I can't follow what you initially said and you cited no sources so I am going to ignore it. Referring to the second half, the "human shield" excuse holds no weight. First of all you really think someone would willingly be used as a human shield? Don't be absurd. Secondly so what if Hamas is even doing that. That does not give Israel any excuse. If the police are in a shootout with someone and they take a hostage to protect themselves, the police don't say "Oh darn they are using the old human shield trick, nothing we can do. Just mow them both down with a machine gun and let's call it a day."
How is it a load of bull shit and how does it make the country a laughing stock to the rest of the world?
"I don't see why God couldn't have just set evolution in motion."
Because according to the bible god created all of the various species at the time of creation. This makes evolution impossible.
How is Obama making the country a laughing stock to all other nations? I'm pretty sure that was Bush's job.
As long as you aren't trying to justify the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saying that we underestimated or did not fully understand the effects of the bombs, I am fine.
It's amazing how I provide a lot of actual information and you respond with a terrible argument like that based upon nothing.
Sorry but they knew exactly what the results would be. Before Fat Man and Little Boy were even deployed a bomb with the same design as Fat Man was detonated in a test called Trinity in New Mexico. And even for this test they calculated the probability that the atmosphere would be incinerated as impossible.
The Fat Man was not a test. We knew exactly what it would do. And we had a very good prediction of the damage it would cause. Please stop debating things you clearly don't know anything about.
A land invasion would have caused more deaths to American soldiers, but not to innocent Japanese civilians. Deliberately targeting and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians because they were born in the wrong country is morally repugnant. If you were Japanese you would not be justifying the war crimes of Truman. If America had not won the war Truman would have been tried for war crimes. But whichever country wins wars faces no punishment for its actions and they are usually glorified or justified by the country's citizens.
What do you mean no one knew what the hell it would do? You think that is how the military designs weapons? You think they just throw some random shit together and then deploy? $2 billion were spent on the Manhattan Project. They calculated the exact amount of energy that would be released by the detonation of Fat Man and Little Boy. And they had done extensive tests to determine the damage that would be caused.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible events in human and United States history and they were done to frighten the Soviet Union with our technological and military prowess.
1. Obviously it does take more education than that if people are continuing to have unhealthy lifestyles.
2. No I mean health insurance companies need to streamline. No it is not because our lives are precious. Like I said we spend the greatest percentage of our GDP on health care, but have only the 37th best quality of health care.
3. The problem is that not everyone will help out of their own free will.
4. I am not arguing for artificially low health care costs. I am arguing for creating a single-payer system that is so efficient that it forces private health insurance companies to become as efficient.
If the price increase touches all industries then everyone's wages will go up, and there is still no inflation.
And I understand that a minimum wage increases unemployment I never said it doesn't. We were simply arguing over whether or not it causes inflation.
1. I have never even heard Obama say that line before, but I'm fairly certain he neither invented it nor popularized it. Many people do not understand how to live a healthy lifestyle. They can underestimate its significance or simply not know how. It may seem simple to me or you, but many people were simply never properly educated about basic physiology. Or maybe they just need a bit of motivation. Bottom line is that countries that spend more on preventative medicine spend much less on treatment.
2. I never argued a government mandate to reduce reimbursements. A universal health care option will force insurance companies to streamline their business models to stay competitive. The cost of medicine is not the issue. The cost and availability of health insurance is.
3. Life is not meant to be hard. Life is not meant to be anything. It may be hard, but this does not mean it is meant to be hard. I'm not sure if I can make you understand because you seem to be a borderline sociopath. If you can't be persuaded to help other people then maybe you can be persuaded to help yourself. Like I said we waste a ton of money of health care. And that actually does hurt you. The less money everyone has, the worse this is for the economy and as you are a member of the economy, you as well.
4. I have no idea what you are talking about. You are arguing a different point and I can't really even tell what it is.
Okay apparently you do not know what inflation is. Inflation is a rise in the price of all goods and services in an economy. So let's say minimum wage increases and therefore the costs of companies affected increases. They therefore increase their prices. As long as the money supply is held constant this just means that consumers have less money to spend on other goods and services which means there is a less of a demand for them. When there is less of a demand for other goods and services their price decreases. Consequently there is no rise in all goods and services simply a simply a shift. Some goods and services increase in price and others decrease in price. This is not inflation.
1. Then why are countries with universal health care so much healthier than ours if it 'encourages people to be unhealthy.' Maybe the reason why we are so unhealthy is that our medical system fails at preventative medicine.
2. Thank for the beginners economics lesson, but that isn't what I was talking about. The companies and researchers developing new medicines and techniques are not the same people administering health care. Health insurance companies have nothing to do with developing new medical technology. Therefore cutting health insurance companies profits does nothing to decrease incentives of other companies to do research.
3. "Life is meant to be hard." According to who? So because you think life is meant to be hard, we should do nothing to help people who are in need of assistance. Alright so if see an old man fall down just walk up to him and say "I'm sorry sir, but life is meant to be hard. Good luck gramps" and walk away.
4. That will not necessarily happen and that is not what is being proposed. They can lower by prices by doing that, but if they don't what is the problem?
I don't deny that we have many serious health problems in the United States, but this would not mean we have lower care. It could increase the amount we spend slightly.
How do we spend so much money, yet have pretty poor quality health care?
Medical research is separate from actual health care. The current employer-based insurance system is not efficient regardless of how many medical advancements have come from the US. When 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, there is a problem.
It has nothing to do with driving out the competition. If you can't see how a single payer system is a more efficient distributor of resources, I don't really know what to tell you. Try shopping at Costco or getting a loan from a credit union I guess, maybe that will make you understand.
Like I said even though that could be a part of fascist economies you would not define it as fascist because it is not unique to fascism.
This is what you just did
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Here's an example:
If something is a frog, then it is alive.
You are a alive.
Therefore you are a frog.
You are actually employing another logical fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Just because it is a part of a fascist philosophy does not make it wrong.
No fascist government has ever made it legal to throw people in volcanoes. So because fascism is 'evil' should we make it legal to throw people into volcanoes?
Basically congratulations on using two logical fallacies in one argument.
I'm going to copy-paste my response here:
"An increase of the cost of goods and services only leads to inflation if the government increases the money supply. If the money supply is held constant, then it just means less money will be spent on other goods and services to compensate and money still buys the same amount of goods, just different goods."
An increase of the cost of goods and services only leads to inflation if the government increases the money supply. If the money supply is held constant, then it just means less money will be spent on other goods and services to compensate and money still buys the same amount of goods, just different goods.
You just demonstrated your ignorance of health care issues. The United States currently spends 15% of its GDP on health care more than any other country. Yet the WHO ranks the our health care at #37 in the world. Something is clearly broken if we are spending so much and not receiving the benefits. All that extra money is lining the pockets of the owners of health insurance companies and it is also used for administrative costs. Because every company has their own way of doing things and it is very decentralized, much money is spent on administration. A single-payer system is simply more efficient. Think of Costco if you have one near you, or any other consumer co-op. The same principle is in use.
No that is not fascism. You can't just describe every political position you don't like as fascist.
First of all he never said the government would mandate wage caps. And even if the government did put a limit on CEO wages this wouldn't even be communist.
So you support the concept of a minimum living wage, but you do not support the continued rise in the minimum wage? This is a cognitively dissonant position. Over time as inflation causes prices and rise and therefore the cost of living, minimum wage has to be increased or else it is worthless. What is a fair minimum wage today will not be a fair minimum wage in the years to come.
Your bosses are afraid of the destruction of the employer based health insurance system? Unless you work for a health insurance company, I'm not sure why they would be scared.
"working calss pays a pittance compared to the rich- and the poor pay negative taxes because of earned income tax credit. "
I don't see what your point is. I said that working class citizens do pay taxes.
"Keep taxing the rich so they go to china and build nukes."
I'm sorry what are you talking about?
You must have a really skewed definition of working class. Like I said earlier middle class != poor.
Just because the price of a good has risen does not mean suppliers have not been able to meet demand. There is this thing called inflation which is a general rise of the price of all goods and services in an economy over time.
I thought this was a debate on economics not morality. Debating morality is useless because everyone has their own.
Regardless I am kind of shocked you think a progressive tax system is as bad as slavery, but to each his own I guess.
Oh wow, that was an egregious error in reading comprehension. I kind of feel bad for you. I am amazed at how you managed to misinterpret what I said so extremely.
I didn't say he said tax cuts are bad. I said that the economist said that tax cuts are more effective when given to people of the middle class rather than upper class.
And Adam Smith may be the father of modern economics, but that does not make him correct, just as most of Frued's theories (the father of modern psychology) have been proven to not be entirely right.
I'm not sure how the fact that Paul Krugman is liberal invalidates any of his theories. He thinks liberalism is the best mentality. You think being a libertarian is the best mentality. You can't discredit someone solely based upon their philosophy, you should look at the substance of what they are saying. And are you really trying to compare a Nobel Prize winning economist to a hate-mongering wing-bag with no recognition outside of his extreme group of followers.
"I don't mind what you have to say (slam Reaganomics) but the way you did it was kind of... eh."
Oh really good argument. I was too "eh" with my statements.
That my friends is how you know you have lost a debate. You cease debating the actual points because you are unable to do so, so you instead red herring the argument until your opponent gives up. You stay classy jafl.
Oh and just to illustrate how ridiculous your 'argument,' to use the term loosely, is. That is like debating on whether Macs or PCs are better and your opponent says, "Well PCs work better" and you say "Oh yeah the holocaust worked really well too, so take that obviously you are incorrect."
His definition of work in context was to function to create a sound economic system that promotes stability, growth, and fairness. So if you want to explain how slavery, smallpox, or AIDS concentration camps would result in a stable economy then by all means do so, I'm quite interested.
I just want to emphasize that I am really shocked at how moronic what you just said is.
Just out of curiosity since when do working class families not pay taxes? I think you might have misread working class as poor for some reason.
Also could you please explain how the agricultural and manufacturing sectors don't have the capacity to meet demand.
We have tried supply-side economics before, it just doesn't work. I really wish I could find a citation for this, but I couldn't because it was on NPR about a month ago, but they had an economist talking about the stimulus package and things like that and he said that tax cuts are four times more effective at stimulating the economy when given to the lower and middle class than when given to the upper class. It makes sense when you think about it. Working families will spend their money right away to pay for bills, food, gas and things like that. However upper class families might save the money or invest it in such a way that doesn't directly stimulate the economy.
To quote Noble Prize winning economist Paul Krugman "When Ronald Reagan was elected, the supply-siders got a chance to try out their ideas. Unfortunately, they failed." Under Reagan public debt tripled, job growth was just average for a twentieth century president, unemployment was higher, private investment decreased, and real wages decreased. Reagan started the huge national debt that has not been payed off even today. And his system of deregulation led to a recession. Just like it did during the Great Depression. And just like it did in 2008. When will you conservatives understand that Reagan was a bad president. I do not understand why you all love him so much. And please stop espousing his moron economic theories. History has shown that they don't work.
Ah I see what you're saying. Yes that would be a more efficient distribution of time and money if one were inclined to achieve the most efficient system possible.
Well are we talking about professional schooling? Because for things like doctors, lawyers, and engineers you can't do that online. Those professions require hands-on learning and experience.
You may not, but having people make scientific advancements is really important.
Just curious how many Nobel Prize winners or people who have made groundbreaking discoveries did not attend college?
I will agree with you that is possible to be successful without attending college. You can still make a decent amount of money if you want to and you can easily still be happy. However for many fields, succeeding without college just isn't feasible. Yes you can try to self teach by reading textbooks, but there is something to be gained from having the information taught to you by professor who wrote the book him or herself. And like you said research is also a huge reason to go to college. There are other institutions that conduct research, but having one with a steady stream of young eager minds with a passion for knowledge will probably fare better.
It may be possible to self-teach and many people have, but it is significantly more difficult. Sometimes you just need a real live human being to explain things to you and answer your questions. This may change some day if we can develop AI sufficiently so that computer programs can teach, explain, and answer which may really make college obsolete, but as of right I think college is worth the time and money. There is a really strong statistical link between level of education and salary. So just from an economic perspective definitely.
Some of the article makes sense, but a lot of it doesn't.
The "Why your parents wanted you to go to college" is totally wrong. Maybe some parents somewhere just wanted to get their kids out of the house, but the vast majority of parents actually want to help their children succeed. How do you explain first generation college students from low-income families where their parents would be much better off if kids didn't go to college, but stayed home and worked for the family? Instead they sacrifice and work hard to allow their kids to attend college and have opportunities they didn't have.
The "Colleges- Which ones are better" is also fairly incorrect. For a B.A. degree the best place is probably an Ivy League school. Just because most people are dumb and think that Ivy League schools are better. For a B.S. degree, however, this is absolutely not true. Cornell is the only Ivy League school with a decent science and engineering program, but there are many schools that are significantly more respected in the science and engineering job community than all of the Ivy League schools. Maybe this was one of the sections the author said doesn't apply to B.S. degrees, but I don't know.
The "A college degree translator" while a bit exaggerated is based on truth. Getting a B.A. really doesn't help with job prospects because most B.A. degrees are for majors like philosophy or English. And by getting a B.A. degree you don't learn any skills or knowledge that someone will pay you for. It's really sad when I see college graduates working as cashiers because they spent so much time and money, but it ended up not really helping them.
The "Professors" section is quite wrong also. I can't speak for every professor, but most of them are not at college because "they failed the real test." In fact many professors are so busy with their research so they can get grants and awards that they don't actually care about teaching. Many professors are world-renowned experts who have won Nobel Prizes and other distinguished awards. They conduct ground-breaking research that is contributing to new insight and technological advancement.
Overall the article had some kernels of truth, but was largely exaggerated and incorrect.
"Anyways where was this majority talk the past "8 years"!?!? "
It probably occurred mostly around the 2000 election when the candidate who won the majority of votes wasn't made president.
"What if the majority of the majority is uneducated and indocrinated? "
Right because if a Republican wins then the majority is informed and free thinking, but if a Democrat wins then obvious that election everyone became indoctrinated and forgot everything they knew.
"Are you saying that the majority of the media is biased?"
Yes.
"The government can not handle it. All the people who know what they are doing are in the big buisnesses and not in the government."
This statement is both unfounded and irrelevant.
"And sacrifice free speech?"
It's not sacrificing free speech. You can say whatever you want. But if you want to get a broadcasting license from the FCC you need to follow certain regulations.
Great argument I completely agree. I think the root of this problem is the consolidation of corporations and businesses. All the news channels are owned by three companies. Movie studios own most of the theater chains. Then you have huge conglomerates like GE that own companies in a multitude of sectors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
To simplify the problem I think democracy is starting to break down. Journalism is the backbone of a democracy. Without an informed public it ceases to exist. And when the media is owned by a few corporations watching out for their best interests and the interests of their subsidiaries, the result is that the public is not informed. Businesses also have an enormous amount of control in congress. Like you said health care reform has been blocked many times by insurance company lobbies because they don't want any of their profits to be taken away. More money continues to be concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and this can lead to tyranny of the minority. We need to demand that congress take steps to fix the media like bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and breaking up the monopoly on news. We also need to demand more transparency and regulation of where politicians get funding. To all the conservatives who are afraid of a strong central government this is what I will say. At least with a strong central government, the people have control over it democratically. Right now our government is in a stranglehold by big business over which we have no control.
What other logical factors are there in this situation?
50chars
I can add emotional and moral arguments if you want, but I consider emotional arguments weaker than logical arguments and consequently they are much easier to refute as they are based on opinion not fact. "I think it's fair to allow them to become citizens." "Well they didn't come here legally so it's not." No one is right because it's just your opinion. Whereas if I talk it about from an economic standpoint we can actually analyze the truth value.
The problems people usually have with illegal immigrants is that they collect social benefits, but don't pay taxes. Isn't the most logical argument then to give them all amnesty and citizenship?
I am removing all emotional and moral arguments from this and examining it from a purely economic standpoint. So who deserves what, and what is fair, is irrelevant.
Right now there are millions of illegal immigrants who are not paying taxes on their income and who are benefiting from taxes of citizens. Let's think of the possible remedies to this situation.
1) We deport all of them
2) We grant them all amnesty and citizenship
Clearly the first solution is impossible. We spend a lot of money on trying to prevent illegal immigrants from entering and trying to get rid of them and clearly the idea is fundamentally flawed. So if the enforcement plan doesn't work, the only other possible solution is amnesty.
I was saying that to illustrate that it is dumb to say you can't criticize something you don't experience regularly. I have seen Fox before, and I didn't like it. It was pretty bad, but not that bad relative to other news networks.
1. Yes I understand that. I acknowledge that capitalism better encourages innovation.
2. My only point with that example is that helping someone in need of help is not rewarding them for failure.
3. Oh I thought you were being sarcastic. I'm not really sure how good they are as a whole, but that study was flawed.
"It's the No Spin Zone."
Yeah if he calls it the no spin zone, then obviously there can't be spin. So if I call my house a mansion will it magically turn into one?
Bill does not want straight answers are you kidding me? He is completely a partisan and he is a pundit masquerading as a journalism. He has a political purpose and his goals when he has liberal guests on is to cast them in a bad light.
By your logic you can't criticize rapists.
I have seen Fox before. That is why I do not watch it.
No it doesn't because anecdotal evidence is useless in a debate.
Care to cite an actual study instead of making information up? And saying other networks are bad too isn't going to make me recant my criticism of Fox as I don't watch them anyway.
