NATION

PASSWORD

Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:07 pm

The UK in Exile wrote:
Galiantus wrote:Ok, I did this on my own:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/

..............Barack Obama (D)....Mitt Romney (R)
Raised.....$300,134,364 .........$153,537,758
Spent......$204,901,024 .........$131,044,967
Debts......$2,388,104 ............$0
Cash........$97,536,739 ..........$22,505,830

...............................Obama...........Romney
Small Indiv Contrib.....$121,550,222....$25,524,381
Large Indiv. Contrib....$181,407,165....$128,280,356


Obama has raised nearly 2 times as much money as Romney. He has spent over $70 million more than Romney, and on hand he has over 4x the amount Romney has raised. In the way of large contributions, Romney has raised a higher PERCENTAGE of his money from "large individual contributions", but total Obama has raised over $50 million more in that category. That's assuming those were all rich people, too.


too bad it doesn't count....

SUPER-PACS!

If you're actually interested.

I know I'M not doing any of the number-crunching on that one though.
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
Silent Majority
Minister
 
Posts: 2496
Founded: Jun 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Silent Majority » Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:08 pm

Galiantus wrote:
Galiantus wrote:
Go find how much money Obama has raised for his caompeign. Then go find how much Romney has raised. Done.

Ok, I did this on my own:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/

..............Barack Obama (D)....Mitt Romney (R)
Raised.....$300,134,364 .........$153,537,758
Spent......$204,901,024 .........$131,044,967
Debts......$2,388,104 ............$0
Cash........$97,536,739 ..........$22,505,830

...............................Obama...........Romney
Small Indiv Contrib.....$121,550,222....$25,524,381
Large Indiv. Contrib....$181,407,165....$128,280,356


Obama has raised nearly 2 times as much money as Romney. He has spent over $70 million more than Romney, and on hand he has over 4x the amount Romney has raised. In the way of large contributions, Romney has raised a higher PERCENTAGE of his money from "large individual contributions", but total Obama has raised over $50 million more in that category. That's assuming those were all rich people, too.



I'm not sure I'd call Goldman Sachs, and other corporate donors for Obama "the left". If you subtract those, Romney is likely ahead.
Last edited by Silent Majority on Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“It is the ultimate irony of history that radical individualism serves as the ideological justification of the unconstrained power of what the large majority of individuals experience as a vast anonymous power, which, without any democratic public control, regulates their lives.”
― Slavoj Žižek

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:16 pm

I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.

User avatar
The UK in Exile
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12023
Founded: Jul 27, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby The UK in Exile » Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:17 pm

Occupied Deutschland wrote:
The UK in Exile wrote:
too bad it doesn't count....

SUPER-PACS!

If you're actually interested.

I know I'M not doing any of the number-crunching on that one though.


I can spot one pertinent point, the number one fundraisng PAC supports Mitt romney and it has twice the cash of the number two. which is also republican.

between the two they have six times what Obama's PAC has.
"We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom"

"My actions are as noble as my thoughts, That never relish’d of a base descent.I came unto your court for honour’s cause, And not to be a rebel to her state; And he that otherwise accounts of me, This sword shall prove he’s honour’s enemy."

"Wählte Ungnade, wo Gehorsam nicht Ehre brachte."
DEFCON 0 - not at war
DEFCON 1 - at war "go to red alert!" "are you absolutely sure sir? it does mean changing the lightbulb."

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:17 pm

AuSable River wrote:I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.


Says the person who never actually addressed everything in the post he was replying to.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57200
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:27 pm

AuSable River wrote:
I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.


A) Have some manners.
B) Don't be an arrogant prick.
C) Don't generalize or insult your opponents with every breath and then expect them to treat you with any respect or seriousness.
D) Go to college and read some fricking Economy, Philosophy and History books.
E) Grow up.
F) Fuck you. :kiss:

MODS, please be so kind to forgive my language and manners. There is only so much my highly-tolerant-to-offense mind can take.
Last edited by Liriena on Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
The UK in Exile
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12023
Founded: Jul 27, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby The UK in Exile » Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:30 pm

Liriena wrote:
AuSable River wrote:
I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.


A) Have some manners.
B) Don't be an arrogant prick.
C) Don't generalize or insult your opponents with every breath and then expect them to treat you with any respect or seriousness.
D) Go to college and read some fricking Economy, Philosophy and History books.
E) Grow up.
F) Fuck you. :kiss:


ah go easy on him, liriena.

I can't think of a good reason why, but still......
"We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom"

"My actions are as noble as my thoughts, That never relish’d of a base descent.I came unto your court for honour’s cause, And not to be a rebel to her state; And he that otherwise accounts of me, This sword shall prove he’s honour’s enemy."

"Wählte Ungnade, wo Gehorsam nicht Ehre brachte."
DEFCON 0 - not at war
DEFCON 1 - at war "go to red alert!" "are you absolutely sure sir? it does mean changing the lightbulb."

User avatar
Russograd
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 151
Founded: Mar 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Russograd » Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:38 pm

AuSable River wrote:I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.

See, we discredit you partly due to your arrogant, egotistical pig attitude. No matter how many true facts we feed you, you will ignore them and denounce them all under the, "Oh you're liberal, you're just a statist zombie" excuse.

had fun, but still not impressed.

Okay, cool. However, We didn't give you solid facts and testimonies just to "impress you".

Face it. You came here with a set opinion of far right conservatism with no intentions of being persuaded otherwise.
RP population: 290,000,000

User avatar
Galiantus
Diplomat
 
Posts: 730
Founded: Feb 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Galiantus » Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:57 pm

The UK in Exile wrote:
Galiantus wrote:Ok, I did this on my own:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/

..............Barack Obama (D)....Mitt Romney (R)
Raised.....$300,134,364 .........$153,537,758
Spent......$204,901,024 .........$131,044,967
Debts......$2,388,104 ............$0
Cash........$97,536,739 ..........$22,505,830

...............................Obama...........Romney
Small Indiv Contrib.....$121,550,222....$25,524,381
Large Indiv. Contrib....$181,407,165....$128,280,356


Obama has raised nearly 2 times as much money as Romney. He has spent over $70 million more than Romney, and on hand he has over 4x the amount Romney has raised. In the way of large contributions, Romney has raised a higher PERCENTAGE of his money from "large individual contributions", but total Obama has raised over $50 million more in that category. That's assuming those were all rich people, too.


too bad it doesn't count....

SUPER-PACS!


$811,681 is just barely more than 0.5% of the total amount of money Romney has raised. I don't see how that is such a big statistic.

[EDIT: I see what you mean. I am doing more number-crunching] ;)
Last edited by Galiantus on Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Last objected by The World Assembly on Wednesday, August 1, 2012, objected 400 times in total.
Benjamin Franklin wrote:"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch."
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)


On NationStates, We are the Good Guys:Aretist NatSovs

User avatar
Silent Majority
Minister
 
Posts: 2496
Founded: Jun 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Silent Majority » Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:00 pm

Galiantus wrote:
The UK in Exile wrote:
too bad it doesn't count....

SUPER-PACS!


$811,681 is just barely more than 0.5% of the total amount of money Romney has raised. I don't see how that is such a big statistic.



Actually the money raised by Romney's super-PAC is closer to $82 million
“It is the ultimate irony of history that radical individualism serves as the ideological justification of the unconstrained power of what the large majority of individuals experience as a vast anonymous power, which, without any democratic public control, regulates their lives.”
― Slavoj Žižek

User avatar
The UK in Exile
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12023
Founded: Jul 27, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby The UK in Exile » Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:25 pm

Silent Majority wrote:
Galiantus wrote:
$811,681 is just barely more than 0.5% of the total amount of money Romney has raised. I don't see how that is such a big statistic.



Actually the money raised by Romney's super-PAC is closer to $82 million


yeah, his figure is for romney campaign contributions TO super-pacs.

he figured it out before you prompted him.
Last edited by The UK in Exile on Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom"

"My actions are as noble as my thoughts, That never relish’d of a base descent.I came unto your court for honour’s cause, And not to be a rebel to her state; And he that otherwise accounts of me, This sword shall prove he’s honour’s enemy."

"Wählte Ungnade, wo Gehorsam nicht Ehre brachte."
DEFCON 0 - not at war
DEFCON 1 - at war "go to red alert!" "are you absolutely sure sir? it does mean changing the lightbulb."

User avatar
Ryan12
Envoy
 
Posts: 290
Founded: Jul 16, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Ryan12 » Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:39 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Transhuman Proteus wrote:I am a "liberal". I was unaware I wanted a "bigger govt". Thank you for educating me.



I do like how you make try and effort to exclude conservatives so as to not have your argument, such as it is, fall to pieces (it doesn't work).



I include anyone in government -- government is a market for corruption, hence if someone labels themselves liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, et al

Are you happy now ?

can we proceed? since it is apparent that we all agree that government is corrupt irrespective of whether it is conservative or liberal.


i can assume that you believe the government has been corrupt since obama won the elections

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57200
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:41 pm

Ryan12 wrote:
AuSable River wrote:

I include anyone in government -- government is a market for corruption, hence if someone labels themselves liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, et al

Are you happy now ?

can we proceed? since it is apparent that we all agree that government is corrupt irrespective of whether it is conservative or liberal.


i can assume that you believe the government has been corrupt since obama won the elections


Who knows....maybe a miracle will take place and he'll say Bush was corrupt as well...maybe even tax-raising, debt-increasing Reagan!

Then again...reality has a liberal bias, so he will probably dismiss such claims.
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Goodclark
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1508
Founded: Jan 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Goodclark » Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:44 pm

Lancaster of Wessex wrote:Okay, government is corrupt. You don't want to see it bigger.

So. What's your plan? To reduce it? By how much? How will you know when it's just big enough, and still not too big, or then too small?

And if government is too big and corrupt, why not massively curtail the biggest of departments - the Armed Forces?

Slash their budget, and the size of the army, and surely that'd cut down on massive waste and abuse?

EDIT: Op, you should change the title of this piece: HUMANITY is corrupt.

Period.


true dat. NOTHING will stop corruption in the world.
Political Compass: 10, -5.5

User avatar
Silent Majority
Minister
 
Posts: 2496
Founded: Jun 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Silent Majority » Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:45 pm

Ryan12 wrote:
AuSable River wrote:

I include anyone in government -- government is a market for corruption, hence if someone labels themselves liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, et al

Are you happy now ?

can we proceed? since it is apparent that we all agree that government is corrupt irrespective of whether it is conservative or liberal.


i can assume that you believe the government has been corrupt since obama won the elections


In all fairness, this guy seems more like a minarchist than a conservative, given that the point of this thread seems to be him going on about how liberals should really become libertarians.
“It is the ultimate irony of history that radical individualism serves as the ideological justification of the unconstrained power of what the large majority of individuals experience as a vast anonymous power, which, without any democratic public control, regulates their lives.”
― Slavoj Žižek

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57200
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:58 pm

Silent Majority wrote:
Ryan12 wrote:
i can assume that you believe the government has been corrupt since obama won the elections


In all fairness, this guy seems more like a minarchist than a conservative, given that the point of this thread seems to be him going on about how liberals should really become libertarians.


Thomas Hobbes' words were in vain, then.
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Zaharawi
Envoy
 
Posts: 295
Founded: Oct 11, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaharawi » Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:00 pm

With solid foundation to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure for democracy, I will say that government, regardless if liberal or conservative, can be transparent and accountable. If there is any ideology that is more reckless in their thinking, it is the idea that individuals should take control of running the economy of the entire country. This is a recipe for disaster.

User avatar
Mosasauria
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11074
Founded: Nov 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mosasauria » Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:01 pm

Lancaster of Wessex wrote:Okay, government is corrupt. You don't want to see it bigger.

So. What's your plan? To reduce it? By how much? How will you know when it's just big enough, and still not too big, or then too small?

And if government is too big and corrupt, why not massively curtail the biggest of departments - the Armed Forces?

Slash their budget, and the size of the army, and surely that'd cut down on massive waste and abuse?

EDIT: Op, you should change the title of this piece: HUMANITY is corrupt.

Period.

Ain't that the damned truth.
Or, at least, that's my way of thinking when I'm in my more misanthropic moods.
Under New Management since 8/9/12

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57200
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:06 pm

Zaharawi wrote:With solid foundation to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure for democracy, I will say that government, regardless if liberal or conservative, can be transparent and accountable. If there is any ideology that is more reckless in their thinking, it is the idea that individuals should take control of running the economy of the entire country. This is a recipe for disaster.


Consider yourself lucky that the OP is temporarily gone. Otherwise, he'd be foaming at the mouth and spewing insults against you right now.
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Miss Defied
Minister
 
Posts: 2258
Founded: Mar 21, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Miss Defied » Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:34 pm

AuSable River wrote:first, I dont have all day to correct the many liberal misconceptions and fallacies, even considering that I enjoy it.

second, neoart is engaged in a futile effort to refute 2012 facts with 2008 fallacies.

note the following link that debunks his entire rant:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-2 ... -says.html.

I would start by saying that you really should be embarrassed for yourself but since your arguments lack a hint of the observation that would necessitate that conclusion, I guess that is as fruitless as my trying to trudge through your bellicose, repetitive and nauseating rhetoric.

Just because something is written in 2012, doesn't mean it is using data from 2012. That Bloomberg article that you referenced above, you know the one you say debunks Neo Art's post? See it doesn't do that at all. What it does is corroborates it. That article references a study that uses statistics from between 2007-2009, right around the time of what you call 2008 fallacies. From YOUR SOURCE
Nationwide, 13.3 people per 100,000 died from poisoning between 2007 and 2009, compared with 12.4 from motor-vehicle accidents during the same period, the report found. More than 90 percent of unintentional poisoning deaths in 2007 were caused by drugs and medicine, the report said.


So you see, your "2012 evidence" is using data from, quite frankly, the CDC report that I sourced and Neo Art referenced.

AuSable River wrote:moreover, neoart spends the rest of his diatribe trying to rationalize that the death of tens of thousands from prescription drugs poisoning is 'proof' that the government and its agent the FDA is effective and beneficial ???!!!

Fixed
No, he wasn't rationalizing anything. He was pointing how how weak your arguments are. And how they fail so utterly to reflect even the slightest sense of comprehension and analysis on your part.

AuSable River wrote:all the while, with statistics (2012 statistics, not neoarts pre-obama stats) showing conclusively that more Americans die from prescription drugs poisoning than die in car accidents.

Fixed again.
Again, since you have failed to provide any 2012 stats you are completely and totally, without question, INCORRECT.
AuSable River wrote:also, more Americans die from prescription drugs than die from herion and cocaine combined !!!!

yet by neoarts detailed rationalizations --- this is further proof government is not corrupted by big pharma -- because he asserts that the deaths are from 'overdosing' ??!!

Because, yes, according to the CDC most of the poisoning deaths that are due to prescription medications are the result of not taking them as prescribed. i.e. overdosing.
Last edited by Miss Defied on Wed Aug 08, 2012 10:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"You know you're like the A-bomb. Everybody's laughing, having a good time. Then you show up -BOOM- everything's dead." - Master Shake

User avatar
Mosasauria
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11074
Founded: Nov 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mosasauria » Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:48 pm

Zaharawi wrote:With solid foundation to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure for democracy, I will say that government, regardless if liberal or conservative, can be transparent and accountable. If there is any ideology that is more reckless in their thinking, it is the idea that individuals should take control of running the economy of the entire country. This is a recipe for disaster.

This is the point I've been trying to make, albeit much more eloquent and simple then I can put it.
Under New Management since 8/9/12

User avatar
Socialdemokraterne
Minister
 
Posts: 3448
Founded: Dec 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Socialdemokraterne » Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:21 pm

AuSable River wrote:amusingly, the Swedish people and its government have adopted the opposite stance from the one you favor:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattkibbe/2 ... ally-work/


Anders Borg has been the finance minister only since 2006. And yes, he (in the spirit of a member of a right-wing coalition's cabinet) is well-known for his intentions to slash welfare benefits. But you're really exaggerating his impact, and you'd know that if you looked at the figures, which I will present to you throughout this post.

When I compare the GDP growth rates sure, Sweden comes out on top of the five. But not by a remarkable margin (Sweden only beat Finland by 1.1%, and it's actually down by a full 1.8% from 2010). Also, you might want to stop plugging your ears and closing your eyes whenever someone brings up a country's unemployment rate. Sweden's is tied with Finland's for the third worst (or second best, if you like) out of the five countries I've been comparing. The winner is Norway.

GDP growth rates compared between Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and the USA

Finland: -8.4% (2009), 3.7% (2010), 2.9% (2011)
Norway: -1.7% (2009), 0.7% (2010), 1.7% (2011)
Sweden: -4.8% (2009), 5.8% (2010), 4% (2011)
Denmark: -5.8% (2009), 1.3% (2010), 1.1% (2011)
USA: -3.5% (2009), 3% (2010), 1.7% (2011)

Unemployment rates compared between Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and the USA
Finland: 8.4% (2010), 7.8% (2011), 7.5% (Current)
Norway: 3.6% (2010), 3.3% (2011), 3% (Current)
Sweden: 8.4% (2010), 7.5% (2011), 7.5% (Current)
Denmark: 6% (2010), 6% (2011), 7.8% (Current)
USA: 9.6% (2010), 9% (2011), 8.4% (Current)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/us.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/da.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/sw.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/fi.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/no.html

sourced from the OECD and US statistical abstract:

http://media.economist.com/sites/defaul ... CIN549.gif --- notice that sweden saw a significant decline in govt. spending as a percentage of GDP

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-EMpadQx4hM/T ... sweden.png

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/Govt%20spending.gif -- notice the steep decline in spending as a % of GDP in sweden


I see your magazines and blogs (secondary sources) and raise you data straight from the European Commission (a primary source):

Swedish Government Expenditures as a % of GDP (their code is SE)
2005 - 53.9%
2006 - 52.7%
2007 - 51.0%
2008 - 51.7%
2009 - 55.2%
2010 - 53.0%

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statis ... 1006133248

Your man, Borg, he became the finance minister after the 2006 election. He took office on Oct. 6, 2006. What happened to the numbers after he and the rest of the Alliance for Sweden took office? Hmmm. You might consider new reading material, because Sweden has INCREASED its government expenditures as a % GDP in nearly every year since they took office, and the lowest they've ever sunk beneath the numbers for the two years prior to their reign's initiation was a paltry 1.7%. The contraction that your Economist article (which is 8 years old, by the way) points out? It stopped.

Also, here's the table in general:

Image

Notice that Sweden is actually among the highest spending countries in all of Europe, even after the contraction. That should tell you something, perhaps that the Swedish welfare state is still alive even if slashes to some programs have been made? Or maybe that the benefits package that Swedes enjoy is still relatively large? After all, I did show you that universal tertiary education and healthcare still exist, and that healthcare expenditures as a proportion of GDP have remained fairly steady over the last 3 decades.

Now, for the final nail in your argument's coffin. Hang on to your hat:

% GDP in Sweden Devoted To Social Protection
2005 - 23.0%
2006 - 22.2%
2007 - 21.1%
2008 - 21.1%
2009 - 23.0%

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statis ... 1006134357

Notice the absence of a dramatic decline in that percentage, even after the Alliance for Sweden came into play and Borg became the finance minister?

from heritage which rates sweden's economy as largely free from excessive government influences:

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden


Read your sources before you post them. You just helped me a lot. If you look at Sweden's 2012 "Government Spending" score of 8.8/100 under "Limited Government" (down from a two-year high of only 17.3/100), you'll see that you just shot yourself in the foot. Also, read the paragraph underneath the table and you'll find this:

Sweden’s respect for the concept of limited government has not been particularly strong. Government spending has been expansive. The overall tax regime needed to finance the ever-growing scope of government has become more burdensome and complex, although such institutional assets as high degrees of business efficiency and regulatory flexibility have counterbalanced some of the shortcomings of heavy social spending.


Thought I'd highlight a few key parts for you since you're not in the habit of actually reading things. And here's a pretty picture for you to look at:

http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize ... den&type=4

See the black line? That's the world average score for government spending (the higher it is, the smaller the government). See the orange line? That's Sweden's score.

Oh, and one more thing. See how in spite of all this, Sweden scores a solid 92/100 for freedom from corruption? Yeah. You lose yet again.

in sum, when a socialist nation reduces the size and scope of government -- its economy grows and standards of living improve.

in contrast, when a capitalist nation increases the size and scope of government -- its economy stagnates and standards of living decline.


:rofl:

First of all, not a single one of the Nordic countries is a socialist system. So I'll just go ahead and stop you there on that point. Second, you've done NOTHING to illustrate that Sweden is actually reducing the size and scope of its government since the Alliance for Sweden took command (indeed, the contraction stopped well before they ever got elected and never resulted in anything even close to a "small" government). I just showed you twice that it has been increasing instead (once with your own damn source, for Heaven's sake!) Finally, the assertion highlighted in red (which is the only one which is relevant since the Nordic countries are all mixed economies) is in conflict with the GDP per capita PPP and unemployment data.
Last edited by Socialdemokraterne on Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:04 pm, edited 9 times in total.
A social democracy following a variant of the Nordic model of the European welfare state composed of a union of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, Denmark, Sleswig-Holstein, and a bit of Estonia.

Leder du måske efter en dansk region? Dansk!

User avatar
SaintB
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21714
Founded: Apr 18, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby SaintB » Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:56 am

Simon Cowell of the RR wrote:
SaintB wrote:Western Corruption is more efficient because it takes place in the form of siphoning off people's tax money.

Fascinating. You do realize America has some of the lowest taxes in the first world?

its extraordinarily efficient corruption ;)
Hi my name is SaintB and I am prone to sarcasm and hyperbole. Because of this I make no warranties, express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of the above statement, of its constituent parts, or of any supporting data. These terms are subject to change without notice from myself.

Every day NationStates tells me I have one issue. I am pretty sure I've got more than that.

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:13 pm

Liriena wrote:
AuSable River wrote:
I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.


A) Have some manners.
B) Don't be an arrogant prick.
C) Don't generalize or insult your opponents with every breath and then expect them to treat you with any respect or seriousness.
D) Go to college and read some fricking Economy, Philosophy and History books.
E) Grow up.
F) Fuck you. :kiss:

MODS, please be so kind to forgive my language and manners. There is only so much my highly-tolerant-to-offense mind can take.



Do you have a substantive, factual, empirically supported or logical question or comment ?

I didn't see one in your post -- perhaps I missed it.

User avatar
The UK in Exile
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12023
Founded: Jul 27, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby The UK in Exile » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:13 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Liriena wrote:
A) Have some manners.
B) Don't be an arrogant prick.
C) Don't generalize or insult your opponents with every breath and then expect them to treat you with any respect or seriousness.
D) Go to college and read some fricking Economy, Philosophy and History books.
E) Grow up.
F) Fuck you. :kiss:

MODS, please be so kind to forgive my language and manners. There is only so much my highly-tolerant-to-offense mind can take.



Do you have a substantive, factual, empirically supported or logical question or comment ?

I didn't see one in your post -- perhaps I missed it.


wouldn't be the first time....
"We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom"

"My actions are as noble as my thoughts, That never relish’d of a base descent.I came unto your court for honour’s cause, And not to be a rebel to her state; And he that otherwise accounts of me, This sword shall prove he’s honour’s enemy."

"Wählte Ungnade, wo Gehorsam nicht Ehre brachte."
DEFCON 0 - not at war
DEFCON 1 - at war "go to red alert!" "are you absolutely sure sir? it does mean changing the lightbulb."

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andsed, Arkeyana, Auzkhia, Dumb Ideologies, Earthbound Immortal Squad, EldrichVoid1-3, Elvectica, Elwher, Google [Bot], Gravlen, Greed and Death, Ifreann, Ism, Kotelia, Lerasi, Lower Nubia, Luziyca, Magnum Exitium, Marhahegy, MSN [Bot], Mzeusia, Nea Byzantia, Newark NJ, NickiMinaj, One Bagger, Opstan, SD_Film Artists, Terreich und Preussen, The Alma Mater, The Empire of Pretantia, The Isles of the Grey, The New California Republic, Thermodolia, Totally Not OEP, Xuloqoia, Zurkerx

Advertisement

Remove ads