Obamas deficit reduction plan

[Fazda]

He is a film maker, who only uses non-unionised people and treats them like trash to promote a socialist message that makes him rich.

The point is he is biased.

Yup and I am sure all of those non-unionised people really hate working for him!!
:wtf: I thought socialists were pro union....weird....

As for biased, do you mean biased like Fox News or biased like CNN?

OR

Biased simply because YOU disagree with him?

 

[Alan]

He is a film maker, who only uses non-unionised people and treats them like trash to promote a socialist message that makes him rich.

The point is he is biased.

Yet he had investments in Halliburton, Pharmaceutical and defence companies....

Seems not quite the good socialist he makes himself out to be....

 

[WilD_CaT]

Yup and I am sure all of those non-unionised people really hate working for him!!
:wtf: I thought socialists were pro union....weird....

Hooray for capitalism!

As for biased, do you mean biased like Fox News or biased like CNN?

OR

Biased simply because YOU disagree with him?

By biased, I mean that he wants socialised healthcare in the US, thus I do not feel he intends to create movies that demonstrate the superiority of the market when it comes to reducing prices and increasing quality.

I feel he intends to create movies that show his POV. You cannot come here and argue Michael Moore does not let his personal feelings impact his movies at all, thats rediculous.

More importantly, it seems reasonable to me that if you want to find out what type of healthcare an ordinary Cuban citizen gets, you ask an ordinary Cuban citizen and not a rich American multi-millionaire film maker.

 

[Fazda]

So let's get this straight, you don't like Michael Moore so anything he produces is crap.

MM's movies are all very personal to him, I agree, because he wants to highlight certain things that he sees as being wrong obviously his personal feelings will impact on the movie and it's his movie so why the hell not. If you chooses to disagree with him because you stubbornly believe that he is wrong and you are right, then so be it...don't watch the friggin movies!

I watched the movie on Cuban healthcare and he DID ask the man in the street, but it would appear that you are so committed to criticizing the man because his POV is different to yours, that you didn't even see what you were watching...that is, if you watched it at all.

By the way the word is RIDICULOUS - not rEdiculous...

 

[grayston]

The point is he is biased and doesn't live in Cuba, thus he is not the best person to educate you about Cuban healthcare.

I love the way wildcat never leaves his room, only browses mises.org, and yet knows more about everything from Cuban healthcare to Swedish socialism to practical economical philosophy.

He must be a bot.

 

[Fazda]

I love the way wildcat never leaves his room, only browses mises.org, and yet knows more about everything from Cuban healthcare to Swedish socialism to practical economical philosophy.

He must be a bot.

 

[WilD_CaT]

So let's get this straight, you don't like Michael Moore so anything he produces is crap.

No, I question documentaries that only promote a single POV in general. More importantly I question documentaries that promote the viewpoint/opinion of the filmmaker. You find this irrational?

MM's movies are all very personal to him, I agree, because he wants to highlight certain things that he sees as being wrong obviously his personal feelings will impact on the movie and it's his movie so why the hell not. If you chooses to disagree with him because you stubbornly believe that he is wrong and you are right, then so be it...don't watch the friggin movies!

It is not about what I believe. Hell if you have the same opinion as him, you should at the very least question his movies as well, or do you just swallow everything that affirms your belief without thinking?

I watched the movie on Cuban healthcare and he DID ask the man in the street, but it would appear that you are so committed to criticizing the man because his POV is different to yours, that you didn't even see what you were watching...that is, if you watched it at all.

By the way the word is RIDICULOUS - not rEdiculous...

Ok here is another POV with pics. http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

I don't think the guy who gathered this info is getting rich off of it either...

 

[WilD_CaT]

I love the way wildcat never leaves his room, only browses mises.org, and yet knows more about everything from Cuban healthcare to Swedish socialism to practical economical philosophy.

He must be a bot.

Erm, I have a job, 8-5, I'm actually about to leave work now (4:30pm on Wednesday the public holiday). As for mises.org if you cannot practically refute anything said on there, don't dismiss it. Second many arguments brought up here have been used time and time again (Myth of Scandinavian Socialism, Cuban Healthcare etc.) and thus they are topical and have been addressed and dealt with more often than not on Mises.org

Once again I ask to deal with policies/arguments/meat of the debate and not resort to insults.

 

[Alan]

Once again I ask to deal with policies/arguments/meat of the debate and not resort to insults.

You ask too much of them. At most they'll regurgitate something from a certain comedian or the online tabloid Huffington Post but that's it really.

 

[grayston]

As for mises.org if you cannot practically refute anything said on there, don't dismiss it.

Just making the point that your sources for information are rather ... limited. I have actually lived in three welfare states (if you count SA as one of them) and while I've never been to Sweden, I did spend some time in Denmark and let me tell you, it was a damn fine looking place and if the prices for beer (their staple diet) were anything to go by, people sure had a lot of money to throw around. Admittedly I was molested by a hooker on a street in Copenhagen one Sunday morning (she lightly smacked my ass as my girlfriend and I were walking past her, and made what I assume was a suggestive comment -- min Dansk er ikke saerlig godt, and it's a source of daily shame...), but I managed to shrug it off and we proceeded on our way without feeling the need to educate her about how the evils of Scandinavian socialism were forcing her to sell her body. Which would have been a silly thing to say anyway, as she would have had free access to healthcare, education right up to tertiary level and even, I believe, free job placement services. Whatever was keeping her on the street it certainly wasn't lack of opportunity. I can't claim to know exactly what her situation was, but it does help to remember that all societies have dark sides and not even libertarianism is capable of preventing that.

Anyway. I'm sorry that you feel insulted boet, but really it is a bit rich your saying that Michael Moore (who has a track record of doing pretty good research) is not entitled to comment on the Cuban healthcare system because he doesn't live there. You also claim that he's biased and has an agenda. Fair enough - but what bias and agenda do you think a Libertarian forum like mises has, huh? It's not the best place to go for objective commentary. Meanwhile, other entities have corroborated Moore's findings while the misers -- sorry, mises -- has nothing to back up its findings other than vague and uninformed philosophy.

If you would prefer, I can tone down the insult and simply state that you are being hypocritical. (And not very omnivorous in your reading habits.)

Now please take some time away from the computer to spend with friends and family (I see you were commenting on here quite a bit over Easter.) There's more to life than work, mises and paycheques.

 

[Fazda]

Erm, I have a job, 8-5, I'm actually about to leave work now (4:30pm on Wednesday the public holiday). As for mises.org if you cannot practically refute anything said on there, don't dismiss it. Second many arguments brought up here have been used time and time again (Myth of Scandinavian Socialism, Cuban Healthcare etc.) and thus they are topical and have been addressed and dealt with more often than not on Mises.org

Once again I ask to deal with policies/arguments/meat of the debate and not resort to insults.

Oh dear, it would appear as if a raw nerve has been struck!

 

[WilD_CaT]

Just making the point that your sources for information are rather ... limited. I have actually lived in three welfare states (if you count SA as one of them) and while I've never been to Sweden, I did spend some time in Denmark and let me tell you, it was a damn fine looking place and if the prices for beer (their staple diet) were anything to go by, people sure had a lot of money to throw around. Admittedly I was molested by a hooker on a street in Copenhagen one Sunday morning (she lightly smacked my ass as my girlfriend and I were walking past her, and made what I assume was a suggestive comment -- min Dansk er ikke saerlig godt, and it's a source of daily shame...), but I managed to shrug it off and we proceeded on our way without feeling the need to educate her about how the evils of Scandinavian socialism were forcing her to sell her body. Which would have been a silly thing to say anyway, as she would have had free access to healthcare, education right up to tertiary level and even, I believe, free job placement services. Whatever was keeping her on the street it certainly wasn't lack of opportunity. I can't claim to know exactly what her situation was, but it does help to remember that all societies have dark sides and not even libertarianism is capable of preventing that.

Anyway. I'm sorry that you feel insulted boet, but really it is a bit rich your saying that Michael Moore (who has a track record of doing pretty good research) is not entitled to comment on the Cuban healthcare system because he doesn't live there. You also claim that he's biased and has an agenda. Fair enough - but what bias and agenda do you think a Libertarian forum like mises has, huh? It's not the best place to go for objective commentary. Meanwhile, other entities have corroborated Moore's findings while the misers -- sorry, mises -- has nothing to back up its findings other than vague and uninformed philosophy.

If you would prefer, I can tone down the insult and simply state that you are being hypocritical. (And not very omnivorous in your reading habits.)

Now please take some time away from the computer to spend with friends and family (I see you were commenting on here quite a bit over Easter.) There's more to life than work, mises and paycheques.

The reason why I find much information on Mises.org is:
- As a pointed out the points you raise have been raised by others. If you are to argue against socialism in any and all forms, you need to address the points made and not just ignore them. This is why many issues, particularly pertinent ones concerning socialism are tackled on this website. In order to remain credible in a debate/argument, one should assume that you should not simply ignore points made by your opponents, but you should address them properly.
- The people who often comment on Mises.org happen to be economic professors, ordinary people (There is a google tech who has written some great articles), philosophers, historians and people who are academically well versed in these issues.
- Most time the ideas advocated are not what one would call "popularist". They do not pander to the masses. If the masses are wrong, the people here are happy to point it out and try and do so in the most academically minded and intellectual way, not just resort to calling everyone a commie and thus ignore the arguments they make.
- The MOUNTAIN of resources available on Mises.org are made free of charge, legally. Many books that is sold on the website can be downloaded legally via pdf free of charge. These guys have a greater interest in getting people to think and to promote their ideas, not gain on the backs of others or make a quick buck.
- The message of the people who routinely write on mises.org is consistant. That is one point and the authors routinely work with people who disagree with them on academic discussions and on books about politics and philosophy. The people there are only to happy to debate and engage in intellectual discourse. They do not shy away from a challenge and ignore things that don't fit their world view. If something is successful in country A and not B there is a reason for this and it must be identified, not assumed as in many cases. They believe in tackling these issues.

PS: You mentioned Denmark, do you consider Denmark a welfare state? If so, why not the US? I happpen to like Heritage index, economically Denmark is regarded as more free market than the US. Just a point you should consider.

PSS: I had a different world view until I found mises.org they didn't reaffirm my view, they changed it.

 

[Fazda]

Why the hysteria about socialism?

Really, if you think that because the government is concerned about healthcare you suddenly have a state bordering on Marxism, you should really try reading a little more.

 

[grayston]

The reason why I find much information on Mises.org is:

Irrelevant. The point is that you don't have an objective view of your chosen philosophy and you accept no criticism of it. You don't even do that very well. (Not insulting you, just stating a fact.) Do you still reject Michael Moore's findings on Cuban healthcare because he doesn't live in Cuba?

PSS: I had a different world view until I found mises.org they didn't reaffirm my view, they changed it.

Hallelujah!

Look dude, nobody's going to listen to you until you stop evangelising. I know I come across as a total dick but I'm really just trying to help.

Now, is your goal to actually sell the idea of Libertarianism, or is your goal actually to goad and sneer at people who reject it? If the latter, then carry on doing what you're doing. If the former, you may want to reassess your method.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Why the hysteria about socialism?

Really, if you think that because the government is concerned about healthcare you suddenly have a state bordering on Marxism, you should really try reading a little more.

If you think the state is more concerned about the citizens than private enterprise who live and die by how well they fulfill consumer desires, you should try reading a little more.

Here is something to consider, the more water you use, the more the state charges you per litre. When it comes to private enterprise the more you use, the tendency is to give the consumer discounts so you wind up paying less.

But really the reality is this, do you regard me as imposing my will/values forcefully apon you by being asked to be left alone? (Don't tax me etc.)

Can you say the same for yourself when you want to implement socialism? (State ownership of the modes of production, that is what I mean by socialism)

You feel you have every right to impose your will on others. I really couldn't give a damn if that is the opinion of the voting masses, the majority has no right to impose its will on the minority by virtue of simply having a majority. If you guys are serious about helping those less fortunate than yourselves, you could start a communal arrangement right now and pool your resources and provide for the poorer members. What is stopping you? In fact if it was done privately and not by force, you would probably be a hell of a lot better at it than the state.

You see when people advocate socialism and don't already all contribute to a massive communal arrangement, all I can really think of is how you will only give to others IF others are forced to do the same.

Why is it so wrong to want others NOT to impose their will/values on me. I am not advocating imposing different rules on you, I'm not pro-warfare state (Unlike the Neocons, who really want their brand of socialism and not the Dem's brand for the most part).

But that is more of an ethical/philosophical point.

What I really want to see is how you guys plan to overcome the negative effects of socialism and overcome the economic deficiencies and reality of your proposals.

The welfare state requires funding, how do you propose to do it? Taxes? Money Printing? If you raise taxes, how will you deal with the negative effects of that. If you print money, how do you deal with inflation and more importantly how do you deal with that fact that inflation hurts the poor the most? I mean rich people, generally have their wealth in assets, cars, stock portfolios. It is only the poor who keep a larger portion of their wealth in cash and inflation destroys the value of that. Besides capital goes to government and big business first, which means they get the benefit of the cash before it is devalued and when the cash trickles down the economy, the poor wind up with devalued currency.

How do you propose to deal with the negative effects on incentive to work of the welfare policies? You are REMOVING incentives for people to work by saying you don't need to work as hard/study as much etc. to live comfortably. Now the effects of this are different depending on the type of society involved. E.G Hong Kong is regarded as the most free market country in the world. It has a very good public healthcare system, but people in Hong Kong frequently still pay for medicine and service, because the reality is, there are still long lines for certain surgical procedures, certain medications aren't covered. The mentality in Hong Kong is that if you want the best, be prepared to pay for it, and the people are happy to do so DESPITE the availability of socialist healthcare. I cannot say the same mentality prevails worldwide, people feel they are ENTITLED to it. That it is their right, and this idea, leads to more and more problems.

How do you deal with costs going up (Costs of medicine/doctors) as a result of the increased demand due to the price being artificially lowered? Do you propose limiting how many times people can visit the doctor (To reduce costs) or which medicine and how much they may take? Do you propose price caps and the resulting shortages of those price caps?

What is the cost of the beauocracy to maintain this? How do you keep the costs and number of administrators to a minimum to ensure the money goes to providing healthcare and not to giving some schmuck a job? In the states in the medicare/medicaid (Which is for those who didn't know, heavily subsidised by the government) there are reportedly 200 administrative personnel for every doctor in the system. (I thought that it was a typo when I first read the article which mentioned this, I thought it was too insane.)

Who makes decisions when it comes to which medicine is allowed/not allowed (Marijuana is a case in point)? Patient? Doctor? Beauocract?

Remember at the end of the day you have to limit costs, you cannot simply run large deficits and hope for no consequences, so some beauocract, when he makes a decision to do something etc. he will ALWAYS weigh up the concerns of the people (Paitents) vs the cost. Sometimes he will simply say no. When this happens the alternative will be private healthcare or buying medicine yourself. The costs of this will be artificially inflated by the socialist healthcare system (Higher demand raises prices, and private healthcare competes on quality, so it becomes radically expensive). How do you plan to deal with this problem?

You guys are the ones proposing socialist healthcare, so presumably one assumes you would have done your research and had a look at the negative effects and how to try and deal with these. You guys should be the ones mentioning this and how you plan to overcome the negative effects of socialising healthcare.

Yet I have to be the one to point it out. And when I do I am insulted by you guys more often than not. How about dealing with this for a change?

There are lists and pages and pages of the possibly seen and unforeseen negative effects of what you are proposing. You cannot simply assume the good (Or so called good) outweigh the bad. You cannot simply ignore the negative effects.

 

[Fazda]

OK that now convinces me what I'm dealing with.
Groen Dakkies Central is missing an inmate.