btw if u havent noticed im trying to help ur prediction be right chase

To make deten's post more readable I did search and replace on all the ampersand stuff and here is what we get:

For the sake of organization I will put my previously made statements in asterisks (***) and my opposition s, ryansucks321, statements in quotation marks. I will also indent the first line of paragraphs that are new commentary. That way you guys don t have to read everything to be caught up. But if you chose to its all in one spot. I hope this format is more helpful. Enjoy!

point
**So first off. At least when shit hit the fan while the GoP was in power it was largely the American peoples part. Anybody that knows anything about the republican financial policy knows that they tend to err on the side of nonintervention thus creating as close to a free market as possible.**

counter point
;By this retarded logic, it's the fault of the people who were in the twin towers that they got killed because the government was just being non-interventionist with terrorists. ;

Round 2
**first off that statement is not applicable to what I was talking about(1). Govt. nonintervention in the economy is different from bad security(2). Secondly the twin towers being hit didn t weaken our economy much(3). It was the loss in confidence and the ensuing nationwide panic that caused the problems. The economy itself wasn t really hurt so much as the price index was massively inflated. If everybody stocks up on goods all at once it creates a massive demand and a supply deficiency. its a no brainer that prices would sky rocket. However once the initial shock subsided our economy continued to grow at an increasing rate.**

1. ;It's completely applicable to anything until you provide a logical reason why it's not. ;
2. ;That's an opinion, an assumption and not a logical reason. ;
3. ;Irrelevant, I didn't say or imply it did. ;

I fail to see how your counter point was applicable to my original statement. I was talking strictly about nonintervention in the economy. Non intervention in the economy does not imply that the government should neglect it s duty to protect its citizens from foreign and domestic threats that could potentially cause bodily harm or property damage / theft. My statement does not in any way suggest that the government should have allowed the twin towers to be destroyed(1).
You must have your definition of opinion and fact wrong. Non intervention in the economy is different from bad security. I will clarify further for you. Non intervention in the economy is different from neglecting the duty of the government to protect it s citizens from bodily harm or property damage / theft(2).
If the twin towers are irrelevant then why did you bother bringing them up in the first place? I was merely covering my bases just in case you where trying to bring them into the equation.


Point
**Second how many billions of dollars has the government spent on bailing out companies that should go under? Natural selection doesnt just work for biology you know. If an established company can't hold its own then it should be allowed to die out imo. As you can tell I'm a large proponent of a largely unregulated market. The trend is that well supplied free markets tend to grow faster then most other kinds of fiscal models. This in turn creates more tax revenues from large and small companies alike. Which in turn reduces the tax burden on the individual.**

;Try studying the great depression. Things like bank holidays (which are interventionist) have been a good thing. Further if we extend your analogy then there's no reason for government to exist, including police, fire, defense, everything. Privatize everything by your logic Anne.(3) ;

**The effectiveness of many of the governments interventionist policies are in question during the depression(1). It is widely argued that it is the war that brought us out of it. Lots of unemployed people suddenly had jobs as soldiers and the nation was utilizing it's full production capacity. In fact if you knew anything about the economy in the 30s you would know that it was in the shitter up until the war broke out. It didnt really bounce back until we entered the war. The bank holiday was effective for only one reason. And that reason is it created an illusion of security. People stopped making runs on the bank because suddenly their deposites where insured. and only the "healthy" banks where allowed to reopen. I will stipulate that in some extreme cases govt. regulation for very short periods of time can be useful(2). The bank holiday may or may not have been one of those cases. However this is not one of those cases.
Further more you are applying nonintervention of the market to things that i never mentioned(3). The govt. has a list of essential services that it should provide. fire, police, emergency med, national defense are a few essential functions(4). Forcing us all (except for elected officials like senators) to have the same health care coverage or be taxed extra for private insurance is utterly ridiculous(5). Medical emergencies are one thing, and im ok with the govt. helping foot the bill if your life is on the line. I for one sacrifice hugely to pay for my own insurance so that I m covered if i need emergency medical attention. But ultimately YOU THE INDIVIDUAL should be responsible for your well being not the govt(6).**

;You're making a strawman argument. What's in question was the new deal, not new policies like bank holidays.(1) ;
;Good lets ignore the parts of your post that are arguing against a position I didn't take, and now we can both agree I am correct, as you've admitted above.(2) ;
;What things would those be?(3) ;
;Who says? Why? You've presented no rationale for why these are essential, or why healthcare is not essential(4). ;
;Same? I don't believe either the House or the Senate bills propose this.(5) ;
;And forcing individuals to pay for insurance is way to ensure the individual is responsible(6). As it stands now, there is nothing forcing it, and people who pay for insurance flip the bill for those who don't through higher insurance premiums.(7) ;





The policies like bank holidays where what made up the ;new deal ;. Several of these policies are under question by economists today(1). You argued that the government intervention programs of the new deal where effective. I argued that the effectiveness of many of those programs is widely debated. I also never admitted that you where correct about anything except for the bank holiday of 1933 being effective. Yes, it was effective almost 80 years ago. No, it would not be effective now(2). You extended an anology to subjects that it was never intended to apply to. As I have already stated, in this post and previous posts, govt. non intervention in the economy does not mean neglecting public safety programs such as police, Fire dept, national deffence etc.(3). I shouldn t need to defend why the government should provide police, national deffence etc.
I will however explain why I don t think the government should provide health care. First I will deferentiate between primary health insurance and emergency health insurance. Emergency insurance would cover when the paramedics are getting you out of a burning car or you just got shot or some accident happened to where you need medical attention right now. The government should help pay for this as should the hospital if the person in need doesn t have primary insurance. Primary insurance would cover any kind of emergency situation and a variety of other things such as drugs, chiropractic, surgery really I don t care what it covers because the individual is paying money every month for it any way. Government provided insurance would not cover medications, yearly checkups and other stuff that you go to the doctor for on a regular basis basically.
I do think health care is important, but I also think that it is something that we need to provide for ourselves. This btw is an opinion and I don t care if you disagree with it im not going to back it any more most likely(4).
You didn t read the whole sentence apparently. The senate bill proposes that if you should decide to opt for more coverage then what the standard government health plan provides, then you will be taxed extra for your extra health benefits. This is totally unfair and it s just another way to screw the people who are doing well economically. We all should have the option of paying extra money to get extra coverage without any kind of government imposed consequence(5). I am ok with forcing people to have a minimum amount of health insurance coverage. I m even ok with the government offering the minimum coverage plan. What I m not ok with is taxing people extra if they want more then the minimum. This is exactly what the senate proposal does(6). Also the extra money that we pay is not in the premiums to private insurance companies. It comes out of our taxes(7). This isn t so much meant as an argument as it is to clarify things a bit.

Point
**The BoR protect the individual from government abuse. I still stand by the statement that the govt. should be responsible for its people as a whole not individuals. This is not to say however that the govt. has the right to intrude on an individuals rights. If you read the Bill of Rights (im sure you probably have) you will notice that there is no part in it about providing free money to people who are too lazy to get a job. it basically says in a nutshell "Citizens you have certain rights that your govt. shall not infringe upon. These include: freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to refuse quarter to soldiers...." The declaration of independence merely says that all men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. again no mention of the govt. subsidizing those of you too lazy to get a job(1).
And for your information I am a voting natural born citizen of the United States of America. And I m probably a hell of a lot more informed about the stuff we vote on then you are(3). I mean do you even read any of the bills that you are called to vote on, or do you just watch the t.v. adds(4)? At best I bet you skim the overviews or listen to commentary from your good buddy ED. **

;And that proves that governments duty is to the majority and not the minority as you previously stated? Can't say I agree(1). What's really ironic is that on one hand you arguing for individual financial freedom, and the right to not pay for someone's health care, yet on the other the government needs to look at the people as whole which would call for a guarantee of healthcare.(2) ;
;You base this on what?(3) ;
;As proof of my being informed, I'll note that I am never called to vote on a bill. Are you a senator or congressman? I am not. I vote on propositions and bond measures.(4) ;

This does prove that the government s duty is to it s people as a whole. The BoR never mentions any kind of social, economic, religious, or other kind of qualifications that must be met by the individual to be protected by it. This means that it lumped all the individual citizens into 1 body. Further more the BoR protects the citizens from the government. Like I said before it basically I list of things the government has said it wont do. The later added amendments do mention race among other things but they do not give any one group an advantage over the others. They merely take away disadvantages(1).
I fail to see any irony. If the government sets up some kind of minimum health care coverage that you must buy into, then more people would be paying for their own health care and the rest of us would be paying less money to take care of the uninsured. More people would be responsible for there healthcare(2).
I base my statement on the fact that most of your arguments have been largely or strictly argumentative without sound logic or facts to back them up. Whereas mine have had at the very least sound logic with explanations and facts although I haven t quoted sources for all of them. The point being I know that I am pretty informed about this kind of stuff. You however have given me little too no indication that you have done research on this(3). Unless you suddenly start making logical arguments I probably wont site my sources either. Too much effort considering that your not really even being open minded about this discussion. I believe Verms pinned down the type of arguer you earlier.
I screwed up on nomenclature. I am sorry, but you shouldn t dismiss the point of what I was trying to say because of a poor selection of words. You do by the way ,or at least should, vote on state measures that have been petitioned by the people. Provided that your state has such a political mechanism. You also should be writing to your house rep and senator to let them know how you feel about various bills that they will be voting on. Believe it or not they do actually listen to their constituents sometimes. It s a good way to get reelected. Also you should do research on the political pasts of individuals that you will be voting to put into office(4).

Final series
~Thraxle said ;BTW, when does it actually become "Obama's economy", and the current issues become "Obama's issues"? ;

;How about now...job losses have gone from 800K a month to virtually nothing. ;

**the second part of this statement is completely uninformed. here are a series of quotes from an article based on the monthly US report on labor. The article was published Jan 8 2010
"When discouraged workers and part-time workers who would prefer full-time jobs are included, the so-called "underemployment" rate in December rose to 17.3 percent, from 17.2 percent in November. That's just below a revised figure of 17.4 percent in October, the highest on records dating from 1994."**
**"Friday's report caps a disastrous year for U.S. workers. Employers cut 4.2 million jobs in 2009. And the unemployment rate averaged 9.3 percent. That compares with an average of 5.8 percent in 2008 and 4.6 percent in 2007. Nearly 15.3 million people are unemployed, an increase of 3.9 million during 2009."**

;Wrong again. I know very well what s underneath the job statistics. I stand by my claim that now is a good time to say that Obama is responsible for owning the problem, and that his administrations actions have helped the economy. ;

According to the labor reports unemployment and underemployment are both still increasing under the Obama administration. What s more is that Obama is compounding the situation by trying to increase taxes on the wealthy and busenesess so that he can afford to keep throwing money at companies that are failing. This means that he is taking extra money from healthy companies like Microsoft, and he is giving it to unhealthy companies like GM. The more money you take from the healthy companies the less healthy they become and the more jobs they have to cut.

Anything I haven t addressed from ryansucks321 I have deemed to be utterly ridiculous and not worth my time to address. If anybody else however need more explanation or wants add anything or disagree with me feel free to I m always up for a good debate.

The post isn't all that long if you take out all the stuff I copy pasted. I tried to make it organized so that you didn't have to read it all but it got kinda screwed up when I copied it from word onto the forum.
Also I should be mod.

thank you skrum your an angel

yeah, as soon as i saw the (=&8227 business, i was like fuck that. but im sure it was a logical well thought out argument, bravo

also +1 for detmod

but im p sure this has just turned into who can post the largest coherent wall of text contest

well then I'm winning. Also isn't this the kind of thread that skrum usually gets involved in? I may be mistaken of course.

I have already been involved in the thread, but I have been busy getting my classes launched and haven't been able to analyse all the points. But one comment: I don't agree that the government should force people to buy health insurance for themselves. It's not the same as car insurance, where in exchange for the privilege of operating a dangerous instrumentality on public roads, a driver has to insure against harm he could do to other. It may be ok to make people buy insurance for their children (just as they have responsibility for their food, education, etc.) but adults are on their own. I mentioned this in some other thread.

I guess you cleaned up my post too.
To be honest i have pretty mixed feelings on forcing people to buy health coverage. On the one hand its not fair to the rest of us to have to pay for somebody else emergency visit. On the other hand its not really fair to tell somebody that they must buy health insurance. I guess if it was affordable enough like say 25 or so a month i could get behind it.
I know 25 a month wouldn't cover much. but what it would do is offset the cost for the rest of us. I haven't really put a lot of thought in to this though.

It makes sense that the costs of the decision to provide emergency care to uninsured people should be borne by the makers of that decision. Patients don't go "shopping" for emergency care providers, because they can't know where they will be if an emergency happens. So bringing down of emergency care costs cannot happen from the demand side of the market.