|
|
Re: Obama's win - good or bad for the US/the world?
Posted:
Nov 11, 2012 6:05 PM
|
|
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:10 PM, kirby urner wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Paul Tanner wrote:
>
>> Your above fails the challenge. You fail to actually provide the numbers.
>>
>
> I have no idea what "challenge" you're talking about.
You claim that that not far from 1 trillion dollars per year of unmet
need with respect to that not far from 100 million in the US with
little or no health care can be met by private charity, never mind the
fact that I proved with the numbers that private charity could never
cover more than a tiny fraction of that unmet need. I challenged you
to try to prove otherwise.
> I have not
> accepted any challenges from you.
You don't have to. The challenge stands unmet by you regardless.
> I have not failed in any way, given
> my logic has been sound and yours superstitious and vacuous by
> contrast.
You just described your own position, which is devoid of any
mathematical fact or data.
>
>> It's probably because you know that they will not add up. I showed
>
> You think like an arithmetic teacher (which I gather you are): make
> every problem be an addition problem. See what I wrote earlier about
> strait jacketing rubber room time assumptions.
But denying the relevant mathematical fact and data is what cranks do.
It's therefore not good to deny the relevant mathematical fact and data.
>
>> that there is close to a trillion dollars per year of unmet health
>> care need in this country. This above will meet no more than a few
>> percentage points of that unmet need. Prove otherwise if you think
>> otherwise by actually proving the numbers.
>
> Right, more evidence of the vast incompetence of your Uncle Sam.
> You've provided me with lots of rhetorical ammo to back my contention
> that your Uncle is a weak / bankrupt addict, in need of some serious
> health care himself. Hardly strong enough to be helping others in
> most cases. I think we need to focus on curing your sick Uncle before
> we give him more borrowing authority.
Nonsense.
It is evidence of only the horror that is guaranteed to happen when
federal government revenues and expenditures are at the levels that
"limited government" people promote. US government revenues are at an
all-time low since WWII - they are presently at only roughly 15% of
nominal GDP, and when state, county, and city government revenues are
added in, the total is only at about 25% of GDP.
This total from all levels in the Scandinavian countries, those that
care for their own far better than we do through their governments,
those with nominal per capita GDPs up to twice as large as ours, are
at roughly 50% of GDP.
The numbers prove that they care for their own through their
governments much more than we do not because their governments are
better than ours, but because they have less "limited government"
people standing in the way of government getting in revenues that
roughly 50% of GDP.
That makes the "limited government" people totally responsible for the
horror of people suffering and even dying premature death because of
lack of proper food, proper shelter, or proper health care.
The "limited government" people are responsible for starving the
federal government of the revenues it needs to stop and prevent at
least the vast majority of this suffering and premature death, and
then because it cannot stop and prevent such precisely because it is
so starved, they claim that this is evidence that the federal
government cannot stop and prevent such.
And they call this logic?
And they call this being honest?
This "logic" and "honesty" is everything but.
>
>>
>> If you refuse to provide the numbers to back up your claims, then you
>> have no business posting at a math forum.
>>
>
> Hah hah. The Arithmetic Teacher speaks.
No.
The truth speaks.
And if the fact-denying, mathematics-denying, science-denying cranks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
cannot handle it, then too bad.
>
>> of terms, it tries to escape the cold hard facts that only government
>> can end the vast majority of suffering and premature death caused by
>> lack of proper food, proper shelter, and proper health care.
>>
>
> Not your Uncle though, he's not a contender at this time as a
> legitimate government. He's too sick and weak,
This is because as the mathematics I gave above and elsewhere proves,
the "limited government" types have been all too successful as
starving him of revenues.
>> The reason that our government has not come to the rescue of our
>> homeless and other poor is because too many US citizens stand in the
>> way via their voting for "limited government" politicians.
>
> You have numbers to prove that I suppose, some addition problem.
> Otherwise you have no business posting your opinion to the math forum
> and blah blah. Heh (just joking -- I'm not the stentorian promulgator
> of edicts that you are).
I gave these mathematical here at math-teach many times. Some of it
again, above.
>
>>
>> All this talk about "free clinics" really irks me. Do you know how
>
> Oh, you're irked now are you? I bet you're "irked" quite a bit. Lets
> poll your students when we get a chance.
>
> I read ahead and didn't see much of interest, a bunch of lecturing /
> berating by some arithmetic teacher with a narrow mind
>
This "person with a narrow mind" simply has a problem with those whose
truly narrow minds blind them to the vast suffering and premature
death that their voting for the "limited government" politicians
causes.
And to reiterate some of the large amount of mathematical fact that I
in my last post in this thread
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7921698
gave, here is some of it again - some of it should cause everyone who
actually has a conscience to wonder about those who promote "limited
government":
Quote:
"And see all of my above, especially what I said about all those very
many tens of millions and millions of homeless and other poor who get
NO assistance from government in terms of food or health care or cash
assistance in those 41 states. NONE. And they have not and will not
ever get it from your precious private charity. Only the US federal
government has a large enough financial base to end this obscenity in
the US. It is simply a fact that it can raise whatever revenues it
needs to close yearly deficits a lower the debt as a percentage of
nominal GDP, and at the same time stop all this stoppable suffering
and premature death. Therefore to be against this one and only entity
that can end this obscenity ending this obscenity is itself an
obscenity.
I repeat: Here below some more facts that should send a chill up and
down the spines of all who happen to have a conscience: Because of
these conservatives, these "limited government" types, 41 states in
the US do not provide any cash assistance or Medicaid or Food Stamps
to the vast majority of their homeless, and to large numbers of
otherwise poor. You know why? Because the vast majority of the
homeless are adults that do not have dependents - either they never
had kids or their kids are grown or if they have kids that are not
grown then someone else has custody - and because these "limited
government" types, these conservatives, say that such people should
get no help from government all costs, that if private charity does
not help them, then too bad, they have to suffer and die premature
death from lack of proper food, proper shelter, and proper health
care. (The Medicaid expansion part of Obamacare that would have
changed this evil was that part of Obamacare struck down by the
conservatives on the US Supreme Court.)
Do you think that it is mathematically impossible for the federal
government of a country to stop at least the vast majority of this
stoppable suffering and premature death caused by lack of proper food,
proper shelter, and proper health care?
There are countries already doing this so-called mathematically impossible.
The socialist/capitalist Scandinavians, because more than any other
group of countries in the world through their cradle-to-grave social
benefits that exceed any other group of countries in the world, are
the people in the world who most understand that only through
government can a people most obey the Christian dictate to take care
of their own.
And lo and behold, they are the economically most prosperous group of
countries in the world (with their nominal per capita GDPs larger than
any other group of countries in the world).
I claim that it's cause and effect, that this mathematical economics
applied to macroeconomics that you condemn as "pseudoscience" provides
the very clear explanations why this cause and effect occurs.
You really do need to read and learn from such as Paul Krugman and
their "pseudoscience" you condemn."
And to add to all of what I said in this thread: Here is even more
data that the "limited government" folks cannot handle:
Roughly half of all Medicaid funds go to taking care of older people
in nursing homes. If these "limited government" types get their way
and not only do we see our federal government get no revenue increases
as a percentage of GDP but starved even more of revenues (see again my
above that proves that government revenues as a percentage of GDP are
at all time lows since WWII - only 15% of GDP with al levels of
government summing at 25% of GDP, vastly lower than the Scandinavian
countries I talk about - at roughly 50% of GDP for all levels of
government with the vast majority of it going to their federal
governments), then we will see nothing but increase suffering and
premature death caused by older people in nursing being dumped out
onto the streets and left to rot.
It's very simple thing to do to see which public policies are the more
morally good and which are the less morally good, the "limited
government" ones or the "big government" ones. Just compare the "big
government" countries with the "limited government" ones, compare how
much suffering and premature death is caused by lack or proper food,
proper shelter, or proper health care, and then think of those
comparisons in light of what Christ said in reply to those who
wondered whether his ministry was "of the Devil". He said along the
line of this: "We feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and heal the
sick."
In other words, with this teaching extended and generalized, we have a
moral standard when comparing the competing political philosophies
"big government" or "limited government" for a democratic country to
follow is to ask and then answer the question, "What are the results
in terms of the sum total of suffering and premature death in the
country caused by lack or proper food, proper shelter, or proper
health care - it is higher or lower?" Answer: Just look around the
world at all the democracies and specifically look at the richest
democratic countries in the world - especially all of the ones richer
than the US via per capita nominal GDP, and we see these: The sum
total of such suffering and premature death is caused to be lower by
the "big government" political philosophy applied. And it is caused to
be higher by the "limited government" political philosophy applied,
regardless of how much private charity exists. (On this last point:
Again see my above that it is mathematically just not realistically
possible for private charity to cover any more than a tiny fraction of
the need.)
What does anyone with a conscience need more than that to see which is
the moral way to go in terms of which political philosophy for a
democratic country to follow?
|
|
