Medicare Reform Fights (new proposal)

[SirSebstar]

Would you like to dispute the above facts or for once actually concede and maybe learn something that contradicts your beliefs?

Your fact are open to interpretation.

The amount of money poured into R&D is not the same as the output. Much R&D is done to either form a monopoly, (thus at best giving an advantage to the whole world once the monopoly expires) or to block potential rivals from using the technology. (abundant examples) And then there is the research that fails. Money spend, but no public details about the failed research because that is helping rivals too. In all, more money is spend on R&D by companies, but its beneficial effects for the community will either have to wait or are in fact slowed or lowered because of the difference between what is good for a company and what is better for a community.
Publicly funded research usually is publicly available and not protected in the same way as commercial inventions. So that manufacturer now does not have to do as much research to make his product..but the entire community profits are greater here.

And half of that 33% of government funding isn't necessarily invested in sectors which are most useful to citizens. According to Charles W. Wessner, Ph.D. (Director of the Technology and Innovation at the National Research Council), in 2005 52% of $132bn goes to the Department of Defense.

http://www.6cp.net/downloads/04brussels_wessner.ppt

I agree that the military is not always the best place to blow your savings on, although internet, satalite communication gps and a few others actually found its way to the consumer while being incepted for the military. Again facts but its meaning is subject to interpretation.

[queote]You're denying that the achievement of the assembly line employed by Henry Ford was not supported by big business[.quote]

Ford did not conceive the concept, he perfected it. But eh, how did Ford get supported by his rival company’s to build his assembly line? Neglect is not really the same as suppost, and the competition simply neglected to put a check on Ford..


just me thinking ofcourse.
overall, I see the need for indivudual reward and recognition system, even if it now is used primerely by compagnies.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I just wanted to go on record saying that i heartily approve of the use of colours while debating huge posts.
Let's make the forums prettier guys.

Carry on.

[BigBallinStalin]

edited, suppose to be for another thread

[BigBallinStalin]

Would you like to dispute the above facts or for once actually concede and maybe learn something that contradicts your beliefs?

Your fact are open to interpretation.

The amount of money poured into R&D is not the same as the output. Much R&D is done to either form a monopoly, (thus at best giving an advantage to the whole world once the monopoly expires) or to block potential rivals from using the technology. (abundant examples) And then there is the research that fails. Money spend, but no public details about the failed research because that is helping rivals too. In all, more money is spend on R&D by companies, but its beneficial effects for the community will either have to wait or are in fact slowed or lowered because of the difference between what is good for a company and what is better for a community.

Publicly funded research usually is publicly available and not protected in the same way as commercial inventions. So that manufacturer now does not have to do as much research to make his product..but the entire community profits are greater here.

And half of that 33% of government funding isn't necessarily invested in sectors which are most useful to citizens. According to Charles W. Wessner, Ph.D. (Director of the Technology and Innovation at the National Research Council), in 2005 52% of $132bn goes to the Department of Defense.

http://www.6cp.net/downloads/04brussels_wessner.ppt

I agree that the military is not always the best place to blow your savings on, although internet, satalite communication gps and a few others actually found its way to the consumer while being incepted for the military. Again facts but its meaning is subject to interpretation.

[queote]You're denying that the achievement of the assembly line employed by Henry Ford was not supported by big business[.quote]

Ford did not conceive the concept, he perfected it. But eh, how did Ford get supported by his rival company’s to build his assembly line? Neglect is not really the same as suppost, and the competition simply neglected to put a check on Ford..


just me thinking ofcourse.
overall, I see the need for indivudual reward and recognition system, even if it now is used primerely by compagnies.

This is a great example of quoting out of context and missing the earlier argument against player. Had this guy simply just read a few replies earlier, then he would understand what I was refuting earlier.

Instead, it's devolved into points that are irrelevant to the previous discussion.

Let's use colors:

1) I'm not arguing against this, or even about this.

2) Agreement with me, but there's that incessant quibbling about a point in reference to a completely different argument, which I wasn't refuting or even talking about

[PLAYER57832]

Here's your line of reasoning summarized:

1) Give generalized "fact" without questioning its validity, its soundness, or even bothering with learning contradictory empirical evidence

2) Strawman fallacy

3) Ignore other significant factors

4) Reading miscomprehension

Nope, here's the real summary

BBS doesn't like previous evidence presented., finds it does not fit into his current argumetn, so now pretends it non-existant. (of course, he will revive this same data when he finds it convenient)

TRUTH-- the middle class, lower upper class ARE bearing the brunt of the damage done, are getting the least in return.

2,3,4 BBS cannot refute, so instead decides to use the old standby "If I cannot argue against it, I will just insult the speaker".

Too bad, when you actually think you can sometimes come up with decent stuff. Not this time!

[PLAYER57832]

Would you like to dispute the above facts or for once actually concede and maybe learn something that contradicts your beliefs?

Your fact are open to interpretation.

The amount of money poured into R&D is not the same as the output. Much R&D is done to either form a monopoly, (thus at best giving an advantage to the whole world once the monopoly expires) or to block potential rivals from using the technology. (abundant examples) And then there is the research that fails. Money spend, but no public details about the failed research because that is helping rivals too. In all, more money is spend on R&D by companies, but its beneficial effects for the community will either have to wait or are in fact slowed or lowered because of the difference between what is good for a company and what is better for a community.
Publicly funded research usually is publicly available and not protected in the same way as commercial inventions. So that manufacturer now does not have to do as much research to make his product..but the entire community profits are greater here.

Typically, the government does the ground-breaking, back-breaking and time-consuming work of initial research. Companies step in once the government research is beginning to show progress... and then leap on all the patents, etc.

Its part of the irony. Government research is touted as being "ineffective", because real baseline research by its very nature IS. However, without that base research, companies would be stifled and would not be able to do what they do with any efficiency, except the occasional lucky break.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's your line of reasoning summarized:

1) Give generalized "fact" without questioning its validity, its soundness, or even bothering with learning contradictory empirical evidence

2) Strawman fallacy

3) Ignore other significant factors

4) Reading miscomprehension

Nope, here's the real summary

BBS doesn't like previous evidence presented., finds it does not fit into his current argumetn, so now pretends it non-existant. (of course, he will revive this same data when he finds it convenient)

TRUTH-- the middle class, lower upper class ARE bearing the brunt of the damage done, are getting the least in return.

2,3,4 BBS cannot refute, so instead decides to use the old standby "If I cannot argue against it, I will just insult the speaker".

Too bad, when you actually think you can sometimes come up with decent stuff. Not this time!

I love how you kick and scream like a child.

Continue entertaining us.

[PLAYER57832]

I love how you kick and scream like a child.

Continue entertaining us.

Nice try.. when you decide to actually read instead of just throwing out insults when you are stymied, let us know.

[Phatscotty]

Newsflash... hardly any healthcare was available when Medicare was established. I mean, these people saw polio and small pox vaccines come about.

Omg, so America was a piss poor third world country before medicare that allowed all it's suffering people to die? At least we were free.

Freedom is freedom, no matter how hard you pull on people heart-strings.

Freedom requires access to money and someone to protect the weak. You want to deny most people both of those. That's not freedom, that is slavery.

Player, the perfect system exists for you, where the state takes care of everything. It's called prison. Why don't you just check yourself into a prison instead of trying to build a prison around everyone else?



I dont think your bleeding heart justifies bankrupting our nation. Soon your beloved entitlement are going to swallow defense, education, and transportation
What good will medicare be when there is no money for the roads to get you to the hospital?

LOL... seen our roads lately? Obviously not.

I see our roads. Winter just ended. It tears our roads up every year. That's the states responsibility here. I'm certain I've pointed that out to you before. However, the freeways here are just fine. Only one problem, where there used to be no traffic, now there is a bunch of work going on and I never can seem to figure out what they are fixing and usually only see that it's a stimulus project.

What good will medicare be when there is no money for the schools to educate people to become doctors and nurses?

So, your answer is to get rid of Medicare?
MY answer is to tax the wealthy... and to require more responsibility from corporations. Not sure where you get "bleeding heart" from that...

The answer is, you think we have a choice? Entitlements will swallow up 100% of the budget eventually. It an insane idea that seemed good at first, but now, only in the end, do we understand. They will bankrupt us if we dont do something major. And as for taxing the rich, you can tax everyone 90% (including the bottom 45% percent who pay zero income taxes) and it still won't be enough. You really need to understand the hole you and your ilk have got us in. You take take the cost of all the wars and tax cuts, it doesn't even come close to entitlement spending. Unfunded entitlement liabilities for 2011 is $59.1 trillion. See the proof below

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... dget_N.htm

The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.

"We're on an unsustainable path and doing a great disservice to future generations,

A good economy can sustain entitlements. Eventually, you run out of other peoples money. The answer is not to take more....in a free country anyways.

The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.

Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest.

[BigBallinStalin]

Would you like to dispute the above facts or for once actually concede and maybe learn something that contradicts your beliefs?

Your fact are open to interpretation.

The amount of money poured into R&D is not the same as the output. Much R&D is done to either form a monopoly, (thus at best giving an advantage to the whole world once the monopoly expires) or to block potential rivals from using the technology. (abundant examples) And then there is the research that fails. Money spend, but no public details about the failed research because that is helping rivals too. In all, more money is spend on R&D by companies, but its beneficial effects for the community will either have to wait or are in fact slowed or lowered because of the difference between what is good for a company and what is better for a community.
Publicly funded research usually is publicly available and not protected in the same way as commercial inventions. So that manufacturer now does not have to do as much research to make his product..but the entire community profits are greater here.

Typically, the government does the ground-breaking, back-breaking and time-consuming work of initial research. Companies step in once the government research is beginning to show progress... and then leap on all the patents, etc.

Its part of the irony. Government research is touted as being "ineffective", because real baseline research by its very nature IS. However, without that base research, companies would be stifled and would not be able to do what they do with any efficiency, except the occasional lucky break.

Player assumes that the government has the knowledge, experience, and judgement in determining how best to spend those resources.

Player assumes that she has this too, which is why she feels compelled to argue with everyone on any point regardless of how little knowledge she has on that field.

If we talk about geo-political security, she becomes a member of the National Security Council.

if we talk about economics, she becomes a Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, and Adam Smith rolled into one. Sure, those names are contradictory, but that contradiction is representative of her incoherence.

[BigBallinStalin]

I love how you kick and scream like a child.

Continue entertaining us.

Nice try.. when you decide to actually read instead of just throwing out insults when you are stymied, let us know.

I've already addressed the logical fallacies in your arguments. The ball is in your court to improve them, or as you choose, to further insult me at the expense of ever learning anything beyond your limited worldview.

2) The education budget is very easy to cut through political means because the immediate costs are very little and the long-term costs will be more significant at a later time where it becomes unclear which politicians were responsible for which unintended consequences, thus saving their political careers.

consequences are intended.

"Consequences are intended."

Tell me, if consequences are intended, then when a politicians decides to vote some law into being, and that law tries to fix one thing, but that law also creates other problems, then those other problems are called "unintended consequences."

But according to you, they were intended.

Please explain.

[PLAYER57832]

Would you like to dispute the above facts or for once actually concede and maybe learn something that contradicts your beliefs?

Your fact are open to interpretation.

The amount of money poured into R&D is not the same as the output. Much R&D is done to either form a monopoly, (thus at best giving an advantage to the whole world once the monopoly expires) or to block potential rivals from using the technology. (abundant examples) And then there is the research that fails. Money spend, but no public details about the failed research because that is helping rivals too. In all, more money is spend on R&D by companies, but its beneficial effects for the community will either have to wait or are in fact slowed or lowered because of the difference between what is good for a company and what is better for a community.
Publicly funded research usually is publicly available and not protected in the same way as commercial inventions. So that manufacturer now does not have to do as much research to make his product..but the entire community profits are greater here.

Typically, the government does the ground-breaking, back-breaking and time-consuming work of initial research. Companies step in once the government research is beginning to show progress... and then leap on all the patents, etc.

Its part of the irony. Government research is touted as being "ineffective", because real baseline research by its very nature IS. However, without that base research, companies would be stifled and would not be able to do what they do with any efficiency, except the occasional lucky break.

Player assumes that the government has the knowledge, experience, and judgement in determining how best to spend those resources.

No, but I assume that people within the government can do better than big business has already. That is not exactly a high mark, after all.

Player assumes that she has this too, which is why she feels compelled to argue with everyone on any point regardless of how little knowledge she has on that field.

Funny, that, from someone who claims his stats should dictate the world, but who "cannot be bothered" to calculate externalities.

newsflash.. natural resource people HAVE to learn economics. The same is absolutely not true in reverse.. clearly!

If we talk about geo-political security, she becomes a member of the National Security Council.

Oh, I see, anyone who disagrees with you is now an "expert" lol.. interesting, that!

if we talk about economics, she becomes a Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, and Adam Smith rolled into one. Sure, those names are contradictory, but that contradiction is representative of her incoherence.

LOL.. might be I just reject the lot. Not entirely, but I do understand that they had expertise in a particular area of statistics. They were not the gods of truth.

[PLAYER57832]

I love how you kick and scream like a child.

Continue entertaining us.

Nice try.. when you decide to actually read instead of just throwing out insults when you are stymied, let us know.

I've already addressed the logical fallacies in your arguments.

No, you just explained that the details were too complicated for you to bother verifying.

Pretty much destroyed any and all credibility you might ever have had with that declared ignorance.

[BigBallinStalin]

Your fact are open to interpretation.

The amount of money poured into R&D is not the same as the output. Much R&D is done to either form a monopoly, (thus at best giving an advantage to the whole world once the monopoly expires) or to block potential rivals from using the technology. (abundant examples) And then there is the research that fails. Money spend, but no public details about the failed research because that is helping rivals too. In all, more money is spend on R&D by companies, but its beneficial effects for the community will either have to wait or are in fact slowed or lowered because of the difference between what is good for a company and what is better for a community.
Publicly funded research usually is publicly available and not protected in the same way as commercial inventions. So that manufacturer now does not have to do as much research to make his product..but the entire community profits are greater here.

Typically, the government does the ground-breaking, back-breaking and time-consuming work of initial research. Companies step in once the government research is beginning to show progress... and then leap on all the patents, etc.

Its part of the irony. Government research is touted as being "ineffective", because real baseline research by its very nature IS. However, without that base research, companies would be stifled and would not be able to do what they do with any efficiency, except the occasional lucky break.

Player assumes that the government has the knowledge, experience, and judgement in determining how best to spend those resources.

No, but I assume that people within the government can do better than big business has already. That is not exactly a high mark, after all.

If you care to adjust your limited worldview, Hayek's Fatal Conceit provides some interesting ideas to digest.

[quote="BigBallinStalin wrote:Player assumes that she has this too, which is why she feels compelled to argue with everyone on any point regardless of how little knowledge she has on that field.

Funny, that, from someone who claims his stats should dictate the world, but who "cannot be bothered" to calculate externalities.

newsflash.. natural resource people HAVE to learn economics. The same is absolutely not true in reverse.. clearly!

If we talk about geo-political security, she becomes a member of the National Security Council.

Oh, I see, anyone who disagrees with you is now an "expert" lol.. interesting, that!

if we talk about economics, she becomes a Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, and Adam Smith rolled into one. Sure, those names are contradictory, but that contradiction is representative of her incoherence.

LOL.. might be I just reject the lot. Not entirely, but I do understand that they had expertise in a particular area of statistics. They were not the gods of truth.[/quote][/quote]


1) Strawman fallacy

[BigBallinStalin]

I love how you kick and scream like a child.

Continue entertaining us.

Nice try.. when you decide to actually read instead of just throwing out insults when you are stymied, let us know.

I've already addressed the logical fallacies in your arguments.

No, you just explained that the details were too complicated for you to bother verifying.

Pretty much destroyed any and all credibility you might ever have had with that declared ignorance.

I did? Nope! Try again!

You still assume what is unknowable. It's retarded. Just plain retarded, player.

[PLAYER57832]

Pretty much destroyed any and all credibility you might ever have had with that declared ignorance.

I did? Nope! Try again!

You still assume what is unknowable. It's retarded. Just plain retarded, player.

Yep, you did... several times.
Again, you not knowing something doesn't make it "uknowable". This whole thing began with some pretty simple examples, where I said you could calculate transport costs, costs involved in importing goods versus the cost of "growing orange in Iceland".

here are some links.. not that I expect you will follow them (you already said it was just too much work for ya).

This one is undoubtedly obnoxiously wrong, but I like the title "The Real Cost of Cheap Food" hey..http://www.alternet.org/environment/86986/?page=2

but here is something more credible and not too technical (From TIME):
"Getting Real About the High Cost of Cheap food" http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 58,00.html

But, let's look at some other costs. Tourism dollars nice farmland draws is a tad esoteric, but there are more than a few economists who tackle that issue.. necessary for grants, recruiting businesses, etc. Here is an entire website dedicated to all of that... it includes both wildland tourism AND agriculture tourism (direct... as in people who have vacation farms, and indirect.. people who visit Lancaster to "see the sights").

Anyway, here are some other breakdowns:
http://www.iptv.org/mtom/story.cfm/lead/358 (from PBS)

From the NY Times:
"the Environmental cost of shipping groceries around the world"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/busin ... 6food.html

Anyway, I did not give you a bunch of worthless charts as Phattscotty is wont to do. instead, I explained how you would calculate the "uncalculable" costs, in part (a full estimate is not necessary to show that the cost of importing food is far more than the cost of buying local).

I also gave you plenty of other non-economic reasons why we need a secure, local food supply.

To contrast, all you gave was a bunch of utterly incorrect assumptions and false information. But hey.. go on making your strawmen and claiming you speak truth.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, watch me mess up quotes too!

[
Pretty much destroyed any and all credibility you might ever have had with that declared ignorance.

I did? Nope! Try again!

You still assume what is unknowable. It's retarded. Just plain retarded, player.[/quote]

Yep, you did... several times.
Again, you not knowing something doesn't make it "uknowable". This whole thing began with some pretty simple examples, where I said you could calculate transport costs, costs involved in importing goods versus the cost of "growing orange in Iceland".

here are some links.. not that I expect you will follow them (you already said it was just too much work for ya).

This one is undoubtedly obnoxiously wrong, but I like the title "The Real Cost of Cheap Food" hey..http://www.alternet.org/environment/86986/?page=2

but here is something more credible and not too technical (From TIME):
"Getting Real About the High Cost of Cheap food" http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 58,00.html

But, let's look at some other costs. Tourism dollars nice farmland draws is a tad esoteric, but there are more than a few economists who tackle that issue.. necessary for grants, recruiting businesses, etc. Here is an entire website dedicated to all of that... it includes both wildland tourism AND agriculture tourism (direct... as in people who have vacation farms, and indirect.. people

who visit Lancaster to "see the sights").

Anyway, here are some other breakdowns:
http://www.iptv.org/mtom/story.cfm/lead/358 (from PBS)

From the NY Times:
"the Environmental cost of shipping groceries around the world"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/busin ... 6food.html

Anyway, I did not give you a bunch of worthless charts as Phattscotty is wont to do. instead, I explained how you would calculate the "uncalculable" costs, in part (a full estimate is not necessary to show that the cost of importing food is far more than the cost of buying local).

I also gave you plenty of other non-economic re

asons why we need a secure, local food supply.

To contrast, all you gave was a bunch of utterly incorrect assumptions and false information. But hey.. go on making your strawmen and claiming you speak truth.

[/quote]


Wasn't that fun!?

[PLAYER57832]

Hey, watch me mess up quotes too!

One legitimate comment in the whole mess.

Pretty much destroyed any and all credibility you might ever have had with that declared ignorance.

I did? Nope! Try again!

Yep, you did... several times.

You still assume what is unknowable. It's retarded. Just plain retarded, player.

LOL
You won't even admit that either Juan or I might just know a tad more about this than you.. DESPITE all the evidence and you call me "retarded?" CUTE!

How about listing all these supposed "unkowables", because I have already given you a partial list:
transport
energy use
pollution
risk of damage versus potential benefit
impact of pollution on health
impact of loss of work through increased "efficiency", resulting in more people unable to find jobs of any kind here in the US

[PLAYER57832]

BUT, hey to bring it back to Medicare....

"reform" is not a legitimate description of a plan that will reduce the real money given to seniors over time. As Obama said... Sure, you can cut government costs by just telling everyone to pay for stuff all by themsleves. Trouble is, that is not the American bargain.

No one has any trouble with wealthy people being wealthy, the idea that those who want to risk a lot should sometimes get great gains. The trouble is that folks like you and Phattscotty want to claim that that is the ONLY type of person that matters.

The real truth is that high risk is never a good idea for most people. For every success, there are multiple failures. That is why those few who gain do gain so big. So, for most people its better to take a job, work for a living, put in your time. The returns are not as great, but they are supposed to be secure. It is the trade-off. The enterpreneurs get the benefit of decent, steady labor in return for a reasonable wage. The entrepreneurs don't have that security, but they stand to potentially gain far more.

This current "reform" is all about eliminating each and every support, each and every thing that allows average people to have a decent way of life, just so a very, very few can get even more wealthy than they already are... and turn around and pay the rest of us even less, demand even more.

Health care is the worst of it. Health care is not and never has been a free market system, for MANY reasons. Some things are, but healthcare is not. (Agriculture is not fully a free market either..b ut is not as limited as healthcare).

[BigBallinStalin]

BUT, hey to bring it back to Medicare....

"reform" is not a legitimate description of a plan that will reduce the real money given to seniors over time. As Obama said... Sure, you can cut government costs by just telling everyone to pay for stuff all by themsleves. Trouble is, that is not the American bargain.

No one has any trouble with wealthy people being wealthy, the idea that those who want to risk a lot should sometimes get great gains. The trouble is that folks like you and Phattscotty want to claim that that is the ONLY type of person that matters.

The real truth is that high risk is never a good idea for most people. For every success, there are multiple failures. That is why those few who gain do gain so big. So, for most people its better to take a job, work for a living, put in your time. The returns are not as great, but they are supposed to be secure. It is the trade-off. The enterpreneurs get the benefit of decent, steady labor in return for a reasonable wage. The entrepreneurs don't have that security, but they stand to potentially gain far more.

This current "reform" is all about eliminating each and every support, each and every thing that allows average people to have a decent way of life, just so a very, very few can get even more wealthy than they already are... and turn around and pay the rest of us even less, demand even more.

Health care is the worst of it. Health care is not and never has been a free market system, for MANY reasons. Some things are, but healthcare is not. (Agriculture is not fully a free market either..b ut is not as limited as healthcare).

1) straw man fallacy

I don't think that is the only person that matters. You think that because you're incapable of exercising logical thought on a consistent basis. Because of this, you make unsubstantiated claims about people's positions, and sometimes you tear them down (i.e. straw man fallacy) and sometimes you fail to tear them down while going on some irrelevant tangent (which is humorous).

Therefore, it is pointless for anyone to take your arguments seriously because most of your arguments are illogical fallacies, as the colorful record has shown. I'll admit that you do present some good points if one bothers to sort through your incoherent thinking, but this doesn't mean much compared to much larger number of your poorly defended (or just plain asserted) points about various issues.



2) Irrelevant lecture based on your straw man fallacy

3) Ignores other significant factors (i.e. oversimplifying the issue)
(Show how the reform "is all about eliminating each and every support, each and every thing that allows average people to have a decent way of life, just so a very, very few can get even more wealthy than they already are."

[PLAYER57832]

2) The education budget is very easy to cut through political means because the immediate costs are very little and the long-term costs will be more significant at a later time where it becomes unclear which politicians were responsible for which unintended consequences, thus saving their political careers.

consequences are intended.

"Consequences are intended."

Tell me, if consequences are intended, then when a politicians decides to vote some law into being, and that law tries to fix one thing, but that law also creates other problems, then those other problems are called "unintended consequences."

Please explain.

Pretty obvious. The debates have nothing to do with the real intent of the legislation, in many cases. OR, often more to the point, those with the money find the people who are putting forward legislation they like.. regardless of the legislator/lobbyist reasons, and support them.

Therefore people who want to binrg in Creationism and people who want to eliminate "inconvenient" science teaching, plus people who just plain want to limit anything to do with government are all working hand in hand to destroy our school systems in many areas. Note, they don't have to succeed everywhere, it is a gradual battle. Ignorance spreads.

Proof? Its there, but it is a pretty long and winding path. The real proof is the result.

[PLAYER57832]

BUT, hey to bring it back to Medicare....

"reform" is not a legitimate description of a plan that will reduce the real money given to seniors over time. As Obama said... Sure, you can cut government costs by just telling everyone to pay for stuff all by themsleves. Trouble is, that is not the American bargain.

No one has any trouble with wealthy people being wealthy, the idea that those who want to risk a lot should sometimes get great gains. The trouble is that folks like you and Phattscotty want to claim that that is the ONLY type of person that matters.

The real truth is that high risk is never a good idea for most people. For every success, there are multiple failures. That is why those few who gain do gain so big. So, for most people its better to take a job, work for a living, put in your time. The returns are not as great, but they are supposed to be secure. It is the trade-off. The enterpreneurs get the benefit of decent, steady labor in return for a reasonable wage. The entrepreneurs don't have that security, but they stand to potentially gain far more.

This current "reform" is all about eliminating each and every support, each and every thing that allows average people to have a decent way of life, just so a very, very few can get even more wealthy than they already are... and turn around and pay the rest of us even less, demand even more.

Health care is the worst of it. Health care is not and never has been a free market system, for MANY reasons. Some things are, but healthcare is not. (Agriculture is not fully a free market either..b ut is not as limited as healthcare).

1) straw man fallacy

Straw man is when you set up a false argument and then refute it in an attempt to claim you are "debating" a real point. Pretty much what you have done here over and over, but not what you highlighted in blue.. sorry. Check your definitions before using them.

I don't think that is the only person that matters. You think that because you're incapable of exercising logical thought on a consistent basis. Because of this, you make unsubstantiated claims about people's positions, and sometimes you tear them down (i.e. straw man fallacy) and sometimes you fail to tear them down while going on some irrelevant tangent (which is humorous).

lol... at least I understand the terms I use. And despite what you think you feel, everything you support WILL result in the wealthy getting wealthier and the standard of living for everyone else going down. You also are quite comfortable ignoring very big environmental problems... in fact flat just dismiss it all as "too complicated" or just "impossible to quantify". Trouble is, they have been quantified plenty well enough to show big problems.

2) Irrelevant lecture based on your straw man fallacy

3) Ignores other significant factors (i.e. oversimplifying the issue)
(Show how the reform "is all about eliminating each and every support, each and every thing that allows average people to have a decent way of life, just so a very, very few can get even more wealthy than they already are."[/quote]
Because that is the absolute impact if it is passed. This won't reform Medicare or (now) Medicaid, these plans will flat out eliminate them. The people covered under these programs mostly cannot get private insurance, and if they could, it would be prohibitively expensive. So, this is legislation that ensures we go back to a time when people could not get much of any care. However, back then, not much care was available. Now, a whole lot is available.

I myself think the idea of forcing older Americans and defenseless kids to simply "go without" healthcare so that wealthy people can keep their tax cuts to be absolutely disgusting .. and little more than theivery.

[BigBallinStalin]

BUT, hey to bring it back to Medicare....

"reform" is not a legitimate description of a plan that will reduce the real money given to seniors over time. As Obama said... Sure, you can cut government costs by just telling everyone to pay for stuff all by themsleves. Trouble is, that is not the American bargain.

No one has any trouble with wealthy people being wealthy, the idea that those who want to risk a lot should sometimes get great gains. The trouble is that folks like you and Phattscotty want to claim that that is the ONLY type of person that matters.

The real truth is that high risk is never a good idea for most people. For every success, there are multiple failures. That is why those few who gain do gain so big. So, for most people its better to take a job, work for a living, put in your time. The returns are not as great, but they are supposed to be secure. It is the trade-off. The enterpreneurs get the benefit of decent, steady labor in return for a reasonable wage. The entrepreneurs don't have that security, but they stand to potentially gain far more.

This current "reform" is all about eliminating each and every support, each and every thing that allows average people to have a decent way of life, just so a very, very few can get even more wealthy than they already are... and turn around and pay the rest of us even less, demand even more.

Health care is the worst of it. Health care is not and never has been a free market system, for MANY reasons. Some things are, but healthcare is not. (Agriculture is not fully a free market either..b ut is not as limited as healthcare).

1) straw man fallacy

Straw man is when you set up a false argument and then refute it in an attempt to claim you are "debating" a real point. Pretty much what you have done here over and over, but not what you highlighted in blue.. sorry. Check your definitions before using them.

I don't think that is the only person that matters. You think that because you're incapable of exercising logical thought on a consistent basis. Because of this, you make unsubstantiated claims about people's positions, and sometimes you tear them down (i.e. straw man fallacy) and sometimes you fail to tear them down while going on some irrelevant tangent (which is humorous).

lol... at least I understand the terms I use. And despite what you think you feel, everything you support WILL result in the wealthy getting wealthier and the standard of living for everyone else going down. You also are quite comfortable ignoring very big environmental problems... in fact flat just dismiss it all as "too complicated" or just "impossible to quantify". Trouble is, they have been quantified plenty well enough to show big problems.

2) Irrelevant lecture based on your straw man fallacy

3) Ignores other significant factors (i.e. oversimplifying the issue)
(Show how the reform "is all about eliminating each and every support, each and every thing that allows average people to have a decent way of life, just so a very, very few can get even more wealthy than they already are."

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

You've misrepresented my position because I don't think that's the only person that matters, then you follow it up with some silly lecture to argue that my position, which you artfully sculpted into something it isn't, is so misguided. Do you understand what you are doing?

I find it interesting that you don't even bother to ask what my actual position is on matters. You simply arrange things within your mind, so that they confirm to whatever preconceived notion with which you operate.


Which supports my position that:

Your "logic" heavily depends on misinterpreting what you read and remembering things that I never said; therefore, this enables you to conjure up positions that don't exist and then bash them down (i.e. constructing (un)intentional straw man fallacies).

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=165#p3150279


Your challenge is to overcome this problem of yours:

In short, your cognitive capabilities fail to bring you to a level of mutual understanding of other people's standpoints because you employ this self-defense mechanism which protects your severely limited and irrational worldview from being shattered.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=165#p3150437

(You owe Dr. Freud $30.00).

[PLAYER57832]

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

Yes, clearly what you have been doing... thanks for clarifying. Now try reading and comprehending what you just posted before using the term again.... thanks

You've misrepresented my position because I don't think that's the only person that matters,

Ah alas, technically true. See, in normal context that is what most people would understand to be an exaggeration... overstating something to make a point. I am quite sure you care a great deal about your parents, other family, friends, etc.

However, from a political standpoint, you consider only those who think like you to be valid or even worthy of consideration. I have not once ever seen you truly counter any actual opposition to your thoughts. As soon as someone comes up with real data.. you dismiss it or result to insults, much as you did above. (ooops. another exaggeration there. In truth, you have conceded small minor issues, factual points.. just nothing big).

OR, [gasp]..Player turns BBS own words and phrases against him, but used properly this time] you pretend we have said something we have not.. such as the insistance that both juan and myself ewre ever talking about absolute 100% buy local only (we each made clear we were talking about overall preferences, not absolutes)... to your claims that we utterly ignore the vaunted data you present about world economics (not that you actually did present anything concrete, but hey.. both juan and I are aware of it anyway... and aware of your personnal thinking due to your many other posts on the subject too boot!).

then you follow it up with some silly lecture to argue that my position, which you artfully sculpted into something it isn't, is so misguided. Do you understand what you are doing?

Yep, absolutely.

I find it interesting that you don't even bother to ask what my actual position is on matters. You simply arrange things within your mind, so that they confirm to whatever preconceived notion with which you operate.

LOL... no, see unlike you, I actually remember a lot of what I read. So, not only do I know what you wrote here in this thread, but a lot of what you have posted on similar tracks elsewhere. So,for example, I know that at one point you actually disagreed with the Phatts, etc. Now... not so much.

And, gee... I also know a tad more about what will actually happen, what actually does happen both on the ground, in real life.. not just in books as a result of these theories you espouse. You will perhaps get that type of knowledge in time.

I realise that every young person seems to feel they have entirely new information that no one else could possibly have heard. Sorry, it just is not true. Often older people learned different names, etc. However, the ideas are pretty much the same.. just cycled through another doctorate.

Which supports my position that:

Your "logic" heavily depends on misinterpreting what you read and remembering things that I never said; therefore, this enables you to conjure up positions that don't exist and then bash them down (i.e. constructing (un)intentional straw man fallacies).

LOL... nice case of projecting. (you can look that one up.. I cannot be bothered to explain )


Your challenge is to overcome this problem of yours:

In short, your cognitive capabilities fail to bring you to a level of mutual understanding of other people's standpoints because you employ this self-defense mechanism which protects your severely limited and irrational worldview from being shattered.

(You owe Dr. Freud $30.00).

[/quote]

Your "expertise" in psycology is well below even your understanding of ecology...

Nice avoidance of any real issues.
Classic BBS, Phatt,e tc... don't like the way the debate is heading, so just start throwing out insults and ignoring any real points.

[BigBallinStalin]

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

Yes, clearly what you have been doing... thanks for clarifying. Now try reading and comprehending what you just posted before using the term again.... thanks

You've misrepresented my position because I don't think that's the only person that matters,

Ah alas, technically true. See, in normal context that is what most people would understand to be an exaggeration... overstating something to make a point. I am quite sure you care a great deal about your parents, other family, friends, etc.

However, from a political standpoint, you consider only those who think like you to be valid or even worthy of consideration. I have not once ever seen you truly counter any actual opposition to your thoughts. As soon as someone comes up with real data.. you dismiss it or result to insults, much as you did above. (ooops. another exaggeration there. In truth, you have conceded small minor issues, factual points.. just nothing big).

OR, [gasp]..Player turns BBS own words and phrases against him, but used properly this time] you pretend we have said something we have not.. such as the insistance that both juan and myself ewre ever talking about absolute 100% buy local only (we each made clear we were talking about overall preferences, not absolutes)... to your claims that we utterly ignore the vaunted data you present about world economics (not that you actually did present anything concrete, but hey.. both juan and I are aware of it anyway... and aware of your personnal thinking due to your many other posts on the subject too boot!).

then you follow it up with some silly lecture to argue that my position, which you artfully sculpted into something it isn't, is so misguided. Do you understand what you are doing?

Yep, absolutely.

I find it interesting that you don't even bother to ask what my actual position is on matters. You simply arrange things within your mind, so that they confirm to whatever preconceived notion with which you operate.

LOL... no, see unlike you, I actually remember a lot of what I read. So, not only do I know what you wrote here in this thread, but a lot of what you have posted on similar tracks elsewhere. So,for example, I know that at one point you actually disagreed with the Phatts, etc. Now... not so much.

And, gee... I also know a tad more about what will actually happen, what actually does happen both on the ground, in real life.. not just in books as a result of these theories you espouse. You will perhaps get that type of knowledge in time.

I realise that every young person seems to feel they have entirely new information that no one else could possibly have heard. Sorry, it just is not true. Often older people learned different names, etc. However, the ideas are pretty much the same.. just cycled through another doctorate.

Which supports my position that:

Your "logic" heavily depends on misinterpreting what you read and remembering things that I never said; therefore, this enables you to conjure up positions that don't exist and then bash them down (i.e. constructing (un)intentional straw man fallacies).

LOL... nice case of projecting. (you can look that one up.. I cannot be bothered to explain )


Your challenge is to overcome this problem of yours:

In short, your cognitive capabilities fail to bring you to a level of mutual understanding of other people's standpoints because you employ this self-defense mechanism which protects your severely limited and irrational worldview from being shattered.

(You owe Dr. Freud $30.00).

Your "expertise" in psycology is well below even your understanding of ecology...

Nice avoidance of any real issues.
Classic BBS, Phatt,e tc... don't like the way the debate is heading, so just start throwing out insults and ignoring any real points.

[/quote]

The self-defense mechanism is strong with this one.