paul to be elected president or would you choose for taxpayers to be allowed to directly allocate their taxes?

Your plan is basically income-based democracy. Everyone gets to vote on all government funding with their money. Additionally, the person who pays a million in taxes gets 50 times the votes of someone that pays 20k.

Given the choice, I'd go with Ron Paul. However, he bothers me most in his desire for immediate, drastic change without transition. I don't know for sure which is scarier.
 
Keridan, what would be the outcome of allowing people to directly allocate their taxes? Do you think the changes that Ron Paul implemented would last after his presidency was over?
 
Funny how republicans calling Healthcare Reform socialist didn't work, so now they are calling it fascist. :lamo
 
Jryan, it's funny that your signature says "You KNOW it's a Myth, This Season Celebrate REASON!"

You might want to consider whether the tax allocation disparity is divine or delusional.
 
Keridan, what would be the outcome of allowing people to directly allocate their taxes? Do you think the changes that Ron Paul implemented would last after his presidency was over?

I'll outdo you and propose eliminating any fixed amount of taxes they must pay. They may directly allocate their money to whatever they wish, including an option to allocate zero dollars to taxes. Top that. :)
 
Keridan, what would be the outcome of allowing people to directly allocate their taxes? Do you think the changes that Ron Paul implemented would last after his presidency was over?

Since all government spending and programs are paid for with tax money, directly allocating your own taxes amounts to voting on your choice of government programs. Ones people don't like wouldn't receive funding, even if they were necessary. Suppose, only as an example, people used this method and medicare only ended up with 10% of it's current funding. Most people who have medicare pay fewer taxes. Suddenly people who depend on medicare have no health coverage and didn't have any transition. The same could be said of any social program that people are dependent on. You can't just take it away without transition and a new plan for them.

It becomes regressive, as well, due to the fact that the poor get the fewest monetary votes. Even worse, if you still tax corporations, you start risking fascism.

Regarding continuing of policies when a president leaves office, it depends on who follows and what choices both people make. If he tried to accomplish his goals in 8 years, I think it would be rough and people would dislike the extreme changes and they would vote in someone who vowed to undo them. It's all speculation, however. I'm also not speaking directly to the value of his policies, but rather to the speed with which he would need to see them implemented in an 8 year presidency.

Funny how republicans calling Healthcare Reform socialist didn't work, so now they are calling it fascist. :lamo

Actually, it went from socialized medicine to fascist medicine when it went from single-payer to forced purchase of a private product. I'm not a republican, but it wasn't them who made the change.
 
Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while. Serendipity, it ain't, conservative guy.
 
Centinel...how do you "outdo" me by ignoring the fact that 99.9% of voters see the need for some taxes? You "outdo" me by pretending that we don't live in a democracy?

Top what? Show me the progress that your movement has made in the past 100 years. The scope of government has been steadily broadening not narrowing. The issue is not the tax rate...it's that people do not understand how the invisible hand works.

By focusing on eliminating or even reducing taxes you're giving your opponents a gun which they have been using to shoot you in the foot. Stop giving your opponents a gun and concentrate on the real issue.

Make your opponents explain why congress is more capable than the invisible hand at allocating taxes. They will not be able to. That's it...you win. Simple as that.

Why won't they be able to? Because the ONLY reason that congress/parliament has the power to control taxes is because they took this power from the king. The king only had this power because people believed that kings had "divine authority".

Since then we've come to learn that the invisible hand is more qualified to allocate scarce resources than planners are. Therefore, allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes will produce an allocation of public goods that is infinitely more efficient than any allocation planners could ever hope to provide.
 
Centinel...how do you "outdo" me by ignoring the fact that 99.9% of voters see the need for some taxes? You "outdo" me by pretending that we don't live in a democracy?

Sorry, it's nit-picky, but I think it's a salient point. We live in a republic, not a democracy because a democracy tends to break down to mob rule.
 
Keridan, thanks for providing Centinel with yet another example of somebody that does not know how the invisible hand works. Please look over that thread I linked you to and consider exhibits A though G.

It's absurd to believe that the AARP wouldn't remind taxpayers of the value of funding their parent's and grandparent's healthcare. Would you even need the AARP to remind you that your grand/mother required reliable and affordable healthcare? Wouldn't your grand/parents perhaps mention it to you?

The only way to ensure the most efficient allocation of public goods is to force taxpayers to consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions. You obviously value your grand/parent's health...so what other public goods would you be willing to forgo in order to help fund their healthcare?

Would you be willing to forgo helping to fund the war on drugs? Would you be willing to forgo helping to fund a secure border? Would you be willing to forgo helping to fund unnecessary wars?
 
Centinel...how do you "outdo" me by ignoring the fact that 99.9% of voters see the need for some taxes? You "outdo" me by pretending that we don't live in a democracy?

All I'm saying is that if you advocate people being able to choose which government department they wish to fund, I'd like to add an option for "None of the above." It's essentially your idea, just with even more invisible hand.
 
Sorry, it's nit-picky, but I think it's a salient point. We live in a republic, not a democracy because a democracy tends to break down to mob rule.

It's not a salient point because I'm not advocating that we get rid of congress. We'll always need leaders.

My point was that people believe we need taxes just like we need Christmas. If you can understand why it wouldn't be a good idea to elect 535 personal shoppers to purchase Christmas gifts for everybody then you'll be able to understand why it's absurd not to allow taxpayers to directly choose which "gifts" they purchase our country.
 
Keridan, thanks for providing Centinel with yet another example of somebody that does not know how the invisible hand works. Please look over that thread I linked you to and consider exhibits A though G.

It's absurd to believe that the AARP wouldn't remind taxpayers of the value of funding their parent's and grandparent's healthcare. Would you even need the AARP to remind you that your grand/mother required reliable and affordable healthcare? Wouldn't your grand/parents perhaps mention it to you?

The only way to ensure the most efficient allocation of public goods is to force taxpayers to consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions. You obviously value your grand/parent's health...so what other public goods would you be willing to forgo in order to help fund their healthcare?

Would you be willing to forgo helping to fund the war on drugs? Would you be willing to forgo helping to fund a secure border? Would you be willing to forgo helping to fund unnecessary wars?

Oh, I understand the theory of the invisible hand. The invisible hand is a long process, however. Additionally, you are talking about moving from a republic to a democracy without transition and trusting the invisible hand to keep current social programs in place. Even if you assume that it will restore social programs, that takes time, especially when the market is suddenly altered.

Transition is absolutely vital. Bear in mind, I'm a libertarian. I'm all about the invisible hand. I'm also a realist. I don't support government monopoly of education, but that doesn't mean I want the public schools closed today and expect the private market to fill the hole tomorrow.

Also, the invisible hand is based on private market care of social needs. It doesn't state that free allocation of tax money will result in the continuance of current government social programs. For the invisible hand to work even, there must be a hole in the market that needs filling. Continuing current social programs inhibits the creation of those lapses.
 
All I'm saying is that if you advocate people being able to choose which government department they wish to fund, I'd like to add an option for "None of the above." It's essentially your idea, just with even more invisible hand.

You just don't get it. Of course I would like that option too...who wouldn't? That's the point. We recognize our own failings. We don't want the freedom to opt out of contributing. We don't want that temptation. We're responsible enough to recognize that we need some strong encouragement to contribute.

That strong encouragement is already in place...now the challenge is to help taxpayers understand how the millions and millions of decisions that they would make with their own hard earned money can produce better results than 535 congresspeople making decisions on how to spend other people's money.
 
Keridan..."but that doesn't mean I want the public schools closed today and expect the private market to fill the hole tomorrow."

If you think that allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes would result in public schools being closed today then you have no idea how the invisible hand works. Taxpayers would allocate their taxes in order to address perceived shortages of the public goods that they valued.

People's concerns would determine how they allocated their taxes. That's how the invisible hand works. Again, you assumed that you know how the invisible hand works so you didn't bother to read over exhibits A though G on that page I linked you to. That doesn't bode well for our ability to make much progress with this discussion. If you trust your conclusions so strongly that you fail to consider the evidence that I offer then...well...we might be here a while.
 
Keridan..."but that doesn't mean I want the public schools closed today and expect the private market to fill the hole tomorrow."

If you think that allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes would result in public schools being closed today then you have no idea how the invisible hand works. Taxpayers would allocate their taxes in order to address perceived shortages of the public goods that they valued.

People's concerns would determine how they allocated their taxes. That's how the invisible hand works. Again, you assumed that you know how the invisible hand works so you didn't bother to read over exhibits A though G on that page I linked you to. That doesn't bode well for our ability to make much progress with this discussion. If you trust your conclusions so strongly that you fail to consider the evidence that I offer then...well...we might be here a while.

I read your link. I also refreshed my memory ...

What is invisible hand? definition and meaning
Invisible hand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Adam Smith and the invisible hand | plus.maths.org

The invisible hand is based on free market taking care of social needs.
 
You just don't get it. Of course I would like that option too...who wouldn't? That's the point. We recognize our own failings. We don't want the freedom to opt out of contributing. We don't want that temptation. We're responsible enough to recognize that we need some strong encouragement to contribute.

That strong encouragement is already in place...now the challenge is to help taxpayers understand how the millions and millions of decisions that they would make with their own hard earned money can produce better results than 535 congresspeople making decisions on how to spend other people's money.

Okay, then how about his addition to your system. Any citizen may start their own government service and register it as a potential recipient of tax money. This would provide plenty of competition and choices for taxpayers to allocate their funds.
 
Okay, then how about his addition to your system. Any citizen may start their own government service and register it as a potential recipient of tax money. This would provide plenty of competition and choices for taxpayers to allocate their funds.

This might work, but I would think you still need to register it in classes... for example, if 3% of your tax money goes to education, you can choose for it to go to the new business or traditional education system in the US. I still say it would require 3% goes to education.

I would actually like to see all kinds of systems privatized, but I still see the problems mentioned in my previous posts.
 
Keridan, that's progress. So now consider the outcome of applying free-market principles to government organizations. Imagine how absurd it would be if donors to PETA and donors to the NRA had to pool their donations and elect representatives to decide how to divvy up the donations between the two organizations. Imagine how absurd it would be if we had to elect 535 personal shoppers to purchase Christmas presents for everybody.

It's not easy to imagine government organizations operating like non-profit organizations. But it would behoove us to seriously consider the possibility. Again, the total amount of tax revenue that the public sector received would be exactly the same...but it would be up to taxpayers to determine the allocation.

If you don't trust the invisible hand...then please explain to me why you trust congress to efficiently allocate public goods.
 
Okay, then how about his addition to your system. Any citizen may start their own government service and register it as a potential recipient of tax money. This would provide plenty of competition and choices for taxpayers to allocate their funds.

Exactly...voters would determine the functions of government and taxpayers would determine which functions to fund.
 
Keridan, that's progress. So now consider the outcome of applying free-market principles to government organizations. Imagine how absurd it would be if donors to PETA and donors to the NRA had to pool their donations and elect representatives to decide how to divvy up the donations between the two organizations. Imagine how absurd it would be if we had to elect 535 personal shoppers to purchase Christmas presents for everybody.

It's not easy to imagine government organizations operating like non-profit organizations. But it would behoove us to seriously consider the possibility. Again, the total amount of tax revenue that the public sector received would be exactly the same...but it would be up to taxpayers to determine the allocation.

If you don't trust the invisible hand...then please explain to me why you trust congress to efficiently allocate public goods.

It's not really progress if you realize I did all that reading before we started this discussion. Your assumption that I didn't understand was unfounded.

I don't trust the government. I also am not sure if I distrust the invisible hand. The problem is that privatized social programs are a completely different beast than government-based programs. In free market, there is a near infinite pool of money to be tapped if they handle it well and they are not guaranteed any portion of that money if they suck.

You are talking about taking a measurably finite pool and telling people to choose what they like. It would come down to which has better PR, education or welfare...

The theory of the invisible hand just doesn't transition that directly. It's two completely different economies to compete in.
 
Keridan, so if you had paid all your taxes for the year...but you still perceived a shortage in Medicare...you wouldn't consider making a donation to Medicare?

Why would it come down to just education and welfare? You're right that we haven't made any real progress if you think that those are the only two public goods that people value.
 
Keridan, so if you had paid all your taxes for the year...but you still perceived a shortage in Medicare...you wouldn't consider making a donation to Medicare?

Why would it come down to just education and welfare? You're right that we haven't made any real progress if you think that those are the only two public goods that people value.

You are arguing the semantics instead of the substance of my point. Of course I know there are more programs than those two. I was simplifying for the sake of my point. Would it have changed the value of my argument if I had listed all available social programs?

I might consider paying more, but the money would likely be spent first on my family's heating and grocery bills and planning for our future. You yourself said:

You just don't get it. Of course I would like that option too...who wouldn't? That's the point. We recognize our own failings. We don't want the freedom to opt out of contributing. We don't want that temptation. We're responsible enough to recognize that we need some strong encouragement to contribute..

Additionally, the perceived shortage is a product of PR.
 
Back
Top Bottom