Vandals, not anarchists

Judged:

3

1

Former Ranger wrote:

Hey Bob, if it quacks like a duck..........
Hey Chris, why do Democrats always call their spending investments? Every, every time they say invest they mean tax and spend!

Judged:

3

2

2

Mellers wrote:

Right on, Chris. Imagine what we could have done with even 1/2 of that money being spent here at home: education, health care, clean air/water, etc.

Judged:

1

1

1

Mellers wrote:

<quoted text>
I won't disagree that Dems have had some history of tax and spend unwisely, but do you honestly believe that borrow and spend is much better? Why would anyone support even a hint of something similar to the last 8 years?

Judged:

1

1

1

Peter wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, it is. The spend part is less which is key. Government spending is the least productive spending we have. It stands to reason because they just don't have the discipline of having to earn revenues from customers. So, the bigger the share government spending represents of the economy, the worse off we are in the long run. And while Republicans have grown government, Democrats will grow it dramatically more. Borrowing money is just taxing with one hand and writing an interest payment with the other. It's actually pretty benign as it doesn't have the productivity killing middle of government programs.

Judged:

1

1

Gndydncr wrote:

<quoted text>
... provided we'd still be alive to spend it.

Judged:

2

2

1

Mellers wrote:

<quoted text>
How can you say that we've had less spending in the last 8 years than the previous 8 years? I can support fiscally responsible taxing and spending versus borrowing and spending (what about interest? Doesn't THAT add up?)
I'm guessing you're older than me, so I am the lucky one to help pay for it or to make sacrifices to get our debt down. NO THANKS.

Judged:

2

1

1

Peter wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a sorry difference, but an important difference: Spending went up a lot, but with the Left in charge of everything, it would've gone up a lot more. Government spending / GDP of 18% with a deficit is way better than a balanced budget, but with spending / GDP of 23%. The reason is that government spending has such poor productivity. Interest is just dollars in, dollars out. In fact, I like a sizeable government debt. I'd rather have the money siphoned off relatively harmlessly in interest payments than spent on some new huge value crushing bureaucracy. Mellers, you've picked the wrong stat to worry about, especially as a young person.

Mellers wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right-stats (or Econ) were never my best subjects in college. But what I've always been good at (and still think I am) is to see reality beyond numbers: how the average person is impacted by this economy. I don't claim to fully understand all of the issues, or who's to blame, but I am well aware that the previous 8 years was better for our national debt, balancing budgets and most importantly, for the average American.

Judged:

1

1

Mellers wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right-stats (or Econ) were never my best subjects in college. But what I've always been good at (and still think I am) is to see reality beyond numbers: how the average person is impacted by this economy. I don't claim to fully understand all of the issues, or who's to blame, but I am well aware that the previous 8 years was better for our national debt, balancing budgets and most importantly, for the average American.

Judged:

2

1

Peter wrote:

<quoted text>
Recessions happen. They ****, but they're normal. We endure business cycles because market economies over time meet the needs of the people way better than anything ever invented. Downturns bring out the opportunists to sell us on centralized control, opportunists like Obama. The market, which is really just all of us making our own best choices, will solve our problems way sooner and more effectively than people in the government. None of the smart people from my high school work for the government. How about yours?

Judged:

4

3

3

Pragmatist wrote:

<quoted text>Although the previous 8 years didn't have to deal with the fallout after 9/11, gas prices rising over $4(would have happened with a democratic administration also, China and India becoming big petroleum importers, that Econ thing you know....), and the mortgage crisis stimulated by policies implemented in the previous Clinton administration(you can now take money from one house's sales and pay no capital gains on it if you hold it for two years....prior, you had to pay taxes on the gains....hmmm......thats a democratic tax cut that impacted the economy...)

Judged:

4

3

3

Peter wrote:

<quoted text>
Government spending is the least productive spending we have.

Judged:

2

2

1

Darwinian wrote:

<quoted text>
Your evidence?
One of the reasons Medicare is in trouble is because it is SUBSIDIZING the private HMOs which now participate - if private is better than public, why does the public sector have to subsidize the private sector?

WhiteTtger wrote:

<quoted text>
GEEEZ.... Mellers is a Collectivist that sustains himself at the Public Trough....Now you have insulted him!!!
O' Well....Mellers, he didnt realy mean what he said....LOLOLOLOL

Peter wrote:

<quoted text>
It doesn't. The public takes from one area of private and gives it to another of private. Public doesn't give without the public taking. I think you answered your own question. The overwhelming reason why Medicare is in trouble isn't because of HMOs, it's because it's a political solution mixed with an economic solution. It's a whopper undisciplined government program that creates massive distortions. Speaking of healthcare, maybe you can answer your own question another way: Choose between your local hospital or the V.A. and then think about why.

Judged:

2

2

2

Mellers wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you explain that the rest of health care is broken to various degrees and that it's the government's fault?

Judged:

1

1

1

Peter wrote:

<quoted text>
The biggest problem we have with healthcare is that it's too OFTEN that someone else pays, not too SELDOM. When someone else pays, people don't care what it costs. And with infinity of company healthcare plans and government payments, there's no end to the inflation. I can't think of too many other things where the end consumer doesn't typically even know what it costs. We also have been indiscriminately importing poor people. Here's the shocker: They're poor. And poor people can't pay for things, especially things like healthcare. We also have government mandates. Your plan MUST include 2 nights stay for birthing, mental health coverage, blah, blah, blah. It also pays for everyday items like physicals. That's like including gasoline in your auto insurance. People can't just go out and buy stripped down higher deductible coverage. It's essentially illegal.

Judged:

1

1

1

Peter wrote:

<quoted text>
It doesn't. The public takes from one area of private and gives it to another of private. Public doesn't give without the public taking. I think you answered your own question. The overwhelming reason why Medicare is in trouble isn't because of HMOs, it's because it's a political solution mixed with an economic solution. It's a whopper undisciplined government program that creates massive distortions. Speaking of healthcare, maybe you can answer your own question another way: Choose between your local hospital or the V.A. and then think about why.