Support NeoGAF

[pgtl_10]

You could phase it in slowly. Make it so that nobody who is currently of voting age would be affected, but starting in 2020 (or some other year in the future), all high school students must pass a comprehensive exam on government before they can register to vote. Have them do it in their sophomore year so they could get another chance if they fail. Have several exam dates every year.

That idea would probably be unconstitutional. It sounds earily similar to the infamous literacy tests that eliminated blacks from voting in times past.

 

[leroidys]

Personally, I don't find it terribly difficult to write three words on a piece of paper. I'm genuinely sorry for whatever ailment you are stricken by that causes the act to be such trouble.

I have no idea what is "Islamo" about state run health care and as I stated above, I've read more than a paragraph of his work and am comfortable with his views on state run health care.

Why is the perennial bringer of snark and trollery suddenly so serious?

Now I can't even bust out my line about you hating the constitution, him not having been born in the U.S. and all.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

You probably should have considered that before you came at me again with a fundamentally dishonest argument. I've never said I have a problem giving incentives to people to be aware and educated. I have a problem with reducing the weights of votes from uneducated voters, which is what we discussed. In fact, the post you quoted had me suggesting an incentive scheme.

The difference is you wanted to disenfranchise people by reducing the value of their vote, while I'm willing to reward people who make the effort. One of those things is both constitutional and fine (if likely ineffective) while the other is morally repugnant and unconstitutional.

We done, or should I fire up the quote brackets and drag the previous conversation over here?

I would argue that my system was designed to this very end, but we're flogging a dead horse, so let's just leave it be.

 

[eznark]

Why is the perennial bringer of snark and trollery suddenly so serious?

Now I can't even bust out my line about you hating the constitution, him not having been born in the U.S. and all.

I'm not trying to be overly serious. Just clarifying where Hayek was coming from and what (I feel) was intended. Wrapped around that health care discussion was also a rather forceful reprehension for any government action that negatively impacted individual freedoms. While you can make the case using that single paragraph that in a perfect world Hayek would support free health care, he would certainly not support the forced purchase of insurance or the inevitable restrictions on our diet and sin taxes that we can look forward to in 2014 and beyond.

There is also nothing unconstitutional about writing in a non-American. He just can't serve....and I think that highly unlikely at this stage!

 

[besada]

I would argue that my system was designed to this very end, but we're flogging a dead horse, so let's just leave it be.

I'd argue that your intent isn't the point, as I discussed in detail. It's your method that's illegal and immoral. Having a good intent doesn't indemnify you from the negative consequences of the policies you support. SomeDude's intent was to create a socialist democracy -- something I have no problem with. It's that he was willing to jettison the poor to their own problems that I took issue with, and it's your willingness to treat the poor and uneducated as second class citizens that I take issue with.

You've been unwilling to acknowledge the actual consequences of the plan you supported, choosing rather to fall back on your intent. You then further irritated me by jumping on a post where I actually suggested an incentive to claim that I didn't support incentives, because I am unwilling to violate the SC standard for voting and remove the full weight of a vote from people because they aren't well educated enough.

I'm all for legal, moral incentives to educate people, although I'd note any sort of testing schema is a classic example of trying to solve a complex issue with a simplistic answer. As for leaving it be, you've had that option after every one of my posts, but you keep coming back for more. I actually spent the afternoon considering that I'd been a little rough on you, and that you might not understand how incredibly wrong your schema was, but if you want to keep defending it, I'll keep stomping a mud hole in your ass.

 

[Stormwatch]

The problem with America is the apathet- no they aren't even apathetic, let me correct, the INDIFFERENT middle class not voting. I really hope that this will change soon.

Honestly, the problem with America is that there is no party for the middle class. Typically rich people vote Republican and poor people vote Democrat. Who does an average white, straight, non-union, agnostic, pro-choice, pro death penalty, pro gun, pro gay marriage, middle class male vote for? Most candidates follow their party lines to a tee because otherwise they wouldn't be chosen by their respective parties. It would be easier if there were 4 parties that separated social issues from economic issues.

 

[leroidys]

I'm not trying to be overly serious. Just clarifying where Hayek was coming from and what (I feel) was intended. Wrapped around that health care discussion was also a rather forceful reprehension for any government action that negatively impacted individual freedoms. While you can make the case using that single paragraph that in a perfect world Hayek would support free health care, he would certainly not support the forced purchase of insurance or the inevitable restrictions on our diet and sin taxes that we can look forward to in 2014 and beyond.

There is also nothing unconstitutional about writing in a non-American. He just can't serve....and I think that highly unlikely at this stage!

The 'socialist' line was hyperbole, which I tried (failed) to underline the second time with the islamo-fascist nonsense. I do not support "free" health care in this sense either, and do not actively support aggressive, single-payer, completely nationalized healthcare (although I am not SO opposed to it, simply because it has a decent track record in a handful of countries), and I am not so ignorant as to believe that Hayek supported anything of the sort either.

Just curious, how far would you accept government intervention into healthcare markets? Mandating coverage? Dictating prices? Limiting health group profit margins?

 

[Novid]

We should include more people to vote than anything.

The problem with America is the apathet- no they aren't even apathetic, let me correct, the INDIFFERENT middle class not voting. I really hope that this will change soon.



That's the problem, you can never be sure if its the RIGHT person. Yes because the death penalty is illegal that child abuser sicko can get the death penalty but so could many innocents as well. Real life isn't Batman, despite all of our technological advances it still isn't uncommon for innocents to be put to death.

The only way I would allow anybody to vote is to pay taxes. But that only happens once everybody is on a Flat or Fair Tax (NO VAT). Everybody that pays tax has a say in the poltical process. That will end all the bullshit conserning the voters.

 

[TacticalFox88]

The only way I would allow anybody to vote is to pay taxes. But that only happens once everybody is on a Flat or Fair Tax (NO VAT). Everybody that pays tax has a say in the poltical process. That will end all the bullshit conserning the voters.

....All of us pay taxes. -___-

 

[leroidys]

Honestly, the problem with America is that there is no party for the middle class. Typically rich people vote Republican and poor people vote Democrat. Who does an average white, straight, non-union, agnostic, pro-choice, pro death penalty, pro gun, pro gay marriage, middle class male vote for? Most candidates follow their party lines to a tee because otherwise they wouldn't be chosen by their respective parties. It would be easier if there were 4 parties that separated social issues from economic issues.

It is really bizarre the present shapes that the parties have taken. You used to have pro-upper/ruling class party pitted against a populist lower/middle class party.

Historically, it made sense that poor people would vote for the populist party - very openly religious and moralistic, promising benefits, progress, social programs, latently anti-science, but what you have now in America is a "populist" party that derides and fears the poor, and a largely irreligious party that preaches about social obligations.

 

[XMonkey]

The only way I would allow anybody to vote is to pay taxes. But that only happens once everybody is on a Flat or Fair Tax (NO VAT). Everybody that pays tax has a say in the poltical process. That will end all the bullshit conserning the voters.

Round and round we go.

 

[Novid]

....All of us pay taxes. -___-

47% of americans dont. There too poor to do so. I said ONCE there is a Consumption TAX (I.E. FLAT or Fair RATE).

Today some of the 47% that dont pay taxes live to vote in order to keep their Foodstamps coming in/Keep Medicare-Medicaid afloat/SSI payments. A Flat/Fair tax will help them more than Welfare has ever done. They only pay what they can afford. Over that amount and the TAX comes in. Then come April 15 they pay a 500/1500 stipend. Everybody wins.

 

[Byakuya769]

47% of americans dont. There too poor to do so. I said ONCE there is a Consumption TAX (I.E. FLAT or Fair RATE).

Today some of the 47% that dont pay taxes live to vote in order to keep their Foodstamps coming in/Keep Medicare-Medicaid afloat/SSI payments. A Flat/Fair tax will help them more than Welfare has ever done.

Ignoring your incorrectness, how would it help them?

 

[Piecake]

47% of americans dont. There too poor to do so. I said ONCE there is a Consumption TAX (I.E. FLAT or Fair RATE).

Today some of the 47% that dont pay taxes live to vote in order to keep their Foodstamps coming in/Keep Medicare-Medicaid afloat/SSI payments. A Flat/Fair tax will help them more than Welfare has ever done.

you are horribly misinformed. And we all pay taxes since I think you are definitely forgetting about payroll and sales tax. And there is no way in hell that 47% of the population don't pay income taxes. Well, I guess that is possible if they are figuring in dependents into their calculations.

Ignoring your incorrectness, how would it help them?

By making them even poorer so that they get off their lazy butts and find a job! Oh wait, we have that 10% unemployment thing going on, and that isnt even including people who are out of the job market all together.

 

[GhaleonEB]

47% of americans dont. There too poor to do so. I said ONCE there is a Consumption TAX (I.E. FLAT or Fair RATE).

Today some of the 47% that dont pay taxes live to vote in order to keep their Foodstamps coming in/Keep Medicare-Medicaid afloat/SSI payments. A Flat/Fair tax will help them more than Welfare has ever done. They only pay what they can afford. Over that amount and the TAX comes in. Then come April 15 they pay a 500/1500 stipend. Everybody wins.

This is such a perverse world view. You really think that's what the working poor are worried about? (Note also, they pay taxes.)

 

[Novid]

Ignoring your incorrectness, how would it help them?

They only have to pay a stypend between 500 to 1,500 bucks every April 15 if they work, and less if they dont, but they have to be on job programs (welfare will have to change again to create jobs only)

 

[Novid]

This is such a perverse world view. You really think that's what the working poor are worried about? (Note also, they pay taxes.)

I think the working poor is worried about having the next paycheck come in. Im trying to figure out what idea can get us back in good footing again without people saying we cheated (in the 90's) or we have to have WWIII. Because the only way out of this is through World WAR sadly.

 

[Piecake]

I think the working poor is worried about having the next paycheck come in. Im trying to figure out what idea can get us back in good footing again without people saying we cheated (in the 90's) or we have to have WWIII.

And your solution is to make them even poorer?

 

[Novid]

And your solution is to make them even poorer?

Ok then, how you gonna make them middle class?

 

[besada]

It's probably too much to expect that Novid will read the whole article, but I'll at least give him an opportunity to correct his ignorance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

This is such a perverse world view. You really think that's what the working poor are worried about? (Note also, they pay taxes.)

I sense you're about to get some anecdotal evidence.

 

[Stormwatch]

I think this is where that "47% don't pay taxes" figure is coming from: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

 

[Clevinger]

Where has this 47 number been coming from? Seeing it a lot lately.


edit: Damn you! ^^

 

[Stinkles]

47% of americans dont. There too poor to do so. I said ONCE there is a Consumption TAX (I.E. FLAT or Fair RATE).

Today some of the 47% that dont pay taxes live to vote in order to keep their Foodstamps coming in/Keep Medicare-Medicaid afloat/SSI payments. A Flat/Fair tax will help them more than Welfare has ever done. They only pay what they can afford. Over that amount and the TAX comes in. Then come April 15 they pay a 500/1500 stipend. Everybody wins.

what is all this shit?

 

[Piecake]

Ok then, how you gonna make them middle class?

-Implement an actually sane tax policy where people are making 500k+ pay 40% in income taxes and 35% in capital gains.
-Invest in infrastructure, renewable energy to create more jobs.
-Implement universal health care to save us a ton of money and gain better health care.
-Legalize weed and tax the hell out of it. Decriminalize drugs so we can get those people out of prison and reduce drug cops, DEA, and legal fees wasted on prosecuting drug users.
- Actually support education, especially college education so that it doesnt put the student in severe debt or force the parents to take out a second mortgage

Universal health care, decriminalizing drugs and taxing should give the govt enough money to fund those infrastructure improvements and increased education funding

What this does is that it gives the middle class more money back through not having to pay such absurd health care costs or college tuition costs, and with that money actually freed up, they can actually buy more shit, which stimulates our economy, grows more jobs, makes the rich more wealthy, etc. Yes, the middle class buying more crap creates jobs, Supply side economics just gives us more debt..

Will that stop people from being poor? Of course not, but with universal health care and cheap college tuition, they will have a better chance of succeeding than they do now

 

[Ether_Snake]

Also the rich are full of it when they say tax cuts for the rich will create jobs.

Fact is the rich have an unlimited access to money through loans, with low interest rates. So if they want to build some factories or expand their businesses, they don't need tax cuts to do so, they can get a loan. If they aren't doing that it's because they consider it a risk, and if that is the case then there is no reason to think they would consider it any less of a risk by spending their tax-saved money instead of taking a loan.

If a business believes it can make more money by expanding, it can borrow it.

The tax cuts for the rich is bullshit.

 

[Puddles]

That idea would probably be unconstitutional. It sounds earily similar to the infamous literacy tests that eliminated blacks from voting in times past.

Why do you think that black people would be disproportionately affected by such a requirement?

It would filter out people who haven't taken the time and effort to understand how this country is operated. Those people shouldn't really be voting anyway.

 

[besada]

-Implement an actually sane tax policy where people are making 500k+ pay 40% in income taxes and 35% in capital gains.
-Invest in infrastructure, renewable energy to create more jobs.
-Implement universal health care to save us a ton of money and gain better health care. Legalize weed and tax the hell out of it.
-Decriminalize drugs so we can get those people out of prison and reduce drug cops, DEA, and legal fees wasted on prosecuting drug users.
- Actually support education, especially college education so that it doesnt put the student in severe debt or force the parents to take out a second mortgage

Universal health care, decriminalizing drugs and taxing should give the govt enough money to fund those infrastructure improvements and increased education funding

What this does is that it gives the middle class more money back through not having to pay such absurd health care costs or college tuition costs, and when with that money actually freed up, they can actually buy more shit, which stimulates are economy, grows more jobs, makes the rich more wealthy, etc. Yes, the middle class buying more crap creates jobs, Supply side economics just gives us more debt..

Will that stop people from being poor? Of course not, but with universal health care and cheap college tuition, they will have a better chance of succeeding than they do now

I like you. Your last bullet point is where the real meat is (although I support all of them.) There's a clear, strong correlation between education and economic status. If you want to reduce the number of poor people in America, you educate them. It has the added benefit of reducing the number of children they have. It should be illegal to fund rich districts at higher rates than poor districts. Children are not responsible for their parent's mistakes, and yet this country is more than willing to abandon them to the fates of their parents, even though it's terrible for everyone in the country.

Been saying it for years: You're going to pay one way or another. Educate them or imprison them. America is the very definition of penny-wise, pound-foolish. Rather than pay up front to help create citizens capable of paying their way, we allow huge classes of people to grow up with minimal educational opportunities, which costs us a shit load of money down the road, through welfare, loss of taxes, imprisonment, etc. Healthcare is the same thing. We're already paying for healthcare for poor people, we're just doing it in the stupidest way possible, on the back-end, where it's 20-40% more expensive.

Why do you think that black people would be disproportionately affected by such a requirement?

Because he has a basic grasp of the demographics of America? People of color are over-represented in both the set of low-incomes and low-education. 24.5% of African-Americans are in a state of poverty. 8.2% of White non-Hispanics are. 10.2% of Asians and 21.5% of Hispanics. Education, of course, is tightly coupled with low socioeconomic class, which is one of the reasons why we see higher high school dropouts for African-Americans, less Bachelor's degrees, less Master's Degrees, etc.

 

[Novid]

-Implement an actually sane tax policy where people are making 500k+ pay 40% in income taxes and 35% in capital gains.
-Invest in infrastructure, renewable energy to create more jobs.
-Implement universal health care to save us a ton of money and gain better health care.
-Legalize weed and tax the hell out of it. Decriminalize drugs so we can get those people out of prison and reduce drug cops, DEA, and legal fees wasted on prosecuting drug users.
- Actually support education, especially college education so that it doesnt put the student in severe debt or force the parents to take out a second mortgage

Universal health care, decriminalizing drugs and taxing should give the govt enough money to fund those infrastructure improvements and increased education funding

What this does is that it gives the middle class more money back through not having to pay such absurd health care costs or college tuition costs, and when with that money actually freed up, they can actually buy more shit, which stimulates are economy, grows more jobs, makes the rich more wealthy, etc. Yes, the middle class buying more crap creates jobs, Supply side economics just gives us more debt..

Will that stop people from being poor? Of course not, but with universal health care and cheap college tuition, they will have a better chance of succeeding than they do now

that actualy makes sense.

 

[Novid]

I like you. Your last bullet point is where the real meat is (although I support all of them.) There's a clear, strong correlation between education and economic status. If you want to reduce the number of poor people in America, you educate them. It has the added benefit of reducing the number of children they have. It should be illegal to fund rich districts at higher rates than poor districts. Children are not responsible for their parent's mistakes, and yet this country is more than willing to abandon them to the fates of their parents, even though it's terrible for everyone in the country.

Been saying it for years: You're going to pay one way or another. Educate them or imprison them. America is the very definition of penny-wise, pound-foolish. Rather than pay up front to help create citizens capable of paying their way, we allow huge classes of people to grow up with minimal educational opportunities, which costs us a shit load of money down the road, through welfare, loss of taxes, imprisonment, etc. Healthcare is the same thing. We're already paying for healthcare for poor people, we're just doing it in the stupidest way possible, on the back-end, where it's 20-40% more expensive.

What makes it worse that the Insurance Companies are doing illegal praticies in billing. Also agree with you on how Children are treated which every poltico uses to say were going to save the kids but turns out they hurt more. It started in Ernest in 1990 and hasnt stopped since.

 

[Novid]

Also the rich are full of it when they say tax cuts for the rich will create jobs.

Fact is the rich have an unlimited access to money through loans, with low interest rates. So if they want to build some factories or expand their businesses, they don't need tax cuts to do so, they can get a loan. If they aren't doing that it's because they consider it a risk, and if that is the case then there is no reason to think they would consider it any less of a risk by spending their tax-saved money instead of taking a loan.

If a business believes it can make more money by expanding, it can borrow it.

The tax cuts for the rich is bullshit.

This is also true because Hollywood does this almost everyday (take a loan, small ones at a time) and they hire people un-masse. The Tax Credit in Cali were for smaller production studios subcontracted to do series for the major lots.

That being said, the CEO's have somewhat of a point of the Tax Rate. The Tax Cuts make it even but not enough to hire people because they way the margins are set up.

 

[Puddles]

Unlike RtS, he explores the issue in more depth in The Constitution of Liberty. It generally boils down to it'd be nice but impossible without ceding unimaginable levels of liberty and once enacted impossible to kill.

Unimaginable levels?

Why didn't you tell us about this before? WTF are we doing in Afghanistan and Iraq? We should be liberating France, Canada and a bunch of other countries!

Although doesn't Iraq have universal healthcare now? I guess it's true what they say about us removing one tyrannical regime and installing another.

 

[Novid]

what is all this shit?

Didnt have enough data - thats what happens when you just hear a number (or a whole book on it) and dont have "the rest of the story" sorry about that.

 

[Piecake]

This is also true because Hollywood does this almost everyday (take a loan, small ones at a time) and they hire people un-masse. The Tax Credit in Cali were for smaller production studios subcontracted to do series for the major lots.

That being said, the CEO's have somewhat of a point of the Tax Rate. The Tax Cuts make it even but not enough to hire people because they way the margins are set up.

So, since the tax cuts to them do absolutely nothing for them, we shouldnt even bother and just give it to the middle class and lower class. They will actually take that money and buy stuff with it, which will put money in that CEO's pocket anyways.

 

[Ether_Snake]

This is also true because Hollywood does this almost everyday (take a loan, small ones at a time) and they hire people un-masse. The Tax Credit in Cali were for smaller production studios subcontracted to do series for the major lots.

That being said, the CEO's have somewhat of a point of the Tax Rate. The Tax Cuts make it even but not enough to hire people because they way the margins are set up.

If you can take a loan to start a business, you can take a loan to expand a business.

The ones driving the economy are the middle class. Profits should be redistributed to them. It will go right back in the economy, unlike with the rich.

 

[eznark]

Just curious, how far would you accept government intervention into healthcare markets? Mandating coverage? Dictating prices? Limiting health group profit margins?

I'll "accept" as much as I have to. I'm not leaving the country over idiotic health care issues. I personally support zero intervention into markets, but I'm more of an anarcho-capitalist than Hayek was. To me individual liberty is more important than mass comfort, which is generally why I have to write in a candidate more often than not.

Unimaginable levels?

Why didn't you tell us about this before? WTF are we doing in Afghanistan and Iraq? We should be liberating France, Canada and a bunch of other countries!

Although doesn't Iraq have universal healthcare now? I guess it's true what they say about us removing one tyrannical regime and installing another.

I'm lost as to the point you are trying to make...even more so than usual.

 

[jamesinclair]

I have several friends that are legal aliens, and have lived in the states most their entire life, and are very educated on US politics, but are unable to vote because they would have to give up the citizenship of their birth country.

Um....

I hate to break this to your friends, but dual (and triple) citizenship is allowed.

Yes, at your ceremony you "renounce" your old citizenship....but nobody actually does it. Thats retarded.

Hell, the US government help pages have pages and pages of info on dual citizenship.

If you're that desperate to ensure voters are educated then create an incentive. It's fairly easy to do and has the benefit of both being constitutional and moral. Give anyone who can pass your test a $500 tax break. You could even create a multi-tiered system of breaks. Pass basic civics, get $100. Pass advanced tax theory, get $500.

It may be a stupid idea, but at least it isn't morally reprehensible. Frankly, any single test bar is going to be essentially useless, so long as the way media in this country works stays the same. I know tons of people who understand the basic civics you're talking about, who are wildly misinformed on individual issues because they get all their new information from cable news, which is a giant, steaming pile of shit.

I agree. But I also proposed giving women 14-25 who dont get knocked up $150 a year as a "reward" and apparently, that makes me evil.

 

[Oblivion]

Does George Will have some permanent commenting spot on This Week? He's always there, and ALWAYS retarded.

 

[Novid]

Does George Will have some permanent commenting spot on This Week? He's always there, and ALWAYS retarded.

Yes he does. Not sure of the retardation. Maybe is more Baseball anylical?

 

[eznark]

Does George Will have some permanent commenting spot on This Week? He's always there, and ALWAYS retarded.

He has been on it since the beginning, 1980 or something.

 

[besada]

I agree. But I also proposed giving women 14-25 who dont get knocked up $150 a year as a "reward" and apparently, that makes me evil.

No, what made you evil was your suggestion that people who have children pay higher taxes, even though that means less money to actually care for that child, and that it would disproportionately effect the poor, which means you're punishing the child for their parent's bad decisions.

Giving positive incentives that help the poor is good, creating negative incentives that punish them is bad. It's not that complicated a concept.

Note: I don't actually think you're evil. I also don't think I_I is evil. Not many people are evil. I think you're both frustrated and that frustration causes you to support morally repugnant ideas.

 

[jamesinclair]

No, what made you evil was your suggestion that people who have children pay higher taxes, even though that means less money to actually care for that child, and that it would disproportionately effect the poor, which means you're punishing the child for their parent's bad decisions.

Giving positive incentives that help the poor is good, creating negative incentives that punish them is bad. It's not that complicated a concept.

I think a balanced approach is best. Carrots and sticks.

Dont have babies? Free money.
Have babies? Deal with the consequences (and life has plenty of "free" consequences)

(Note: I also support free condoms/pills/education etc so the poor have the opportunity to remain baby free)

It blows my mind that giving people money to reward a negative behavior is considered the normal baseline, and taking away that incentive is considered "punishment".


It reminds me of the way the GOP frames the bush tax cut discussion.

Returning taxes to old level = OMG TAX HIKE
just like
Removing ridiculous deductions = OMG TAX HIKE.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

47% of Americans don't pay federal taxes.............isn't the recession and the large amount of jobs lost the reason? I mean this is what happens during a recession: revenue falls. Once the great recession is over, I'm quite sure that number will drop.

 

[Wall]

Does George Will have some permanent commenting spot on This Week? He's always there, and ALWAYS retarded.

George Will is the original Tucker Carlson.

 

[Byakuya769]

I think a balanced approach is best. Carrots and sticks.

Dont have babies? Free money.
Have babies? Deal with the consequences (and life has plenty of "free" consequences)

(Note: I also support free condoms/pills/education etc so the poor have the opportunity to remain baby free)

It blows my mind that giving people money to reward a negative behavior is considered the normal baseline, and taking away that incentive is considered "punishment".


It reminds me of the way the GOP frames the bush tax cut discussion.

Returning taxes to old level = OMG TAX HIKE
just like
Removing ridiculous deductions = OMG TAX HIKE.

I think you've been asked this already, but what do you see as the positive incentive for having a child? You think the credits amount to more money than the cost of actually having a child?

 

[besada]

I think a balanced approach is best. Carrots and sticks.

Policies have consequences. Accepting policies that disproportionately target the weakest and poorest citizens is immoral.

The poorest among us are also the least educated among us, and they also have more children. Those factors are not disconnected. Like most things, the lever is education. We all know (or should) that the higher you climb on the educational/socioeconomic ladder, the less children you have. The solution is to increase effective education.

You're willing to support absolutely terrible outcomes to get your stick in action, and it's poor people you're beating with it. You may think that's okay (and apparently you do) but I don't.

And since we're making offensive political comparisons, let me take a turn. Your ideas are like most libertarian ideas -- based on ideology, without a concern for the negative outcomes associated with them. In short, classic "fuck you jack, I got mine" thinking.

 

[manipulate]

no, it's because they have no money

 

[Puddles]

I'm lost as to the point you are trying to make...even more so than usual.

I do tend to go over your head.

If universal healthcare in a country deprives its people of an unimaginable amount of liberty, then the citizens of all the countries that have universal healthcare must be suffering from such a lack of liberty. Hence I made a sarcastic comment implying that maybe we should be liberating those people (the French, Canadians, British, etc) instead of wasting our time trying to liberate people whose freedom hasn't been compromised in this regard.

I then remembered that under the new Iraqi constitution, which was only made possible because we overthrew Saddam Hussein, Iraqis now have universal healthcare. So I observed with some sadness the irony of the United States overthrowing a dictator only to subsequently deprive the Iraqi people of liberty yet again.

 

[eznark]

And since we're making offensive political comparisons, let me take a turn. Your ideas are like most libertarian ideas -- based on ideology, without a concern for the negative outcomes associated with them. In short, classic "fuck you jack, I got mine" thinking.

SHENANIGANS!!!!

Libertarian policies are passively neglectful, jamessinclair is actively abusive.

I'm letting my kid starve if he can't find the cookie jar. James is punching his kid in the mouth for asking for a cookie.

I do tend to go over your head.

If universal healthcare in a country deprives its people of an unimaginable amount of liberty, then the citizens of all the countries that have universal healthcare must be suffering from such a lack of liberty. Hence I made a sarcastic comment implying that maybe we should be liberating those people (the French, Canadians, British, etc) instead of wasting our time trying to liberate people whose freedom hasn't been compromised in this regard.

I then remembered that under the new Iraqi constitution, which was only made possible because we overthrew Saddam Hussein, Iraqis now have universal healthcare. So I observed with some sadness the irony of the United States overthrowing a dictator only to subsequently deprive the Iraqi people of liberty yet again.

Unlike Bush and Obama, I respect the sovereignty of other countries and have no problem if their citizens choose the yolk.

Your handle is perfectly demonstrative of the general depth of your understanding in regards to most opinions that differ even a fraction from your.

 

[besada]

SHENANIGANS!!!!

Libertarian policies are passively neglectful, jamessinclair is actively abusive.

I'm letting my kid starve if he can't find the cookie jar. James is punching his kid in the mouth for asking for a cookie.

Fair enough. Also, you made me laugh.

 

[Puddles]

Unlike Bush and Obama, I respect the sovereignty of other countries and have no problem if their citizens choose the yolk.

Your handle is perfectly demonstrative of the general depth of your understanding in regards to most opinions that differ even a fraction from your.

Do you think there are many people in France, Canada, etc who resent the fact that they live under such a "yolk"?

Also, believe it or not, I used to be a libertarian. I've considered many of the viewpoints held by the "other side", hell, even written essays defending them at one point or another.