BMW
X1 / X2
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion Abstain or Third Party Vote?

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-01-2016, 08:55 AM   #23
Kidscollege$
First Lieutenant
Kidscollege$'s Avatar
337
Rep
396
Posts

Drives: 2015 MW M4
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: NE

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 Toyota  [0.00]
2016 Lexus RX350  [0.00]
2015 BMW/M4  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh (PA) View Post
I literally don't understand how anyone could conclude that there is any sort of equivalency between Hillary and Trump. I don't mean that rhetorically--I am legitimately baffled that anyone could look at these two candidates and have *any* doubt about who they should vote for.

Cover up the names on the top of the CV, and what are you left with? One candidate has devoted her life to public service, has served in the Senate and the executive branch, and has a deep and nuanced understanding of the issues the country faces.

The other inherited a business which he has had mixed results building; he's never held any kind of elective office or indeed been chosen or advanced to *any* position on his own merits at all. He displays both a total lack of knowledge of and a complete lack of interest in any of the major policy concerns of the day. He lies routinely, shamelessly, and matter of factly--not just about his policies (though, yes, those), but about simple facts that are easy to check (like whether he catfished a reporter 20 years ago).

One of these people is qualified to be President. The other is not. That's not politics. That's a simple, demonstrable statement of fact.

No matter how much you dislike Hillary, or think she's corrupt, or disagree with her, we've had people like her as President before. The Republic has endured.

We've never, ever had anyone like Trump as President before. I'm not so sure the Republic can survive him.
While I am not a fan of either. I welcome the idea that someone who has not made their living off of kickbacks, "donations" and living off the tax payer into the office. Maybe someone that is business minded will stop the inefficiency of the government.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 08:57 AM   #24
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis
Quote:
Originally Posted by eflatminor View Post
Similarly, some like to equate libertarianism with anarchy (often using the ridiculous comparison to Somalia). No, libertarians tend to argue in favor of a central government, just one that is strictly limited in its powers. The Constitution's limitations to federal powers (enumerated and everything!), at least in the pre-Progressive era, is a perfect example of what we want: A strong federal government that cannot meddle in the lives of individual citizens that haven't done anything to infringe on the rights of another.
Wrong, people equate libertarianism to free market anarchy, these are two VERY different things. They take lassiez faire principles and turn them up to 11. I have libertarian friends and my typically "gotcha" if I feel like trolling them are discussions on healthcare. They are against socialized healthcare for obvious reasons which I understand but healthcare is different in the instance that doctors take a hippocratic oath. You're going to get care whether or not you can afford it which makes medical care unlike any other service in economics. So either way, you're paying for it either through taxes, or through increased prices/insurance premiums due to you picking up the slack for those who can't afford to pay their hospital bills, so how does one go about deciding which one is more economically efficient?

Quote:
Libertarians tend to be students of economic history and the type of people that base decisions (laws, rules, etc) on results and not intentions. The results of collectivist and centrally planned societies throughout history are not good. Really, really bad in fact. We therefore seek to have less collectivism, less redistribution, less central planning. The Progressive notion of increasing collectivist-type policies drip by drip over time has taken it's toll on our once free society...and we have the debt, meddling laws and taxes to prove it. What a shame.

Let the flaming begin...
False, libertarians just follow a strict qualitative approach to economics, most of which has never been proven in real world or theoretically through mathematics. It's why the Austrian School of Economic thought isn't taken nearly as serious as the Chicago school of thought. People who don't know any better associate the city Chicago with liberal, corrupt nutjobs but in this instance the Chicago school of thought is very conservative. It's backed with shit like empirical evidence and observed history.

Meanwhile libertarians live in their fantasy world of all inflation bad and how if we went back to the gold standard, we'd be better off. Just a few years ago folks like Ron Paul and the other crazies kept spouting off about how we were on the brink of hyperinflation, don't hear much from them anymore.
I don't believe the Hippocratic Oath says anything about having to treat people without regard to their ability to pay; that's US law, in emergency situations. Is that what you are referring to?
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 09:04 AM   #25
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3169
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
I don't believe the Hippocratic Oath says anything about having to treat people without regard to their ability to pay; that's US law, in emergency situations. Is that what you are referring to?
It requires them to behave ethically, which I always took to include not turning away patients due to their inability to pay.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 09:05 AM   #26
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh (PA)
I literally don't understand how anyone could conclude that there is any sort of equivalency between Hillary and Trump. I don't mean that rhetorically--I am legitimately baffled that anyone could look at these two candidates and have *any* doubt about who they should vote for.

Cover up the names on the top of the CV, and what are you left with? One candidate has devoted her life to public service, has served in the Senate and the executive branch, and has a deep and nuanced understanding of the issues the country faces.

The other inherited a business which he has had mixed results building; he's never held any kind of elective office or indeed been chosen or advanced to *any* position on his own merits at all. He displays both a total lack of knowledge of and a complete lack of interest in any of the major policy concerns of the day. He lies routinely, shamelessly, and matter of factly--not just about his policies (though, yes, those), but about simple facts that are easy to check (like whether he catfished a reporter 20 years ago).

One of these people is qualified to be President. The other is not. That's not politics. That's a simple, demonstrable statement of fact.

No matter how much you dislike Hillary, or think she's corrupt, or disagree with her, we've had people like her as President before. The Republic has endured.

We've never, ever had anyone like Trump as President before. I'm not so sure the Republic can survive him.
She hasn't "devoted her life to public service" whatsoever;

- she was a law student whose boss wanted her fired for incompetence,

- she was a cheesy ambulance chaser lawyer who volunteered to defend a child rapist and got him released (and laughed about it on tape),

- she became partner in a law firm because of her husband's connections, and was constantly enmeshed in scandals,

- she became First Lady because of her husband, and although not elected she tried to remake the US healthcare system and failed,

- her husband got her a senate seat through pardons upon his White House exit,

- she was appointed SoS by a political foe, and was a failure at that.

What's not to love?
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 09:21 AM   #27
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
I don't believe the Hippocratic Oath says anything about having to treat people without regard to their ability to pay; that's US law, in emergency situations. Is that what you are referring to?
It requires them to behave ethically, which I always took to include not turning away patients due to their inability to pay.
Good point - I would assume some do, but not the majority. The oath also states that you will educate your peers at no cost - but med school isn't free
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 09:23 AM   #28
gonzo
Lieutenant General
gonzo's Avatar
United_States
8662
Rep
13,859
Posts

Drives: as many as possible
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: TeXXXas

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh (PA) View Post
I literally don't understand how anyone could conclude that there is any sort of equivalency between Hillary and Trump. I don't mean that rhetorically--I am legitimately baffled that anyone could look at these two candidates and have *any* doubt about who they should vote for.

Cover up the names on the top of the CV, and what are you left with? One candidate has devoted her life to public service, has served in the Senate and the executive branch, and has a deep and nuanced understanding of the issues the country faces.

The other inherited a business which he has had mixed results building; he's never held any kind of elective office or indeed been chosen or advanced to *any* position on his own merits at all. He displays both a total lack of knowledge of and a complete lack of interest in any of the major policy concerns of the day. He lies routinely, shamelessly, and matter of factly--not just about his policies (though, yes, those), but about simple facts that are easy to check (like whether he catfished a reporter 20 years ago).

One of these people is qualified to be President. The other is not. That's not politics. That's a simple, demonstrable statement of fact.

No matter how much you dislike Hillary, or think she's corrupt, or disagree with her, we've had people like her as President before. The Republic has endured.

We've never, ever had anyone like Trump as President before. I'm not so sure the Republic can survive him.
Devoted her life to public service? Bob the sanitation specialist deserves more credit.
What is baffling is giving the self serving near convict many times over the warm and fuzzies even with her trail of corruption. Not inuindos...corruption. She's not out of the woods with her latest greasy hands either.
Brash over evil. Sorry.

Trump is no angel, who really is, but to line up negatives and positives there really is no doubt who is deserving between the two.


Crazy times.

Devoted her life...
__________________
Crazy Diamond
Appreciate 1
      06-01-2016, 09:26 AM   #29
fravel
Colonel
fravel's Avatar
United_States
1599
Rep
2,456
Posts

Drives: Monaco Blue '06 330i
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Nasti 'Nati

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis View Post
I have libertarian friends and my typically "gotcha" if I feel like trolling them are discussions on healthcare. They are against socialized healthcare for obvious reasons which I understand but healthcare is different in the instance that doctors take a hippocratic oath. You're going to get care whether or not you can afford it which makes medical care unlike any other service in economics. So either way, you're paying for it either through taxes, or through increased prices/insurance premiums due to you picking up the slack for those who can't afford to pay their hospital bills, so how does one go about deciding which one is more economically efficient?
There isn't any consequence for violating the Hippocratic Oath though. Sure you could probably find evidence that a doctor who was violating the Oath was also violating laws, but violating the Oath itself is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
I don't believe the Hippocratic Oath says anything about having to treat people without regard to their ability to pay; that's US law, in emergency situations. Is that what you are referring to?
It doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis View Post
It requires them to behave ethically, which I always took to include not turning away patients due to their inability to pay.
Full Text:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:...

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
You could argue that the bolded portions require doctors to treat any patient regardless of their ability to pay, but it definitely isn't explicit; and again, the consequences for violating this Oath are.... nothing. In fact, I would go so far as to say that many doctors today already violate the bit about "avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism" due to fear of not finding something and being sued for it later.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 09:43 AM   #30
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3169
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fravel View Post
There isn't any consequence for violating the Hippocratic Oath though. Sure you could probably find evidence that a doctor who was violating the Oath was also violating laws, but violating the Oath itself is irrelevant.



It doesn't.



Full Text:


You could argue that the bolded portions require doctors to treat any patient regardless of their ability to pay, but it definitely isn't explicit; and again, the consequences for violating this Oath are.... nothing. In fact, I would go so far as to say that many doctors today already violate the bit about "avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism" due to fear of not finding something and being sued for it later.
True, long story short, I was just trying to say that a doctor isn't going to refuse service to a sick patient just because they can't pay was really what I was ultimately getting it. Be it by oath, law, and/or personal conviction.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 09:43 AM   #31
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3169
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Good point - I would assume some do, but not the majority. The oath also states that you will educate your peers at no cost - but med school isn't free
Ha, maybe they define "peer" as one who's already passed med school.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 09:51 AM   #32
catcher22
Captain
282
Rep
922
Posts

Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh (PA) View Post
I literally don't understand how anyone could conclude that there is any sort of equivalency between Hillary and Trump. I don't mean that rhetorically--I am legitimately baffled that anyone could look at these two candidates and have *any* doubt about who they should vote for.

Cover up the names on the top of the CV, and what are you left with? One candidate has devoted her life to public service, has served in the Senate and the executive branch, and has a deep and nuanced understanding of the issues the country faces.

The other inherited a business which he has had mixed results building; he's never held any kind of elective office or indeed been chosen or advanced to *any* position on his own merits at all. He displays both a total lack of knowledge of and a complete lack of interest in any of the major policy concerns of the day. He lies routinely, shamelessly, and matter of factly--not just about his policies (though, yes, those), but about simple facts that are easy to check (like whether he catfished a reporter 20 years ago).

One of these people is qualified to be President. The other is not. That's not politics. That's a simple, demonstrable statement of fact.

No matter how much you dislike Hillary, or think she's corrupt, or disagree with her, we've had people like her as President before. The Republic has endured.

We've never, ever had anyone like Trump as President before. I'm not so sure the Republic can survive him.
This is so true. Hillary is very underrated while Trump is severely overrated. People try to bash Hillary saying she has no public service, but provide no facts to back that up. Here's a fact: Hillary helped initiate and fund the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) in the Justice Department, which has saved thousands of women from abuse.

But people can keep making blanket statements like "she's a lair" and "she's done nothing in public service" without providing any back up whatsoever. How about some real policy rebuttals for once?

Trump? Well, he has no public service to speak of and just hates on everybody.

The choice is clear to me.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 09:53 AM   #33
fravel
Colonel
fravel's Avatar
United_States
1599
Rep
2,456
Posts

Drives: Monaco Blue '06 330i
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Nasti 'Nati

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis View Post
Ha, maybe they define "peer" as one who's already passed med school.
It's explained in the original Greek as being any person who is family or is family to the person who trained you.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 09:54 AM   #34
larrysing
First Lieutenant
larrysing's Avatar
United_States
86
Rep
308
Posts

Drives: 2011 335d M-Sport, Nav/Blinds
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Arlington, TX

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2011 BMW 335d  [0.00]
If the 3rd party is Libertarian, then a 3rd party vote assures the Democratic nominee will win.

See Ross Perot, 1992.
Appreciate 1
      06-01-2016, 10:02 AM   #35
eflatminor
Private
54
Rep
93
Posts

Drives: 2016 228i
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis View Post
Wrong, people equate libertarianism to free market anarchy, these are two VERY different things. They take lassiez faire principles and turn them up to 11. I have libertarian friends and my typically "gotcha" if I feel like trolling them are discussions on healthcare. They are against socialized healthcare for obvious reasons which I understand but healthcare is different in the instance that doctors take a hippocratic oath. You're going to get care whether or not you can afford it which makes medical care unlike any other service in economics. So either way, you're paying for it either through taxes, or through increased prices/insurance premiums due to you picking up the slack for those who can't afford to pay their hospital bills, so how does one go about deciding which one is more economically efficient?



False, libertarians just follow a strict qualitative approach to economics, most of which has never been proven in real world or theoretically through mathematics. It's why the Austrian School of Economic thought isn't taken nearly as serious as the Chicago school of thought. People who don't know any better associate the city Chicago with liberal, corrupt nutjobs but in this instance the Chicago school of thought is very conservative. It's backed with shit like empirical evidence and observed history.

Meanwhile libertarians live in their fantasy world of all inflation bad and how if we went back to the gold standard, we'd be better off. Just a few years ago folks like Ron Paul and the other crazies kept spouting off about how we were on the brink of hyperinflation, don't hear much from them anymore.
Not much of a 'gotcha' at all. It's US law that requires hospitals to take all comers, not any oath. Before that meddling in the market for healthcare, charities handled people that couldn't pay or they worked it out with their provider. So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

Sorry, but your take on the Austrian school is without merit. But you really want to suggest the like of Mises didn't use empirical evidence? Well, you'll just have to be wrong again.

Lastly, no libertarian ever said "Inflation is bad". If the market demand outstrips supply, of course there will be inflation. What we're against is government-imposed inflation, which is what we've got with the Fed. Big frickin' difference.

If you think $20 trillion of debt and $100+trillion of unfunded liabilities won't eventually lead to out of control inflation, well, you're clearly not a student of economic history. And again, you'd be wrong. That's strike three.

But hey, I see you got an ad hominem in there with the "crazy" comment. When all else fails, revert to a logical fallacy. How typical.

I should really thank you for making my point!
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 11:07 AM   #36
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3169
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by eflatminor View Post
Not much of a 'gotcha' at all. It's US law that requires hospitals to take all comers, not any oath. Before that meddling in the market for healthcare, charities handled people that couldn't pay or they worked it out with their provider. So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

Sorry, but your take on the Austrian school is without merit. But you really want to suggest the like of Mises didn't use empirical evidence? Well, you'll just have to be wrong again.

Lastly, no libertarian ever said "Inflation is bad". If the market demand outstrips supply, of course there will be inflation. What we're against is government-imposed inflation, which is what we've got with the Fed. Big frickin' difference.

If you think $20 trillion of debt and $100+trillion of unfunded liabilities won't eventually lead to out of control inflation, well, you're clearly not a student of economic history. And again, you'd be wrong. That's strike three.

But hey, I see you got an ad hominem in there with the "crazy" comment. When all else fails, revert to a logical fallacy. How typical.

I should really thank you for making my point!
I stopped reading once I got to "charities will take care of it". Much like they do now right?

EDIT: I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read your next two sentences:

"What we're against is government-imposed inflation, which is what we've got with the Fed. Big frickin' difference."

You should probably go back and see how the Austrian School of Economics actually defines inflation. In their view, inflation is when there's an excess supply of money, so your example about demand/supply is moot. They don't consider that inflation. You're against any sort of inflation.

Austrian School of Economics is just some BS political ideology masquerading as a valid school of economic thought. It's why most people just roll their eyes at it. It's why everyone ignores their moronic warnings of hyperinflation and devaluation of the dollar. They've been wrong for over a decade.

Last edited by fecurtis; 06-01-2016 at 11:17 AM..
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 12:41 PM   #37
eflatminor
Private
54
Rep
93
Posts

Drives: 2016 228i
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis View Post
I stopped reading once I got to "charities will take care of it". Much like they do now right?

EDIT: I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read your next two sentences:

"What we're against is government-imposed inflation, which is what we've got with the Fed. Big frickin' difference."

You should probably go back and see how the Austrian School of Economics actually defines inflation. In their view, inflation is when there's an excess supply of money, so your example about demand/supply is moot. They don't consider that inflation. You're against any sort of inflation.

Austrian School of Economics is just some BS political ideology masquerading as a valid school of economic thought. It's why most people just roll their eyes at it. It's why everyone ignores their moronic warnings of hyperinflation and devaluation of the dollar. They've been wrong for over a decade.
Charity has been replaced by the force of government. 1/2 of my income is forcibly taken by various governments, the majority of which is used for what was traditionally charitable (read, VOLUNTARY) actions. Of course charity isn't what it used to be. Nothing that faces the force of involuntary government meddling is.

Re inflation, you miss the Austrian's point. OF COURSE an excess supply of money causes inflation at the macro level. And that only happens with a central bank that controls the price of money. That sort of inflation (forced by central planners) is always bad. However, that does not negate the real effect of supply and demand on the price of any particular good or service. No Austrian would deny this.

More logical fallacies I see. How sad. Anyway, "been wrong for a decade" demonstrates your ignorance of economic history. We've not been saying hyperinflation is going to happen NOW. We're saying this kind of spending, debt, and growth of government will eventually lead to an out of control economy that the central planners cannot fix. We know this because it has always been the case throughout history...even if it didn't happen in your 10 year period!

What is clear is that you've taken only a cursory look at classical liberalism. Before drawing these unsupported conclusions, you might want to dig a little deeper. Happy to recommend reading material if you're interested.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 12:55 PM   #38
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3169
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by eflatminor View Post
Charity has been replaced by the force of government. 1/2 of my income is forcibly taken by various governments
Half??? Really now? I guess you're in CA so I'd imagine comparative to other states and jurisdictions in the US, it's a bit on the high side.

Quote:
Re inflation, you miss the Austrian's point. OF COURSE an excess supply of money causes inflation at the macro level. And that only happens with a central bank that controls the price of money. That sort of inflation (forced by central planners) is always bad. However, that does not negate the real effect of supply and demand on the price of any particular good or service. No Austrian would deny this.
No, I get their point. Are you suggesting that the gold standard would solve for this? Since Austrians don't really preach actual economics but rather political ideologies, would you argue that with a fiat based system, inflation due to an increase in money supply = bad, but that this problem is resolved by using the gold standard again? Do you see reverting back to this standard as a viable approach to US monetary policy?

Quote:
More logical fallacies I see. How sad. Anyway, "been wrong for a decade" demonstrates your ignorance of economic history.
Is this a euphemism for "a statement of fact"? I'll treat it as such since that's what it is. Actually it's probably been closer to around 15 years now.

Quote:
We've not been saying hyperinflation is going to happen NOW. We're saying this kind of spending, debt, and growth of government will eventually lead to an out of control economy that the central planners cannot fix. We know this because it has always been the case throughout history...even if it didn't happen in your 10 year period!
I believe it was "any day now".

Quote:
What is clear is that you've taken only a cursory look at classical liberalism. Before drawing these unsupported conclusions, you might want to dig a little deeper. Happy to recommend reading material if you're interested.
Sure lay it on me. I may have already read them (or have attempted to).
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 01:47 PM   #39
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis
Quote:
Originally Posted by eflatminor View Post
Not much of a 'gotcha' at all. It's US law that requires hospitals to take all comers, not any oath. Before that meddling in the market for healthcare, charities handled people that couldn't pay or they worked it out with their provider. So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

Sorry, but your take on the Austrian school is without merit. But you really want to suggest the like of Mises didn't use empirical evidence? Well, you'll just have to be wrong again.

Lastly, no libertarian ever said "Inflation is bad". If the market demand outstrips supply, of course there will be inflation. What we're against is government-imposed inflation, which is what we've got with the Fed. Big frickin' difference.

If you think $20 trillion of debt and $100+trillion of unfunded liabilities won't eventually lead to out of control inflation, well, you're clearly not a student of economic history. And again, you'd be wrong. That's strike three.

But hey, I see you got an ad hominem in there with the "crazy" comment. When all else fails, revert to a logical fallacy. How typical.

I should really thank you for making my point!
I stopped reading once I got to "charities will take care of it". Much like they do now right?

EDIT: I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read your next two sentences:

"What we're against is government-imposed inflation, which is what we've got with the Fed. Big frickin' difference."

You should probably go back and see how the Austrian School of Economics actually defines inflation. In their view, inflation is when there's an excess supply of money, so your example about demand/supply is moot. They don't consider that inflation. You're against any sort of inflation.

Austrian School of Economics is just some BS political ideology masquerading as a valid school of economic thought. It's why most people just roll their eyes at it. It's why everyone ignores their moronic warnings of hyperinflation and devaluation of the dollar. They've been wrong for over a decade.
Regarding healthcare, charities did indeed take care of the sick who couldn't pay. That's why some of the largest networks of hospitals and doctors are run by churches even today - they were established to help the poor. When the government stepped in, they still covered anyone who couldn't pay. Most still have sliding scale payment calculations, but they have to be careful not to cross regulation for governmental programs.

Regarding over half of ones income being forcibly taken by governments:

- 25% federal tax rate
- 6% state tax rate
- 15% FICA, SSI, etc. (consider both sides, as employers are forced to pay it for employees)
- 8% sales tax
- property and local taxes - maybe 5%
- a zillion other taxes, like vehicle registration, Obamacare taxes, obamaphone taxes, etc.

It's easy to see how 50%+ isn't a stretch.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 02:17 PM   #40
other_evolved
Lieutenant Colonel
1583
Rep
1,688
Posts

Drives: 2015 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Saint Louis

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Regarding healthcare, charities did indeed take care of the sick who couldn't pay. That's why some of the largest networks of hospitals and doctors are run by churches even today - they were established to help the poor. When the government stepped in, they still covered anyone who couldn't pay. Most still have sliding scale payment calculations, but they have to be careful not to cross regulation for governmental programs.

Regarding over half of ones income being forcibly taken by governments:

- 25% federal tax rate
- 6% state tax rate
- 15% FICA, SSI, etc. (consider both sides, as employers are forced to pay it for employees)
- 8% sales tax
- property and local taxes - maybe 5%
- a zillion other taxes, like vehicle registration, Obamacare taxes, obamaphone taxes, etc.

It's easy to see how 50%+ isn't a stretch.
Eh....I'm in the 25% bracket, and I pay an effective rate of 13%. My state rate is 6, and I pay effectively 4. I would be shocked if someone actually pays HALF of their income to taxes.

The fact of the matter is we are not in an uber high tax environment from a historical sense. We have always had sales taxes, we've always had property taxes, etc., etc.



Edit: If a person is in the higher income range, their FICA/SSI/etc. is going to be drastically lower than 15%. Those taxes are an income ceiling.
__________________
Present
2015 Chevrolet SS
2014 Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk V6

Last edited by other_evolved; 06-01-2016 at 02:40 PM..
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 02:37 PM   #41
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3169
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Regarding healthcare, charities did indeed take care of the sick who couldn't pay. That's why some of the largest networks of hospitals and doctors are run by churches even today - they were established to help the poor. When the government stepped in, they still covered anyone who couldn't pay. Most still have sliding scale payment calculations, but they have to be careful not to cross regulation for governmental programs.

Regarding over half of ones income being forcibly taken by governments:

- 25% federal tax rate
- 6% state tax rate
- 15% FICA, SSI, etc. (consider both sides, as employers are forced to pay it for employees)
- 8% sales tax
- property and local taxes - maybe 5%
- a zillion other taxes, like vehicle registration, Obamacare taxes, obamaphone taxes, etc.

It's easy to see how 50%+ isn't a stretch.
Gross rates are meaningless, effective tax rates are generally below 20%. But then yes, you have to bake in the zillion other taxes levied at state and local levels. After that, I still doubt it gets you to 50%.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 02:45 PM   #42
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by other_evolved
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Regarding healthcare, charities did indeed take care of the sick who couldn't pay. That's why some of the largest networks of hospitals and doctors are run by churches even today - they were established to help the poor. When the government stepped in, they still covered anyone who couldn't pay. Most still have sliding scale payment calculations, but they have to be careful not to cross regulation for governmental programs.

Regarding over half of ones income being forcibly taken by governments:

- 25% federal tax rate
- 6% state tax rate
- 15% FICA, SSI, etc. (consider both sides, as employers are forced to pay it for employees)
- 8% sales tax
- property and local taxes - maybe 5%
- a zillion other taxes, like vehicle registration, Obamacare taxes, obamaphone taxes, etc.

It's easy to see how 50%+ isn't a stretch.
Eh....I'm in the 25% bracket, and I pay an effective rate of 13%. My state rate is 6, and I pay effectively 4. I would be shocked if someone actually pays HALF of their income to taxes.

The fact of the matter is we are not in an uber high tax environment from a historical sense. We have always had sales taxes, we've always had property taxes, etc., etc.
My effective tax rate is 31%, IIRC. add the 15% and I'm at 46%. Almost no deductions, as the government basically eliminated them, therefore effectively raising taxes without an actual increase. Add the sales tax, prop tax, state/local, and I'm easily over 50% effective tax rate. Much less the impact of the Alternative Minimum Tax...

Tax rates used to be higher, but there were all sorts of deductions. People put their kids on their payroll, and funded school expenses, etc. You could write off your medical expenses and business expenses, and sales tax you paid - these are just examples.

All of those "loopholes" have been closed now, and they have effectively raised taxes. Like when Obamacare said the only thing you can use your HSA or flex spending account for are prescription-related expenses - prior to 2012, you could purchase over-the-counter drugs with that money, but no longer.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 02:47 PM   #43
eflatminor
Private
54
Rep
93
Posts

Drives: 2016 228i
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis View Post
Half??? Really now? I guess you're in CA so I'd imagine comparative to other states and jurisdictions in the US, it's a bit on the high side.



No, I get their point. Are you suggesting that the gold standard would solve for this? Since Austrians don't really preach actual economics but rather political ideologies, would you argue that with a fiat based system, inflation due to an increase in money supply = bad, but that this problem is resolved by using the gold standard again? Do you see reverting back to this standard as a viable approach to US monetary policy?



Is this a euphemism for "a statement of fact"? I'll treat it as such since that's what it is. Actually it's probably been closer to around 15 years now.



I believe it was "any day now".



Sure lay it on me. I may have already read them (or have attempted to).
Yes, nearly half. Still not enough for the 'no government is too big for us' types.

Gold standard (or any real commodity) would be a great start. Every country/society that ultimately collapsed under the weight of its own misguided central planning started by basing their currency on a promise, not something real. So yes, a gold standard would be heading the in right direction.

Austrians don't speak to actual economics, eh? Wow. You go with that. Good grief.

We've been warning about the dangers of central planning for a lot longer than 15 years...and what you believe isn't reality. Not even if you say so.

Regarding reading, you should start with something elementary, an overview for those that really have no idea how free minds and free markets work. I recommend John Stossel's 'No They Can't'. To understand how the Fed really works, try Ron Paul's 'End the Fed'. Then you could proceed to more in depth works, such as Misses' 'Liberalism, the Classical Tradition' or 'Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy' by Thomas Sowell.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2016, 02:57 PM   #44
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3169
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by eflatminor View Post
Yes, nearly half. Still not enough for the 'no government is too big for us' types.
Never said that, just that your 50% figure is likely BS.

Quote:
Gold standard (or any real commodity) would be a great start. Every country/society that ultimately collapsed under the weight of its own misguided central planning started by basing their currency on a promise, not something real. So yes, a gold standard would be heading the in right direction.
And yet you claim you have insight into history.





In fairness, Austrians are likely right that in the LONG RUN prices will stabilize but in the meantime....that's a hell of a lot of variability. The Fed is FAR from perfect, anyone will readily admit that but most of it's actions can be explained through both quantitative and qualitative analysis...unless it's during the Greenspan years...he pretty much did everything conventional economics says you shouldn't do...we all know how that ended.

Quote:
Austrians don't speak to actual economics, eh? Wow. You go with that. Good grief.
Thanks, I'll continue to do so until one actually proves me wrong. Luckily I'm not alone in my thinking, it's why libertarians have no chance in politics.

Quote:
We've been warning about the dangers of central planning for a lot longer than 15 years...and what you believe isn't reality. Not even if you say so.
Says the guy who thinks inflation was kept in check when we had the gold standard.

Quote:
Regarding reading, you should start with something elementary, an overview for those that really have no idea how free minds and free markets work. I recommend John Stossel's 'No They Can't'. To understand how the Fed really works, try Ron Paul's 'End the Fed'. Then you could proceed to more in depth works, such as Misses' 'Liberalism, the Classical Tradition' or 'Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy' by Thomas Sowell.
I've read the last two. Read Liberalism, the Classical Tradition back in college. I actually own Basic Economics.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 PM.




xbimmers
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST