"The U.S. healthcare system wastes between $505 billion and $850 billion every year"

Because of that we should continue to let this country devolve in to a shit hole? His district in Texas seems to be doing just fine.

Really? There have always been poor, racially segregated neighborhoods since man started living in cities.

People are nothing more than animals that cling to that which is familiar.

Again, don't get me wrong, I applaud him for being one of the ballsier members of American politics, and I can support a number of his beliefs. However I just don't think his purist ideology of free markets and libertarianism can function in the real world. I'm sure his district is doing fine, but I also know it operates in opposition to so many of his views to say 'its fine so his ideology works' is simple ignorance. Last I checked, (and I don't actually need to check) his district still exists under NATO, the Federal Reserve, it has an income tax, trades with the dollar, contains every bureaucracy he is against, and so on.

Yes, really. For example: Redlining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Texas does well because they have a system that closely controls and regulates the budget!

Texas state budget - Sunshine Review

Sounds like the only state where the state employees take thier job serious enough to actually do thier jobs. Unlike Oregon, our state employees are a joke and work for the state because they couldn't hack it in the private sector.

That was kind of my point. If a Libertarian were elected president that doesn't mean that they would snap their fingers and the entire administration from the ground floor would be wiped and changed. As we can see from our current example. What you want to do and what actually happens are two very different things.

This is because "we the people" lost our control..............if we ever had any at all....ever.

YouTube - Make Mine Freedom ~ 1948

oh great, now youre attacking me for shit i didnt even bring up.

bahahah. personal responsibility is sacred my ass. damn kids

my arguement is that a private corp is watching its bottom line a lot more than a govt agency/govt funded corp, because they are out for profit pure and simple.

ditto on ron paul. your revolution is over. condolences. the bums have lost. my advice is to do what your parents did and get a job sir. The bums will always lose. do you hear me?

PS sorry for the twofer posting, the quoting was getting out of hand

No, you said

"Are you slow? Regulation has increased since 2002. That worked out just dandy for you didn't it?"

Then I argued how you're wrong. Especially if you consider Sarbannes Oxley in 2002 a turning point in governmental regulation. Which I assumed was why you said regulation increased in 2002. If I assumed wrongly, then tell me why you think regulation started in 2002.

Yeah, man...but it tied the room together.

LOL! You think the rug pissers did this? :lol:

I will say this thread has stayed a lot more civil than I expected. But honestly, has anyone's opinion been changed?

I said that, and it was a rhetorical question, you are slow. Do you know how many regulatory pieces of legislation have been passed in the last 50 years? Do you know how much the oversight committees and regulatory bodies have grown over the last 50 years? ...and did any of that matter? No, because look at the mess our economy is in.

If you are trolling this board to practice defending your master's thesis, you are going to get ripped. You don't even bother to read who posted what.

J0ker, look, there is no point in arguing this with you because are so utterly devoid of any knowledge of economic history in the 20th century. It is like arguing with a creationist over evolution when they don't even know what evolution is. All I can do now is provide you with some direction in how to educate yourself in the last few decades of neoliberal economic policy.

A good starting point for you would be to look at the 'Washington Consensus'

Washington Consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, look at the history and development of what is referred to as 'neoliberalim'

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To look at the intellectual sources of deregulation, examine the history and development of the so called 'Chicago School'

Chicago school of economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other topics about deregulation include, but are not limited to, reaganomics, supply side economics, NAFTA, IMF, neoliberal order, globalization, IMF, shock doctrine. You'll have to do more than look at Wikipedia articles to get an idea of the picture, but they will get you started none the less.

To give the give cliff notes, ever since the 'Washington consensus' economic orthodoxy for every single American government, and indeed many governments abroad, has been the deregulation of the economy through a generally less intrusive government.

Sure, you can say there are some specific instances increased regulation, like Sarbannes Oxley, something else I recommend you read up on, but the broad trend is deregulation. To say otherwise would be like telling a terminal cancer patient that the one day they feel better means they don't have cancer.

This topic has nothing to do with my thesis, it is actually quite unrelated. And I don't think you can call giving the truth about something trolling. I think I read what you wrote and rebutted it in a very fair manner. I think you are just upset I didn't agree with it. Get over it, that's life. If you want to debate policy, history, economics, etc. that's fine. Just don't get angry about it.

Just put his ass on ignore. He'll call people names then say... but but don't get angry, I'm just here to debate.

I have noticed that the bigger govenment gets, the more inefficient and laxadazical it gets. Government employees only work in government because they can't hold a job in the private sector. (imo)

I think you could say the same thing for any big business or organization. The question is, what do you do about it? You restructure and reorganize.

But how do we restructure and reorganize government when restructuring and reorganizing by big business has a huge component of lobbying the government to gain unfare market shares and lobbying for laws and handouts that benefit them exclusively. When another country does this shit, we lable them "corrupt". We are in a really fucked situation and nobody even wants to wake up and see how bad it really is. here, take another blue pill.

all we as voters are going to get:

since you are always keeping things so civil with everyone, i will be curteous and do the same. i didnt say that. the poster's name is to the left of the post. that quote would be from joker dipshit

edit:

And I am starting to wonder if you are just "look[ing] at wikipedia articles].

like how the hell is this in relation to this argument besides more regulation?

... and I'm sure there were Roman businessmen who didn't want to build banks in the Visigoth part of town too.

My point was that shitty neighborhoods and ghettos have always existed.

LOL, I totally forgot about that feature. I am glad he is here to give me my wiki-education.

If you want to find bliss in ignorance that is completely up to you. Nevertheless, the things I talked about are real, they are historical, and they all powerfully shape our lives. If you want to pull the wool over your eyes then that is your right.

You seem like a nice guy, but knowing where you come from politically and where you are in life right now really discredits you so far as I'm concerned. I understand that it's bias on my end, but you sound like any of the poly-sci majors I heard talk about how evil and wrong everything is.

tl;dr: You're cool and make some good points, but come off as arrogant and naive.

I think it's more like a means/ploy to draw people into debate. In the end though, it's what people do, not say or know, that shapes lives and worlds.