Here is how we fix the deficit

[David_42]

Not at all. I'm simply saying that there's no evidence removing the government from education produces greater results. If you have it, I'd love to see it.

Private schooled and Homeschooled students consistently score higher on tests. Plus the government can't really do anything right, anyway. Just look at the children being churned out by the Public School system.

The government is still involved in both of those things you know.
HSLDA | Home School Laws
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/regprivschl/regprivschl.pdf

Oh, and public schools primarily suffer from a lack of funding and states treating teachers like dogshit. I'm a child churned out of the public school system, I came out with a GPA of 3.9 and I am in college right now. I've had a positive experience in a rural school district in Kentucky suffering from funding, I know it's anecdotal, but still.

Lack of funding is blamed, it isn't the reason. Teachers unions and the fact that the government controls it in the first place are the actual reasons. Besides, there's less government involvement in Private and Home schooling, and that's resulting in better scores. No government involvement at all would make it better.

Believe me, I've noticed you're government educated.

It is the primary reason. Teacher unions are corrupt in some places but they serve a vital role, just look at what is happening to education funding in republican states. It's not pretty.

Besides, there's less government involvement in Private and Home schooling, and that's resulting in better scores. No government involvement at all would make it better.

Pathetic argument. Has never been true, well, anywhere. So you're telling me teachers that don't even have to get a proper background check would improve the education system? Regulations exist for a reason.

Unions don't serve a vital role anywhere, in any medium at all. It causes maximum pay for minimum effort.

Regulations exist because the government isn't happy unless it's controlling things. In a private school, if a teacher is performing poorly, they can be fired and replaced. They have to keep customers happy. With the government, they get paid regardless, because of taxes. Also unlike government schools, private schools create self-sustaining jobs in an expanding industry.

Unions don't serve a vital role anywhere, in any medium at all. It causes maximum pay for minimum effort.

Maybe you should study the history of unions and why they exist in the first place, as well as track the decline of unions which goes right in hand with the decline in the oh so precious middle class. The labor movement, and the organized labor movement which led to unions, was extremely vital and is still vital in many facets. Before labor unions, many workers found themselves working unreal hours, lacking bathroom breaks, basic retirement plans, fire escapes for their workplaces, although that's more of an issue with regulations that only exist because of unions.. Well, the list goes on and on. Saying unions produce minimum effort is.. lousy. Besides, you can't really define "maximum pay" in any framework.

Regulations exist because the government isn't happy unless it's controlling things.

Many regulations on business first came about due to demands from the labor force. You have to keep in mind that the government is made up of elected officials that, overall, actually listen to their constituents who have the power to re-elect them. The government isn't some evil entity, and regulations serve a very important purpose. Can you imagine if the government didn't regulate healthcare? Neither can I.

In a private school, if a teacher is performing poorly, they can be fired and replaced. They have to keep customers happy. With the government, they get paid regardless, because of taxes.

Teachers are fired and replaced all the time in public schools, even with unions. Believe it or not, union teachers don't take kindly to other teachers performing poorly.

private schools create self-sustaining jobs in an expanding industry.

All jobs are dependent on the government, if you'd ever bother to address where dollars come from.

 

[David_42]

"Subhuman trash and their lives mean nothing."
That's.. foolish. Look, murder and rape is horrible, but it doesn't warrant death. We're not barbarians, and the risk of innocent people being executed isn't worth the risk. (It's happened before.)

It warrants far beyond death. Personally, I think rapists should be tortured to death or have their sex organs hacked off with a dull, rusty cleaver. Murderers should be killed the same way their victims were. They wouldn't be missed.

This goes a little to far.. I'm not sure if you're being serious. Your profile says you're a 15 year old. You'll grow out of trying to be edgy eventually, took me until I was about 17.

Oh please, I'm not trying to be edgy. I'm completely serious. Rapists are the worst people in existence and deserve the worst death imaginable. If someone can come up with worse, I'd be happy to go with that instead. So long as it ends in death, and they're removed from the gene pool, I'm happy.

You are trying to be edgy. When I was 15, I wanted to uphold the banner of Che Guevera and all sorts of stupid shit. I was trying to stand out. I assure you that you'll have a hard time finding other rational human beings who would support the barbaric murder of rapists and murderers, as bad as they may be.

You only think that way because keeping trash like them alive creates more victims, and victims vote Democrat. You're clearly not a logical human being.

Holy shit, you're trying way to hard to be edgy. It saddens me you make anime fans look bad by sporting that avatar and signature.

keeping trash like them alive creates more victims, and victims vote Democrat.

Murderers and rapists can't vote honey.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It warrants far beyond death. Personally, I think rapists should be tortured to death or have their sex organs hacked off with a dull, rusty cleaver. Murderers should be killed the same way their victims were. They wouldn't be missed.

This goes a little to far.. I'm not sure if you're being serious. Your profile says you're a 15 year old. You'll grow out of trying to be edgy eventually, took me until I was about 17.

Oh please, I'm not trying to be edgy. I'm completely serious. Rapists are the worst people in existence and deserve the worst death imaginable. If someone can come up with worse, I'd be happy to go with that instead. So long as it ends in death, and they're removed from the gene pool, I'm happy.

You are trying to be edgy. When I was 15, I wanted to uphold the banner of Che Guevera and all sorts of stupid shit. I was trying to stand out. I assure you that you'll have a hard time finding other rational human beings who would support the barbaric murder of rapists and murderers, as bad as they may be.

You only think that way because keeping trash like them alive creates more victims, and victims vote Democrat. You're clearly not a logical human being.

Holy shit, you're trying way to hard to be edgy. It saddens me you make anime fans look bad by sporting that avatar and signature.

keeping trash like them alive creates more victims, and victims vote Democrat.

Murderers and rapists can't vote honey.

You know, I was in the process of replying to each of your extremely long posts, at 3:30AM, but my need for sleep coupled with the fact that my disagreeing with you somehow makes me edgy has changed my mind. You're going on ignore until I feel like dealing with uneducated, rapist-hugging, Liberal whackjobs again. You can't even seem to debate without sitting and making accusations in place of actual facts. Your argument devolved entirely into "You're edgy" repeated over and over.

Yeah, Democrats are trying to fix that. If they have their way, the worst mankind has to offer will be able to vote. They're already running for president in the form of Hillary Clinton.

 

[David_42]

This goes a little to far.. I'm not sure if you're being serious. Your profile says you're a 15 year old. You'll grow out of trying to be edgy eventually, took me until I was about 17.

Oh please, I'm not trying to be edgy. I'm completely serious. Rapists are the worst people in existence and deserve the worst death imaginable. If someone can come up with worse, I'd be happy to go with that instead. So long as it ends in death, and they're removed from the gene pool, I'm happy.

You are trying to be edgy. When I was 15, I wanted to uphold the banner of Che Guevera and all sorts of stupid shit. I was trying to stand out. I assure you that you'll have a hard time finding other rational human beings who would support the barbaric murder of rapists and murderers, as bad as they may be.

You only think that way because keeping trash like them alive creates more victims, and victims vote Democrat. You're clearly not a logical human being.

Holy shit, you're trying way to hard to be edgy. It saddens me you make anime fans look bad by sporting that avatar and signature.

keeping trash like them alive creates more victims, and victims vote Democrat.

Murderers and rapists can't vote honey.

You know, I was in the process of replying to each of your extremely long posts, at 3:30AM, but my need for sleep coupled with the fact that my disagreeing with you somehow makes me edgy has changed my mind. You're going on ignore until I feel like dealing with uneducated, rapist-hugging, Liberal whackjobs again. You can't even seem to debate without sitting and making accusations in place of actual facts. Your argument devolved entirely into "You're edgy" repeated over and over.

Yeah, Democrats are trying to fix that.

I addressed all of your ridiculous points WHILE still calling you edgy, a step up from most conservatives on this forum who resort to CDS everytime they encounter a rational argument against their delusional positions.

You're going on ignore until I feel like dealing with uneducated, rapist-hugging, Liberal whackjobs again.

You're not helping your case. I've read your posts and your understanding of economics, especially the role of the government in money creation, is non-existent. It's probably a good thing you don't bother to respond to my posts that are more fat than the others, since you'll obviously drop out like you're doing right now. Hell, you get annoyed that I'm calling you edgy and you're sitting here calling liberals "uneducated and rapist-hugging." Oh, and "whackjobs." I have been using actual facts throughout this entire thread, and I'm addressing every post you're making in what I'd like to call adequate detail. Like most conservatives on this forum, you run and hide when presented with.. you guessed it, facts. Now, keep calling us "rapist huggers and uneducated," all while crying like a little bitch who needs a bone when I call you "edgy." Grow up kid.

 

[David_42]

Horrible idea. Can you name one country that doesn't have any government involvement in the healthcare market? There's a very good reason the healthcare market has so much government involvement. I shouldn't have to explain why. Anyways, my opinion, thanks to a couple of good friends, is that the deficit is not a problem, but that's a different discussion.

Other Nations making a stupid move doesn't mean America should. People should be allowed to choose their healthcare from competing businesses, and the government shouldn't be involved at all.

What agencies are you defining as "worthless?" These agencies all employ american citizens, who spend dollars they earn, which helps the private sector and increases demand, which benefits everyone. Even then, the "worthless" agencies all server a purpose, which "slash and burn" conservatives tend to have a hard time finding. Planned parenthood? Brilliant idea, I look forward to the uptick in STDS and unwanted pregnancies, which will just lead to more mothers/babies relying on government transfers such as WIC. There is no reason to remove business subsidies either, many businesses count on subsidies, and these same businesses go on to employ americans, who use the dollars they earn to spend at other businesses. The wheel keeps turning.. There's no real reason for the government to cut spending at all, especially in an economy where a shortage of consumer spending is the issue.

All of those government agencies that you claim are providing jobs can easily be replaced with REAL jobs that there's an actual demand for.

If the businesses rely on subsidies, there isn't a demand for them, and they shouldn't be standing, anyway.

Planned Parenthood is entirely worthless. If there was a demand for it, it would be a private business instead government funded murder and part of the black market.

I agree that it's a bad idea to prevent upper management in a firm from making large amounts of money, but their is a good argument for raising the minimum wage, over time, to something such as $12. Wage increases taking place in quite a few states are showing mostly positive results, and businesses are adjusting, consumer spending is going up for low wage workers, I'm sure you get the picture. Claiming leftists don't know who actually hire people is foolish. As someone who has taken a keen interest in macroeconomics, you should know that overall, businesses run on sales. Sales are a product of consumers spending dollars. Consumers are the engine of business, and the cost is mostly offset by the increase in spending from observing wage increases in cities."Only 3% of people even make the minimum wage." This ignores people who make just above the minimum wage, and the fact that those with a lower income have a higher marginal propensity to consume. (Meaning that when a poor workers ends up with $100 more a month, he will usually spend that on goods and services instead of saving it like someone who already has gotten value out of goods and services)

Fix your post format and I'll respond to it.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Horrible idea. Can you name one country that doesn't have any government involvement in the healthcare market? There's a very good reason the healthcare market has so much government involvement. I shouldn't have to explain why. Anyways, my opinion, thanks to a couple of good friends, is that the deficit is not a problem, but that's a different discussion.

Other Nations making a stupid move doesn't mean America should. People should be allowed to choose their healthcare from competing businesses, and the government shouldn't be involved at all.

What agencies are you defining as "worthless?" These agencies all employ american citizens, who spend dollars they earn, which helps the private sector and increases demand, which benefits everyone. Even then, the "worthless" agencies all server a purpose, which "slash and burn" conservatives tend to have a hard time finding. Planned parenthood? Brilliant idea, I look forward to the uptick in STDS and unwanted pregnancies, which will just lead to more mothers/babies relying on government transfers such as WIC. There is no reason to remove business subsidies either, many businesses count on subsidies, and these same businesses go on to employ americans, who use the dollars they earn to spend at other businesses. The wheel keeps turning.. There's no real reason for the government to cut spending at all, especially in an economy where a shortage of consumer spending is the issue.

All of those government agencies that you claim are providing jobs can easily be replaced with REAL jobs that there's an actual demand for.

If the businesses rely on subsidies, there isn't a demand for them, and they shouldn't be standing, anyway.

Planned Parenthood is entirely worthless. If there was a demand for it, it would be a private business instead government funded murder and part of the black market.

I agree that it's a bad idea to prevent upper management in a firm from making large amounts of money, but their is a good argument for raising the minimum wage, over time, to something such as $12. Wage increases taking place in quite a few states are showing mostly positive results, and businesses are adjusting, consumer spending is going up for low wage workers, I'm sure you get the picture. Claiming leftists don't know who actually hire people is foolish. As someone who has taken a keen interest in macroeconomics, you should know that overall, businesses run on sales. Sales are a product of consumers spending dollars. Consumers are the engine of business, and the cost is mostly offset by the increase in spending from observing wage increases in cities."Only 3% of people even make the minimum wage." This ignores people who make just above the minimum wage, and the fact that those with a lower income have a higher marginal propensity to consume. (Meaning that when a poor workers ends up with $100 more a month, he will usually spend that on goods and services instead of saving it like someone who already has gotten value out of goods and services)

The red part is the part you actually got right. I'd clap for you, but you wouldn't be able to hear it. Just know you earned a golf clap.

Leftists clearly don't know, or they wouldn't be trying to replace the private sector with more government in the first place. They wouldn't be leftists.

They make above minimum wage because businesses know they have to pay them enough for them to be able to spend it, to continue the circulation within the economy, and fund business expansion. They would be paid more if Federal Aid didn't allow businesses to keep their pay low, with their employees still having enough to survive. They'd otherwise pay them more on their own.

I agree, their is no reason to cut our defense. We need more government spending to keep our nation at full employment and offset our leakages, such as the trade deficit and the desire of individuals in the private sector to net save dollars, which is only possible with new injections, primarily from government deficit spending which leads to more net financial assets in the private sector. In other words, where do dollars come from? The debt isn't a problem, it never has been.

The red part earned another golf clap. Maybe I'll un-ignore you in the morning. You're not completely a left-wing, mindless drone. There may be hope for you.

Government spending doesn't create self-sustaining jobs, it only creates worthless government jobs there's no demand for.

Prison sentences should be shortened. I can't think of any rational reason to keep drug offenders locked up for long periods, or people who commit minor violent crimes. Bringing back the death penalty is a foolish decision. I find it ironic that the anti abortion crusader wants to bring back the death penalty.
GGWP

Bringing back the death penalty would lower the crime rate, and eliminate America's worst. It would also discourage other would-be criminals.

Drug offenders shouldn't have their sentences shortened if drugs are legalized, because it was still illegal when they were sent to jail.

I fail to see any parallels between rapists/murders and unborn children. You may see it the same way if you took your head out of your rectum, but I highly doubt that can happen.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Privatization isn't always more efficient. Even if privatizing.. say, the military would lead to better result, does that make it a smart choice? There's plenty of research that would have never been done if not for government involvement encouraging research that would otherwise be deemed worthless in a purely "free market" environment. After all, is their any reason to fund research that wouldn't turn a profit?

Anything there's money in would result in faster development in the private sector. There's nothing that needs government control aside from infrastructure, and that's more of a necessary evil.

That's false. There have been periods where the United States has cut back on military spending. Take.. for example, after world war 2. Were we invaded?

No, because it wasn't cut back to enough of an extent. Personally, I think it should be increased.

Higher prices are always going to occur since inflation is never going away. Typically, wages keep up with the modest inflation we have right now (The fed isn't even meeting inflation targets) but that hasn't been the case thanks to a lack of government involvement, which is unfortunate, but whatever. Lay-offs are almost always directly a result of a lack of sales. Where do sales come from, and what drives sales? Who has a higher MPC?

Would be far better off if there was no government involvement. Government involvement has created all of the problems we have now.

Employees, who are also consumers drive sales. Which is why businesses pay just enough on their own.

Wasted enough time on you, I need my rest.

 

[David_42]

Horrible idea. Can you name one country that doesn't have any government involvement in the healthcare market? There's a very good reason the healthcare market has so much government involvement. I shouldn't have to explain why. Anyways, my opinion, thanks to a couple of good friends, is that the deficit is not a problem, but that's a different discussion.

Other Nations making a stupid move doesn't mean America should. People should be allowed to choose their healthcare from competing businesses, and the government shouldn't be involved at all.

What agencies are you defining as "worthless?" These agencies all employ american citizens, who spend dollars they earn, which helps the private sector and increases demand, which benefits everyone. Even then, the "worthless" agencies all server a purpose, which "slash and burn" conservatives tend to have a hard time finding. Planned parenthood? Brilliant idea, I look forward to the uptick in STDS and unwanted pregnancies, which will just lead to more mothers/babies relying on government transfers such as WIC. There is no reason to remove business subsidies either, many businesses count on subsidies, and these same businesses go on to employ americans, who use the dollars they earn to spend at other businesses. The wheel keeps turning.. There's no real reason for the government to cut spending at all, especially in an economy where a shortage of consumer spending is the issue.

All of those government agencies that you claim are providing jobs can easily be replaced with REAL jobs that there's an actual demand for.

If the businesses rely on subsidies, there isn't a demand for them, and they shouldn't be standing, anyway.

Planned Parenthood is entirely worthless. If there was a demand for it, it would be a private business instead government funded murder and part of the black market.

I agree that it's a bad idea to prevent upper management in a firm from making large amounts of money, but their is a good argument for raising the minimum wage, over time, to something such as $12. Wage increases taking place in quite a few states are showing mostly positive results, and businesses are adjusting, consumer spending is going up for low wage workers, I'm sure you get the picture. Claiming leftists don't know who actually hire people is foolish. As someone who has taken a keen interest in macroeconomics, you should know that overall, businesses run on sales. Sales are a product of consumers spending dollars. Consumers are the engine of business, and the cost is mostly offset by the increase in spending from observing wage increases in cities."Only 3% of people even make the minimum wage." This ignores people who make just above the minimum wage, and the fact that those with a lower income have a higher marginal propensity to consume. (Meaning that when a poor workers ends up with $100 more a month, he will usually spend that on goods and services instead of saving it like someone who already has gotten value out of goods and services)

The red part is the part you actually got right. I'd clap for you, but you wouldn't be able to hear it. Just know you earned a golf clap.

Leftists clearly don't know, or they wouldn't be trying to replace the private sector with more government in the first place. They wouldn't be leftists.

They make above minimum wage because businesses know they have to pay them enough for them to be able to spend it, to continue the circulation within the economy, and fund business expansion. They would be paid more if Federal Aid didn't allow businesses to keep their pay low, with their employees still having enough to survive. They'd otherwise pay them more on their own.

I agree, their is no reason to cut our defense. We need more government spending to keep our nation at full employment and offset our leakages, such as the trade deficit and the desire of individuals in the private sector to net save dollars, which is only possible with new injections, primarily from government deficit spending which leads to more net financial assets in the private sector. In other words, where do dollars come from? The debt isn't a problem, it never has been.

The red part earned another golf clap. Maybe I'll un-ignore you in the morning. You're not completely a left-wing, mindless drone. There may be hope for you.

Government spending doesn't create self-sustaining jobs, it only creates worthless government jobs there's no demand for.

Prison sentences should be shortened. I can't think of any rational reason to keep drug offenders locked up for long periods, or people who commit minor violent crimes. Bringing back the death penalty is a foolish decision. I find it ironic that the anti abortion crusader wants to bring back the death penalty.
GGWP

Bringing back the death penalty would lower the crime rate, and eliminate America's worst. It would also discourage other would-be criminals.

Drug offenders shouldn't have their sentences shortened if drugs are legalized, because it was still illegal when they were sent to jail.

I fail to see any parallels between rapists/murders and unborn children. You may see it the same way if you took your head out of your rectum, but I highly doubt that can happen.

Other Nations making a stupid move doesn't mean America should. People should be allowed to choose their healthcare from competing businesses, and the government shouldn't be involved at all.

People already have the option to choose their healthcare from competing providers. The problem is, the healthcare market before regulations was.. not very pleasant to say the least. Many people who couldn't afford it had no options and were stuck with crippling medical debt, which is still a hell of a problem today. Thank god for the ACA, which was rushed and has it flaws, but has fulfilled its purpose. You're saying every single country on earth is stupid by the way for having the government involved in healthcare. I need you to understand something: The market cannot function without a government entity of some sort. Let's talk about the pre 70's era where regulation in healthcare was "little" compared to today. For elderly patients, they were forced to rely on their savings, funding from children, in many cases, seek welfare (which you want to remove completely) or pray that a charity was nearby to help. For children, the parents had to drain their savings, or, again, get welfare/pray for a charity. This is before medicare and medicaid. The insurance was terrible back then by the way. I could go on and on.

All of those government agencies that you claim are providing jobs can easily be replaced with REAL jobs that there's an actual demand for.

Not true. Think about it this way: Firms only have incentive to create new openings when their is an increase in sales. If you lay off everyone that is a part of these agencies, removing their source of income, causing them to cut back on consumption while they desperately look for new jobs, what incentive do businesses have to hire them? Remember, you've agreed that sales drive hiring, and people will only spend if they deem a good/service as having value. Saying that government jobs aren't "real jobs" is lame. Name one of the government agencies you deem as worthless. You're telling me a tanning salon or dog grooming place is more valuable then the epa or the VA? Look, waste can be found anywhere, but can you really call it "waste?" Think about it, these government workers are in an economy starved for aggregate demand and they're spending dollars at businesses within the private sector, which helps everyone.

If the businesses rely on subsidies, there isn't a demand for them, and they shouldn't be standing, anyway.

Nonsense. Many subsidies go to businesses that would do just fine without him, and believe me, there's demand for them.

The red part is the part you actually got right. I'd clap for you, but you wouldn't be able to hear it. Just know you earned a golf clap.

Leftists clearly don't know, or they wouldn't be trying to replace the private sector with more government in the first place. They wouldn't be leftists.

"Leftists: tend to be demand siders, they understand perfectly fine. It's the supply siders that need a lesson. Net financial assets originate from deficit spending, sales lead to more job openings. Slash and burn, the private sector is forced to go further and further into debt, which builds something unpleasant. You really need to understand the role of deficit spending and how important it is to the private sectors health, especially if you want to help businesses.

Leftists clearly don't know, or they wouldn't be trying to replace the private sector with more government in the first place.

I don't know any leftists who want to do this.

Planned Parenthood is entirely worthless. If there was a demand for it, it would be a private business instead government funded murder and part of the black market.

Planned parenthood isn't worthless. The results speak for themselves. Look, what motive does anyone in the private sector have to open virtually free clinics across the country for poor individuals in regards to reproductive health? That's the reason PP is kept afloat. Don't even get me started on the "abortion is murder" bullshit. The pro life game is over.

hey make above minimum wage because businesses know they have to pay them enough for them to be able to spend it, to continue the circulation within the economy, and fund business expansion. They would be paid more if Federal Aid didn't allow businesses to keep their pay low, with their employees still having enough to survive. They'd otherwise pay them more on their own.

Holy crap you went from rudimentary understanding to insanity in a matter of one sentence. Look, government transfers in the form of WIC/EBT/etc are directly responsible for spending done by the poor/middle class, which would otherwise not be done. Let's assume we yank this away and the government stops running budget deficits with a negative balance of trade. Ok, so already we have dollars flowing out of the country, and we have the government draining net financial assets from the private sector.. WHY THE HELL would businesses decide to magically hire more people when sales plummet across the board due to a complete removal of government transfer payments to the poor, the people who have the highest MPC? Businesses tend to pay employees more/hire more when consumers spend more, when the economy completely fell off just recently, the recent recession, people automatically fell back on safety nets "automatic stabilizers" which allowed people to keep spending and keep many businesses afloat. What the hell do you think would have happened if a safety net was non-existent when the recession hit? We'd be far worse off then we are now.

Government spending doesn't create self-sustaining jobs, it only creates worthless government jobs there's no demand for.

No job is truly "self sustaining." Remember, if sales drop 10% for the quarter, employees are going to get sacked. In many ways, the government is vital for employment during downturns, thank back to the great depression and FDR's employment programs, wonderful things.

Bringing back the death penalty would lower the crime rate, and eliminate America's worst. It would also discourage other would-be criminals.

False. Look at the crime rate in countries that have a death penalty that's more liberal then what ours used to be/still is. Crime is still through the roof.

Drug offenders shouldn't have their sentences shortened if drugs are legalized, because it was still illegal when they were sent to jail.

That's not right to me.

I fail to see any parallels between rapists/murders and unborn children. You may see it the same way if you took your head out of your rectum, but I highly doubt that can happen

Do you want the death penalty for a mother who aborts a fetus?

 

[David_42]

Privatization isn't always more efficient. Even if privatizing.. say, the military would lead to better result, does that make it a smart choice? There's plenty of research that would have never been done if not for government involvement encouraging research that would otherwise be deemed worthless in a purely "free market" environment. After all, is their any reason to fund research that wouldn't turn a profit?

Anything there's money in would result in faster development in the private sector. There's nothing that needs government control aside from infrastructure, and that's more of a necessary evil.

That's false. There have been periods where the United States has cut back on military spending. Take.. for example, after world war 2. Were we invaded?

No, because it wasn't cut back to enough of an extent. Personally, I think it should be increased.

Higher prices are always going to occur since inflation is never going away. Typically, wages keep up with the modest inflation we have right now (The fed isn't even meeting inflation targets) but that hasn't been the case thanks to a lack of government involvement, which is unfortunate, but whatever. Lay-offs are almost always directly a result of a lack of sales. Where do sales come from, and what drives sales? Who has a higher MPC?

Would be far better off if there was no government involvement. Government involvement has created all of the problems we have now.

Employees, who are also consumers drive sales. Which is why businesses pay just enough on their own.

Wasted enough time on you, I need my rest.

Anything there's money in would result in faster development in the private sector. There's nothing that needs government control aside from infrastructure, and that's more of a necessary evil.

And that's the problem. What incentive does the private sector have to provide virtually free healthcare for minority communities? Help provide food to millions across the entire country for free? Make sure unemployed workers stay afloat and have programs to help them get back into the workforce? The list goes on and on. Even then, we still have the problem of sales. Decimate government spending, sales go down.

No, because it wasn't cut back to enough of an extent. Personally, I think it should be increased.

Hey, it's all the same when it comes to increased demand. Dollars are flowing into someones account, and the dollars are usually spent.

Would be far better off if there was no government involvement. Government involvement has created all of the problems we have now.

That's ridiculous, and you know it is. The recent recession hardly had anything to do with the government, if anything, it can be argued a lack of regulation caused the recent recession.

Employees, who are also consumers drive sales. Which is why businesses pay just enough on their own.

Businesses need a world where their consumers aren't drowning in debt caused by a lack of government deficit spending. Businesses and consumers can't rely on commercial banks.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

And that's the problem. What incentive does the private sector have to provide virtually free healthcare for minority communities? Help provide food to millions across the entire country for free? Make sure unemployed workers stay afloat and have programs to help them get back into the workforce? The list goes on and on. Even then, we still have the problem of sales. Decimate government spending, sales go down.

Absolutely none, and as it should be. healthcare shouldn't be "free". Healthcare should be bought by people who have money, and nobody should be paying for it for anyone. Nobody should be unemployed, they should get right back into another job, because the economy should be such that nobody should be unemployed for any significant amount of time.

There are already programs that show people how to write a resume and get job interviews on their behalf.

Government spending has nothing to do with sales. In fact, if we cut programs Federal Aid programs, sales would increase.

That's ridiculous, and you know it is. The recent recession hardly had anything to do with the government, if anything, it can be argued a lack of regulation caused the recent recession.

No, each recession AND the Great Depression can be traced back to the government.

Businesses need a world where their consumers aren't drowning in debt caused by a lack of government deficit spending. Businesses and consumers can't rely on commercial banks.

Debt isn't caused by lack of government spending, in fact, government spending has a hand in debt.

 

[David_42]

And that's the problem. What incentive does the private sector have to provide virtually free healthcare for minority communities? Help provide food to millions across the entire country for free? Make sure unemployed workers stay afloat and have programs to help them get back into the workforce? The list goes on and on. Even then, we still have the problem of sales. Decimate government spending, sales go down.

Absolutely none, and as it should be. healthcare shouldn't be "free". Healthcare should be bought by people who have money, and nobody should be paying for it for anyone. Nobody should be unemployed, they should get right back into another job, because the economy should be such that nobody should be unemployed for any significant amount of time.

There are already programs that show people how to write a resume and get job interviews on their behalf.

Government spending has nothing to do with sales. In fact, if we cut programs Federal Aid programs, sales would increase.

That's ridiculous, and you know it is. The recent recession hardly had anything to do with the government, if anything, it can be argued a lack of regulation caused the recent recession.

No, each recession AND the Great Depression can be traced back to the government.

Businesses need a world where their consumers aren't drowning in debt caused by a lack of government deficit spending. Businesses and consumers can't rely on commercial banks.

Debt isn't caused by lack of government spending, in fact, government spending has a hand in debt.

Absolutely none, and as it should be. healthcare shouldn't be "free". Healthcare should be bought by people who have money, and nobody should be paying for it for anyone. Nobody should be unemployed, they should get right back into another job, because the economy should be such that nobody should be unemployed for any significant amount of time.

Research United States healthcare pre 1970's and get back to me. You've admitted yourself that the private sector has no incentive to provide healthcare to poor minority communities and the elderly, which is why we have things such as medicare and medicaid, due to charities not being sufficient enough to provide for the sick. "Healthcare should be bought by people who have money." The government is the agent that "buys" healthcare for those who rely on government assistance. In reality, federal taxes have no direct link to federal spending since the government, overall, has to spend dollars before it can tax them back and destroy them, which is all federal taxation does. Debits and credits from bank accounts. Your fantasy about no unemployment without the government is just that, a fantasy. It's impossible.

There are already programs that show people how to write a resume and get job interviews on their behalf.

Take a guess what agent runs those programs.

Government spending has nothing to do with sales. In fact, if we cut programs Federal Aid programs, sales would increase.

Holy crap, it's almost like you keep deliberately refusing to address my point about dollar creation. Government spending is one of the key engines of sales. If you have a poor individual working and earning $8.50 an hour at wendys, for example, who uses food stamps and other government transfers, where do you think he spends the dollars in relation to EBT? At places like walmart, and local businesses, hell, poor people have the highest MPC due to the fact that they gain more value from goods and services. Government spending goes into bank accounts within the private sector, you should read that short book I sent you.

Debt isn't caused by lack of government spending, in fact, government spending has a hand in debt.

I'm talking about private sector debt. Government debt is the reason private sector debt isn't through the roof.

No, each recession AND the Great Depression can be traced back to the government.

Nonsense.

 

[Rshermr]

"Pumpkin Row, post: 15047523, member: 57627"]

This goes a little to far.. I'm not sure if you're being serious. Your profile says you're a 15 year old. You'll grow out of trying to be edgy eventually, took me until I was about 17.

Oh please, I'm not trying to be edgy. I'm completely serious. Rapists are the worst people in existence and deserve the worst death imaginable. If someone can come up with worse, I'd be happy to go with that instead. So long as it ends in death, and they're removed from the gene pool, I'm happy.

You are trying to be edgy. When I was 15, I wanted to uphold the banner of Che Guevera and all sorts of stupid shit. I was trying to stand out. I assure you that you'll have a hard time finding other rational human beings who would support the barbaric murder of rapists and murderers, as bad as they may be.

You only think that way because keeping trash like them alive creates more victims, and victims vote Democrat. You're clearly not a logical human being.

Holy shit, you're trying way to hard to be edgy. It saddens me you make anime fans look bad by sporting that avatar and signature.

keeping trash like them alive creates more victims, and victims vote Democrat.

Murderers and rapists can't vote honey.

[/QUOTE]
You know, I was in the process of replying to each of your extremely long posts, at 3:30AM, but my need for sleep coupled with the fact that my disagreeing with you somehow makes me edgy has changed my mind. Did you think anyone cares? You're going on ignore until I feel like dealing with uneducated, rapist-hugging, Liberal whackjobs again. That would be your opinion. That of a person whom is irrelevant. Did you notice no one cares, me boy. You can't even seem to debate without sitting and making accusations in place of actual facts. You, me boy, would not know a fact from a mushroom. You are a con troll. Con trolls never use facts. Your argument devolved entirely into "You're edgy" repeated over and over.

Yeah, Democrats are trying to fix that. If they have their way, the worst mankind has to offer will be able to vote. Dipshit. Repeating con talking points does not make it true. Simply makes you look stupid. Perhaps you want to prove a case where there has been voter fraud that made any difference in an election, dems over repubs. They're already running for president in the form of Hillary Clinton. So, we have liars, who you point out as Hillary. But you ignore the fact that every impartial Fact Check organization that tracks such things find and state that Trump lies about three (3) times as much as Hillary does. Isn't it odd that you never attack Trump. But of course it isn't, because you are a con troll. You only post drivel from bat shit crazy nut case con web sites, because that is your agenda. Dipshit.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

People already have the option to choose their healthcare from competing providers. The problem is, the healthcare market before regulations was.. not very pleasant to say the least. Many people who couldn't afford it had no options and were stuck with crippling medical debt, which is still a hell of a problem today. Thank god for the ACA, which was rushed and has it flaws, but has fulfilled its purpose. You're saying every single country on earth is stupid by the way for having the government involved in healthcare. I need you to understand something: The market cannot function without a government entity of some sort. Let's talk about the pre 70's era where regulation in healthcare was "little" compared to today. For elderly patients, they were forced to rely on their savings, funding from children, in many cases, seek welfare (which you want to remove completely) or pray that a charity was nearby to help. For children, the parents had to drain their savings, or, again, get welfare/pray for a charity. This is before medicare and medicaid. The insurance was terrible back then by the way. I could go on and on.

People without money shouldn't have options, because every service costs money. The government shouldn't be stepping in to help life's failures. Capitalist societies are every person for themselves, as it should be.

The ACA is a regressive policy that's destroying the economy, and causing premiums to increase rapidly. I can't wait for someone to repeal that waste of paper. One of my acquaintances is actually dying of cancer more rapidly thanks to that bill. Good job, Obama.

Not true. Think about it this way: Firms only have incentive to create new openings when their is an increase in sales. If you lay off everyone that is a part of these agencies, removing their source of income, causing them to cut back on consumption while they desperately look for new jobs, what incentive do businesses have to hire them? Remember, you've agreed that sales drive hiring, and people will only spend if they deem a good/service as having value. Saying that government jobs aren't "real jobs" is lame. Name one of the government agencies you deem as worthless. You're telling me a tanning salon or dog grooming place is more valuable then the epa or the VA? Look, waste can be found anywhere, but can you really call it "waste?" Think about it, these government workers are in an economy starved for aggregate demand and they're spending dollars at businesses within the private sector, which helps everyone.

Nonsense. Many subsidies go to businesses that would do just fine without him, and believe me, there's demand for them.

I said IF they can't survive without subsidies, there's no demand for them. The government shouldn't be subsidizing businesses. It's corporate welfare.

I don't know any leftists who want to do this.

Hillary and Sanders were both advocating it, and Obama has done it. You must not be looking far enough.

Planned parenthood isn't worthless. The results speak for themselves. Look, what motive does anyone in the private sector have to open virtually free clinics across the country for poor individuals in regards to reproductive health? That's the reason PP is kept afloat. Don't even get me started on the "abortion is murder" bullshit. The pro life game is over.

Again, healthcare shouldn't be "free".

The "game" can be over all they like, it's just legal murder now.

Holy crap you went from rudimentary understanding to insanity in a matter of one sentence. Look, government transfers in the form of WIC/EBT/etc are directly responsible for spending done by the poor/middle class, which would otherwise not be done. Let's assume we yank this away and the government stops running budget deficits with a negative balance of trade. Ok, so already we have dollars flowing out of the country, and we have the government draining net financial assets from the private sector.. WHY THE HELL would businesses decide to magically hire more people when sales plummet across the board due to a complete removal of government transfer payments to the poor, the people who have the highest MPC? Businesses tend to pay employees more/hire more when consumers spend more, when the economy completely fell off just recently, the recent recession, people automatically fell back on safety nets "automatic stabilizers" which allowed people to keep spending and keep many businesses afloat. What the hell do you think would have happened if a safety net was non-existent when the recession hit? We'd be far worse off then we are now.

The only reason there even is a noticeable poor class is because of Federal Aid. Businesses naturally pay people what they need to sustain themselves, it's what happened before there was a minimum wage, because people who bought things were employees somewhere. Federal Aid is allowing businesses to pay minimum wage or just above it because people can still sustain themselves with lower than needed wages due to it.

No job is truly "self sustaining." Remember, if sales drop 10% for the quarter, employees are going to get sacked. In many ways, the government is vital for employment during downturns, thank back to the great depression and FDR's employment programs, wonderful things.

FDR's programs are what caused the Great Depression in the first place. Yes, jobs are self sustaining, because the resulting sales(Since businesses hire only when they need it) allow the businesses to expand. The government has no role in that.

False. Look at the crime rate in countries that have a death penalty that's more liberal then what ours used to be/still is. Crime is still through the roof.

Crime rate is dependent on other factors, too. Gun control and low amounts of police also cause it to increase.

That's not right to me.

And you're entitled to your opinion.

Do you want the death penalty for a mother who aborts a fetus?

Of course, except in cases of rape or danger to the life of the mother. The child can easily go up for adoption otherwise.

 

[Rshermr]

Privatization isn't always more efficient. Even if privatizing.. say, the military would lead to better result, does that make it a smart choice? There's plenty of research that would have never been done if not for government involvement encouraging research that would otherwise be deemed worthless in a purely "free market" environment. After all, is their any reason to fund research that wouldn't turn a profit?

Anything there's money in would result in faster development in the private sector. Stupid post. So to hell with the following where there is no money in it: Fixing infrastructure
Public parks
US Parks service
Military
Law and order
Education
Clean air
Clean water
Safe foods
Safe drugs
So, your opinion is noted. And irrelevant.

There's nothing that needs government control aside from infrastructure, and that's more of a necessary evil.

That's false. There have been periods where the United States has cut back on military spending. Take.. for example, after world war 2. Were we invaded?

No, because it wasn't cut back to enough of an extent. Personally, I think it should be increased.
Sure you do. That is a con talking point, and you are a con troll. Are you aware that our military spending, today, is greater than that of the next 10 countries COMBINED? So, again, your opinion is noted and irrelevant.

Higher prices are always going to occur since inflation is never going away. Typically, wages keep up with the modest inflation we have right now (The fed isn't even meeting inflation targets) but that hasn't been the case thanks to a lack of government involvement, which is unfortunate, but whatever. Lay-offs are almost always directly a result of a lack of sales. Where do sales come from, and what drives sales? Who has a higher MPC?

Would be far better off if there was no government involvement. Government involvement has created all of the problems we have now.

Employees, who are also consumers drive sales. Which is why businesses pay just enough on their own.
That's what Reagan said when he cut taxes greatly and waited for the great increase in productivity and employment, but instead got a big decrease in productivity, revenues, and employment. After achieving an increase in unemployment to the second highest in US history (after the great republican depression of 1929) reagan:
Increased taxes 11 times.
Spent like a drunken sailor
Increased the national debt to 3 times it's size when he took office.
Spent more than all presidents before him combined
Made the Federal Government way bigger.
And eliminated his self made recession while making a good economy.

You see, Reagan knew that when the economy was going down hill stimulus spending was the propper tool to use. And he used it big time, with good results.
Me boy, you are an economic idiot.

 

[Rshermr]

Pumpkin, the factless con troll, states:
People without money shouldn't have options, because every service costs money. The government shouldn't be stepping in to help life's failures. Capitalist societies are every person for themselves, as it should be.
Did you think we have a capitalist society? Really, me boy, there is no such thing. It is a capitalist ECONOMY you are talking about. And perhaps a Libertarian society. Are you a Libertarian, dipshit? Did you know there are no countries with a laissez faire capitalist economy in the world, except perhaps Somalia. But even that is questionable. And, in fact, the US has a mixed economy, with both capitalist and socialist components.

The ACA is a regressive policy that's destroying the economy, and causing premiums to increase rapidly. I can't wait for someone to repeal that waste of paper. One of my acquaintances is actually dying of cancer more rapidly thanks to that bill. Sure, And you are a medical doctor, eh Good job, Obama.
That would be your opinion only. Because you have no source to prove your statement. Now, problem is, the CBO says you are totally wrong. Completely. So, it is you or the cbo. Since the cbo is impartial, has teams of economists and researchers, and tells the truth, you loose. Again.
Here, read it and weep. CBO says Obama's policies created 9.3 Million jobs. Republican policies, by the way, created ZERO (0).


David_42, post: 15047583, member: 55439"]Not true. Think about it this way: Firms only have incentive to create new openings when their is an increase in sales. If you lay off everyone that is a part of these agencies, removing their source of income, causing them to cut back on consumption while they desperately look for new jobs, what incentive do businesses have to hire them? Remember, you've agreed that sales drive hiring, and people will only spend if they deem a good/service as having value. Saying that government jobs aren't "real jobs" is lame. Name one of the government agencies you deem as worthless. You're telling me a tanning salon or dog grooming place is more valuable then the epa or the VA? Look, waste can be found anywhere, but can you really call it "waste?" Think about it, these government workers are in an economy starved for aggregate demand and they're spending dollars at businesses within the private sector, which helps everyone.[/QUOTE]
David_42, post: 15047583, member: 55439"]Nonsense. Many subsidies go to businesses that would do just fine without him, and believe me, there's demand for them.
said IF they can't survive without subsidies, there's no demand for them. The government shouldn't be subsidizing businesses. It's corporate welfare.
So you disagree with almost all economists, Ronald Reagan, the CBO, and have no source for your ignorant remark. It is simply a con talking point, and nonsense.

"David_42, post: 15047583, member: 55439"s
I don't know any leftists who want to do this.[/QUOTE]
Hillary and Sanders were both advocating it, and Obama has done it. You must not be looking far enough.

"David_42, post: 15047583, member: 55439"]Planned parenthood isn't worthless. The results speak for themselves. Look, what motive does anyone in the private sector have to open virtually free clinics across the country for poor individuals in regards to reproductive health? That's the reason PP is kept afloat. Don't even get me started on the "abortion is murder" bullshit. The pro life game is over.[/QUOTE]
Again, healthcare shouldn't be "free".

The "game" can be over all they like, it's just legal murder now.
No, it is not. You are technically full of shit.

"David_42, post: 15047583, member: 55439"]Holy crap you went from rudimentary understanding to insanity in a matter of one sentence. Look, government transfers in the form of WIC/EBT/etc are directly responsible for spending done by the poor/middle class, which would otherwise not be done. Let's assume we yank this away and the government stops running budget deficits with a negative balance of trade. Ok, so already we have dollars flowing out of the country, and we have the government draining net financial assets from the private sector.. WHY THE HELL would businesses decide to magically hire more people when sales plummet across the board due to a complete removal of government transfer payments to the poor, the people who have the highest MPC? Businesses tend to pay employees more/hire more when consumers spend more, when the economy completely fell off just recently, the recent recession, people automatically fell back on safety nets "automatic stabilizers" which allowed people to keep spending and keep many businesses afloat. What the hell do you think would have happened if a safety net was non-existent when the recession hit? We'd be far worse off then we are now.[/QUOTE]
The only reason there even is a noticeable poor class is because of Federal Aid. The reason you can not prove that lie is because it is a lie. Dipshit. Businesses naturally pay people what they need to sustain themselves, it's what happened before there was a minimum wage, because people who bought things were employees somewhere. You are talking about the Great Republican Depression of 1929, when people lost their homes and starved to death. Dipshit. Federal Aid is allowing businesses to pay minimum wage or just above it because people can still sustain themselves with lower than needed wages due to it. Wow. Perhaps your stupidest sentence.


"David_42, post: 15047583, member: 55439"]No job is truly "self sustaining." Remember, if sales drop 10% for the quarter, employees are going to get sacked. In many ways, the government is vital for employment during downturns, thank back to the great depression and FDR's employment programs, wonderful things.[/QUOTE]
FDR's programs are what caused the Great Depression in the first place. Really. To prove how stupid a statement that is, the Great Republican Recession started in 1929. FDR was not even president until March of 1933. And before he took over the presidency, the unemployment rate had increased from 3% to 25%. Under a republican president and republican congress. Do you understand how stupid it is to blame FDR for a recession that started and went like crazy for 5 years before he had any ability to effect it. Or is that beyond you. Yes, jobs are self sustaining, because the resulting sales(Since businesses hire only when they need it) allow the businesses to expand. The government has no role in that. Perhaps you should tell the remaining staff from Reagans administration that. Because they do not believe what you just said for a moment.
David_42, post:

So, me poor ignorant con troll, are you a libertarian?

 

[David_42]

People already have the option to choose their healthcare from competing providers. The problem is, the healthcare market before regulations was.. not very pleasant to say the least. Many people who couldn't afford it had no options and were stuck with crippling medical debt, which is still a hell of a problem today. Thank god for the ACA, which was rushed and has it flaws, but has fulfilled its purpose. You're saying every single country on earth is stupid by the way for having the government involved in healthcare. I need you to understand something: The market cannot function without a government entity of some sort. Let's talk about the pre 70's era where regulation in healthcare was "little" compared to today. For elderly patients, they were forced to rely on their savings, funding from children, in many cases, seek welfare (which you want to remove completely) or pray that a charity was nearby to help. For children, the parents had to drain their savings, or, again, get welfare/pray for a charity. This is before medicare and medicaid. The insurance was terrible back then by the way. I could go on and on.

People without money shouldn't have options, because every service costs money. The government shouldn't be stepping in to help life's failures. Capitalist societies are every person for themselves, as it should be.

The ACA is a regressive policy that's destroying the economy, and causing premiums to increase rapidly. I can't wait for someone to repeal that waste of paper. One of my acquaintances is actually dying of cancer more rapidly thanks to that bill. Good job, Obama.

Not true. Think about it this way: Firms only have incentive to create new openings when their is an increase in sales. If you lay off everyone that is a part of these agencies, removing their source of income, causing them to cut back on consumption while they desperately look for new jobs, what incentive do businesses have to hire them? Remember, you've agreed that sales drive hiring, and people will only spend if they deem a good/service as having value. Saying that government jobs aren't "real jobs" is lame. Name one of the government agencies you deem as worthless. You're telling me a tanning salon or dog grooming place is more valuable then the epa or the VA? Look, waste can be found anywhere, but can you really call it "waste?" Think about it, these government workers are in an economy starved for aggregate demand and they're spending dollars at businesses within the private sector, which helps everyone.

Nonsense. Many subsidies go to businesses that would do just fine without him, and believe me, there's demand for them.

I said IF they can't survive without subsidies, there's no demand for them. The government shouldn't be subsidizing businesses. It's corporate welfare.

I don't know any leftists who want to do this.

Hillary and Sanders were both advocating it, and Obama has done it. You must not be looking far enough.

Planned parenthood isn't worthless. The results speak for themselves. Look, what motive does anyone in the private sector have to open virtually free clinics across the country for poor individuals in regards to reproductive health? That's the reason PP is kept afloat. Don't even get me started on the "abortion is murder" bullshit. The pro life game is over.

Again, healthcare shouldn't be "free".

The "game" can be over all they like, it's just legal murder now.

Holy crap you went from rudimentary understanding to insanity in a matter of one sentence. Look, government transfers in the form of WIC/EBT/etc are directly responsible for spending done by the poor/middle class, which would otherwise not be done. Let's assume we yank this away and the government stops running budget deficits with a negative balance of trade. Ok, so already we have dollars flowing out of the country, and we have the government draining net financial assets from the private sector.. WHY THE HELL would businesses decide to magically hire more people when sales plummet across the board due to a complete removal of government transfer payments to the poor, the people who have the highest MPC? Businesses tend to pay employees more/hire more when consumers spend more, when the economy completely fell off just recently, the recent recession, people automatically fell back on safety nets "automatic stabilizers" which allowed people to keep spending and keep many businesses afloat. What the hell do you think would have happened if a safety net was non-existent when the recession hit? We'd be far worse off then we are now.

The only reason there even is a noticeable poor class is because of Federal Aid. Businesses naturally pay people what they need to sustain themselves, it's what happened before there was a minimum wage, because people who bought things were employees somewhere. Federal Aid is allowing businesses to pay minimum wage or just above it because people can still sustain themselves with lower than needed wages due to it.

No job is truly "self sustaining." Remember, if sales drop 1., for the quarter, employees are going to get sacked. In many ways, the government is vital for employment during downturns, thank back to the great depression and FDR's employment programs, wonderful things.

FDR's programs are what caused the Great Depression in the first place. Yes, jobs are self sustaining, because the resulting sales(Since businesses hire only when they need it) allow the businesses to expand. The government has no role in that.

False. Look at the crime rate in countries that have a death penalty that's more liberal then what ours used to be/still is. Crime is still through the roof.

Crime rate is dependent on other factors, too. Gun control and low amounts of police also cause it to increase.

That's not right to me.

And you're entitled to your opinion.

Do you want the death penalty for a mother who aborts a fetus?

Of course, except in cases of rape or danger to the life of the mother. The child can easily go up for adoption otherwise.

People without money shouldn't have options, because every service costs money. The government shouldn't be stepping in to help life's failures. Capitalist societies are every person for themselves, as it should be.

And this is the heart of conservative economic arguments. The economics part doesn't exist. You're arguing based on some barbaric idea that people without enough money shouldn't have options. Again, research pre 70s healthcare in the United States. The government is made up of officials elected by the people, and, the opinion of most rational compassionate human beings is that the government should help those less fortunate. A true "capitalist society" has never existed. The private sector and government sector are completely dependent on each other. If you knew anything about economics, you'd understand this.

The ACA is a regressive policy that's destroying the economy, and causing premiums to increase rapidly. I can't wait for someone to repeal that waste of paper. One of my acquaintances is actually dying of cancer more rapidly thanks to that bill. Good job, Obama.

The ACA is a rushed policy that has a record of success based on its original goal: Helping people with pre-existing conditions and reducing the uninsured rate. It's never going away and Hillary is going to expand on it. I don't see how your acquaintance is dying faster because of the bill, although you're perfectly comfortable with letting people die if they don't have enough money though..
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=4C605C7F-F2BB-4361-B227-0ED35BD427B6

I said IF they can't survive without subsidies, there's no demand for them. The government shouldn't be subsidizing businesses. It's corporate welfare.

Government subsidies are a flow of dollars into the private sector, the dollars end up in the hands of employees, employers, helping to lead to new investment. I would agree with cutting back on government subsidies if we weren't facing an economy desperately needing more spending from consumers and inflation targets that need to be met.

Hillary and Sanders were both advocating it, and Obama has done it. You must not be looking far enough.

Sanders is the only one who got close to advocating what you're talking about, and he has been ousted as a nutjob. You see, democrats tend to be rational and go for the better choices, unlike the republicans who go for people like Trump and Pence.

Again, healthcare shouldn't be "free".

The "game" can be over all they like, it's just legal murder now.

Healthcare isn't really "free" since health providers are still getting dollars from the government. The difference is, people aren't crippled with medical debt they can't pay back in some cases. Abortion isn't legal murder. That's a pathetic opinion.

The only reason there even is a noticeable poor class is because of Federal Aid. Businesses naturally pay people what they need to sustain themselves, it's what happened before there was a minimum wage, because people who bought things were employees somewhere. Federal Aid is allowing businesses to pay minimum wage or just above it because people can still sustain themselves with lower than needed wages due to it.

One of the most deranged arguments against government transfer payments is that they lead to "increased poverty."
Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America
It's laughably false. WIC/EBT directly lead to increased consumer spending and better living standards for the poor, and businesses love the increased sales. It's why businesses get hurt when food stamps get cut back. Businesses don't "naturally" pay people anything. Businesses in the past would pay what they wanted to pay, with little to no government involvement. It got so bad that labor fought back violently and the government had to step in.

Federal Aid is allowing businesses to pay minimum wage or just above it because people can still sustain themselves with lower than needed wages due to it

You really do know nothing about history or how businesses function. When federal aid gets cut, sales drop and businesses cut back. Wages don't magically increase.

FDR's programs are what caused the Great Depression in the first place. Yes, jobs are self sustaining, because the resulting sales(Since businesses hire only when they need it) allow the businesses to expand. The government has no role in that.

Oh dear lord.
The great depression was set off by a widespread drop in consumption, like most, if not all recessions. It got better when the government ran larger and larger budget deficits. When people say the world war ended the great depression, what do people think that was? Massive government budget deficits, employment in the military abroad and at home, a massive increase in sales.. None of which was happening without the government. Businesses hire when they predict that sales are going to increase or they need to expand. How the hell can you claim the government, the issuer of the currency, has no role in this? I'm amazed.

Crime rate is dependent on other factors, too. Gun control and low amounts of police also cause it to increase.

What evidence do you have that gun control causes the crime rate to increase?

Of course, except in cases of rape or danger to the life of the mother. The child can easily go up for adoption otherwise.

Damn, so you're saying one of my friends should be killed for terminating a fetus. EDGY.