/sci/ - Science & Math

Same reason they're scared of universal health care and the metric system.

>>3392318
because of financial backers and old people?

>implying taxes are good but they have an irrational fear of it.

>>3392322
Because they're fucking retarded

>>3392328
taxes are good... something about helping your countries debt seems good at least

>>3392337
If you had 30k in credit card debt you wouldn't get 3 more jobs. You'd stop spending like a spoiled brat.

>raise taxes
>people have less money to spend
>demand lowers
>prices lower

>Americans: i don't want less money

>>3392318

Imperial for measuring the human body. Height is in feet, weight is in pounds, dick-size is in inches. For all other distances, weights, volumes, etc., it's metric all the way baby.

>>3392351
I'd take out a few more credit cards, max them all, move all my shit into a friends house, declare bankruptcy and not give a single shit

>>3392365
cancer

i dunno. maybe.

people hate whatever they don't understand

The stupid have been mislead into voting for leaders and policies counter to their best interests due to brainwashing and bribery by the super rich.

Democrats may not be as different as they would have us believe, but it's the lesser evil.

teaparty 2012

Why would you want to keep bloated ineffective programs that do nothing but exist to prove that the government is useful, when the private sector can do much better.

How is it intelligent to tax businesses more when unemployment is already so high. they'll just have less money and even less potential to higher people.

wouldn't work anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

>>3392429
come up with a list of 5 bloated ineffective programs you want to scrap please

why are Americans so afraid of free market capitalism?

i mean hell, it only creates the most wealth in the shortest amount of time for the most people.

SARAH PALIN FOR PRESIDENT LOL

>>3392436
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Welfare
Homeland Security
War on Drugs

>>3392437
Oh boy, I think he's serious.

>>3392351
When people get mortgages their debt often exceeds, multiple times, what they make in a year. U.S. debt is not that high, Republicans just want to break the government.

>>3392444
we could cut war on drugs, it's pretty ineffective

Social security and medical aids are a must have

Homeland security could be cut but you'd have to increase the work of different intelligence agencies to compensate

>>3392444
>those first four
You heartless bastard. Why?

>>3392444

Plz go and live in Somalia.

The only reason you enjoy current state of US is because of those program.

>>3392429
>How is it intelligent to tax businesses more when unemployment is already so high. they'll just have less money and even less potential to higher people.

I don't really see them hiring people right now with their ridiculously low taxes. Raising taxes on the upper echelon (to 50%0) during a recession worked for Reagan. Eisenhower had it at 91%. Didn't see a great depression during his term. I guess you're for trickle-up economics; whatever suits you.

>>3392436
ATF
MMS
IRS
TSA
Military

>>3392444
lol k. was just an easy check to see if you were rational instead of an idiotic uberbeta libertard.

ooo, level 2: what program(s) specifically are you referring to when you say welfare?

(seriously though how the fuck can you honestly believe the fucking private sector would ever be better than fucking medicaid? or are you that much of an edgy cunt?)

how to create jobs
>lower minimum wage
>increase taxes

tadaaa

>>3392453
Somalia is doing better under no government than under its previous governments, and is doing better than surrounding countries with governments. If I had to choose to live in any of the sub saharan african countries it would be Somalia.

>country spends money on stupid shit
>goes into debt because of needless spending
>raises taxes, making people pay for their fuckups
>cycle repeats

You don't give a dog some treats and a pat on the head when he shits in your bed, tears up your shoes and rapes your daughter.

>>3392429
> How is it intelligent to tax businesses more when unemployment is already so high. they'll just have less money and even less potential to higher people.

Intelligent business men don't pay tax. Go look up Rupert Murdoch's financial statements where he receives 4b in back in taxes. This is precisely why they have such a high tax. Intelligent men find gigantic loopholes in the law and end up paying less tax percentage wise than poor people.

>>3392451
>>3392452
For what social security is just a ridiculous pyramid scheme, people can save their own money. Medicaid and Medicare are bloated useless and inneffective kickback machines to the medical industry which is why medicine is so expensive.

Welfare is a failure for the same reason the war on drugs is a failure. You can't stop people from doing drugs and you can't force people to get a job to get out of poverty. Welfare rewards failure as soon as you succeed they take the money away.

Raising taxes does not shrink the money supply, so it is not antideflationary. The reason to not raise taxes is that 1) they are high enough, 2) the more you tax the more energy you take out of the economic engine that runs the country, and 3) it is irresponsible to raise taxes during a recession or early in a recovery.

>>3392462
everything except unemployment insurance.

>>3392471
>Reduce the amount people earn
>Increase the amount people pay to earn

That'd cause catastrophic poverty.

Sensible idea:
Tax top 5% of the population at 60% of income
Tax next 20% at 50% of income
Tax rest at a constant rate
Reduce military spending massively
Replace Medicare and Medicaid with universal health care

>>3392478
That is very easy to say when you do not actually have to face the reality that you would literally be raped by a pack of niggers, have everything taken and be brutally murdered because Somalian society is still largely enough organized into tribes that it functions without a centralized government within the paradigm of tribalism.

Medicare/aid will eventually fail.

Many doctors refuse to accept it because it limits the amount they can charge per procedure. Patients in that case simply go to a different doctor who is less experienced and probably has a long waiting list.

>>3392504
unfortunately it became apparent that you just trolled me because the guy i was responding to is actually a pseudo intellectual, which is good because if you werent just trolling your ignorance of something you are willing to argue about would be painful

>>3392453
>cutting useless social programs
>the same as tribalistic anarchy

Is this what the marxists tell themselves

>>3392478
0/10

I hope you were being sarcastic.

If I were American I wouldn't want higher taxes... Because I know a far too big part of it goes to funding wars.

>>3392518
>useless social programs
Those ones? Nope.

>>3392505
no, you fucking retarded shitfuck, while excessive complexity is a disadvantage of bureaucracy it sure beats the shit out of excessive simplicity

>>3392452
>he doesn't want to force his neighbors to pay for something they might not want to pay for
>he's the heartless bastard.

>>3392505
>reduce amount people earn
prices on regular goods drop

>increase amount people pay to earn
strengthen dollar

>>3392429
First of all, it's 'hire'.
Secondly, a business won't hire people if it has more money. A business will hire people when it needs them.
If you want more people to be hired you need for buisnesses to expand. Increased taxes for the super-rich won't stand in the way of this because it takes money that they would be taking as profit.
They'll still invest back into their business because that's what's going to make it expand.

>>3392519
The facts don't lie.

http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

>>3392505
>replace medicare and medicaid with universal healthcare
As if government run healthcare wasn't expensive enough you want the whole thing to be controlled by the government
>raise taxes
Yes lets as a country spend almost all of our money on medicine

Taxing the rich more would actually create more jobs. Instead of claiming huge sums as profit and getting taxed, they will be more inclined to re-invest the profit back into company, making it grow and require more hires.

This is platinum logic. ^

>>3392429

>less potential to higher people.
>higher people
>higher

>>3392523
They're pretty useless considering the private market can take care of them.

>>3392528
>implying allowing old people and disabled people to universally be faced with no choice other than starving to death or begging is less heartless than taking a small amount of the money you earn

>>3392527
wat

Did you mis-click or something? I said replace them with UNIVERSAL healthcare.

>>3392529
Not proportionately. Most goods would drop slightly, if at all, as a large portion of the market would not be earning less.

>Strengthen dollar.
How so?

>>3392539
Confirmed for troll or utterly oblivious to the healthcare debates over the past 12 months.

>>3392547
>doesn't know about capital gains

Truly a full retard, you think rich people actually just hoard their money?

>>3392565
>how so
you don't need to print as much money and the need for less money would cause deflation... me thinks

>>3392565
>he thinks universal healthcare would lower costs
>implying price caps won't just lead to massive shortages

Here are the problems with healthcare.

American Medical Association
FDA
Malpractice
Medicare
Medicaid

>>3392569
> Many countries impose a tax on capital gains of individuals or corporations, although relief may be available to exempt capital gains: in relation to holdings in certain assets such as significant common stock holdings, to provide incentives for entrepreneurship, or to compensate for the effects of inflation.

>>3392556
You say taking a small amount, as if it weren't backed by threat of jail. You're threatening people with jail if they don't agree with how you want to spend THEIR money.

Also, you're saying that if medicare didn't exist, PEOPLE WILL BE DYING ON THE STREETS!!#@

>>3392536
>posting a sensationalist report without accounting for the fact that the country is kept stable by tribal laws and theocratic islam
>implying you arent trolling

>>3392569
>implying this is relevant
Firstly, you'd be raising capital gains tax.
Secondly, regardless of what they do with the money, if they have less incentive to pull it from their company they will be less likely to do so.
>>3392572
Unlikely. The money not paid in wages would simply remain in the companies they work for or trickle up.

>>3392581
Lawdeh

>implying there is a problem with the AMA
>implying there is a problem with the FDA
>implying there is a problem with malpractice being punished
>implying I support either of these two

The AMA is fine.
The FDA does an incredibly important job very well
If you fuck up something in medicine, you should have to pay for your mistakes. If you hire bad doctors, you have an incentive to replace them or train them.

>>3392529
>increase the amount companies must pay for labor
prices on regular goods rise.

>>3392597
>Also, you're saying that if medicare didn't exist, PEOPLE WILL BE DYING ON THE STREETS!!#@
They would. You know how many people rely on medicare as their sole source of medical insurance, don't you?

>>3392547
Under no circumstances would increasing taxes lead to higher investment. lrn2econ

>>3392614
There is a significant distance between corporate and personal tax.

>>3392613
Fix the healthcare system and there wouldn't be any.

>>3392614

Lr2think outside of your economic textbook which was due for update 10 years ago.

>>3392536
>The facts don't lie.
But crackpot papers do. If your idea of the good life is being addicted to khat, raping women and engaging in street battles with rival gangs, then yes, Somalia is an anarchist paradise.

>>3392625
okay but in the mean time we need medicare

>>3392628
Lrn2validargument
Economy textbooks are still valid, and I very much doubt you have read one recently.

>>3392597
Yes. If medicare didn't exist, poor people would literally die on the streets in front of hospitals because they couldn't afford life-saving medical procedures. I don't support medicare, it's a fucked up system that does a lot more harm than good, but it's absolutely better than nothing. But moving past the inefficient bureaucracy, if you honestly believe that taking a small portion of your money to allow destitute old people or people born with disabilities requiring medical attention to have a basic chance to live, you're not ethically mature enough for your views to have any merit.

>>3392628
You haven't provided any evidence to suggest it would. This thread is just illiterates pounding their fists against their keyboards talking about shit they don't know.

>>3392640
>does more harm than good
>better than nothing
wat

>>3392637

I can clearly see you are well read, what I don't see is your counter argument. If you don't have one, go post lrn2econ on /b/.

>>3392643

lrn2followlinks

>>3392547

>>3392643

>>3392645
Fuck, having medicare for poor people is better than poor people having no healthcare but long term medicare is the main thing causing the massive clusterfuck that is healthcare in america and a significant part of bankrupting the government, I'm high.

>>3392648
>Lr2think outside of your economic textbook which was due for update 10 years ago.
>what I don't see is your counter argument
k bra

>>3392648
I'm pretentious and condescending. I just feel like not holding that back at the moment :D

what
>>3392664
said

>>3392634
>still hasn't refuted the fact that somalia's life expectancy and their people's standard of living has gone up since losing their government. My argument isn't that Somalia is a paradise, it's that it's doing better under no government than it was with one.

> k bra

Give me a counter example to this:

>Taxing the rich more would actually create more jobs. Instead of claiming huge sums as profit and getting taxed, they will be more inclined to re-invest the profit back into company, making it grow and require more hires.

Where taxing the rich will give them less incentive to re-invest money into their business and instead keep them as profits.

You DO realize that if you raise taxes, even if they reinvest the money, they'll still being paying income ax on that money right?.....It sounds like you don't realize this.

>>3392607
AMA limits the numbers of doctors through licensing which keeps their wages high causing medicine to be expensive

The FDA forces companies to test their medication at insane expense when it could be done privately. What it actually does is delay helpful medicine from entering the market .

Malpractice need tort reform because you can sue for absolutely any reason, usually end up in doctors telling you to get expensive tests that are not needed to avoid any possibility of a lawsuit

>>3392689

>Capital gains are fully taxable, and capital losses reduce taxable income only to the extent of gains. Individuals currently pay a lower rate of tax on capital gains and certain corporate dividends.

>>3392699
When the government forms cartels, it's for our own safety though, don't you understand!?

If we let anyone certify doctors, IT WOULD BE MADNESS!

>>3392683
Okay. Somalia, a nation whose government spent most of its time oppressing its own people and stealing every penny it could get its hands on is better off under the authority of tribal councils and Islamic law. If you think this has any relevance to any situation outside of Africa, you're wrong; I would also argue that, relative to the few sub-Saharan non-failed states, Somalia is doing pretty shitty.

>>3392699
AFAIK the AMA has no caps, limits or quotas for number of doctors licensed.

Privatising drug testing is insane; Drug companies have a strong economic incentive to falsify results

That isn't a problem really

>>3392699
No, malpractice needs tort reform because malpractice insurance is holy shit fuck expensive and drives up the price of all healthcare.

>>3392712
Increasing the costs on becoming a doctor is a barrier to entry, and reduces the number of doctors that might otherwise have been trained.

I have an incentive to rob my neighbor, doesn't mean I can do it.

>why are americans so afraid of raising taxes?

We aren't; at least not all of us. The Republicunts are the Scrooges who refuse to understand that, gasp, things cost money, and if you hoard it all the economy sucks ass.

>>3392740
Hoarding money has negligible if any effects on the economy. And the small effects which it does have, are favorable.

definately tort reform, I mean, there are advertisments of lawyers specialising in suing doctors for any little shit now.

And allowing to purchase insurance across state lines.

Of course medicare and medicaid and welfare must be reformed, preferably accodring to scandinavian model.

>>3392729

It's not the cost of Med school really, it's the cost of malpractice insurance. OBGYN doc for example, pays over 100k a year for malpractice insurance. He gets sued about 10 times a year but hurrrdurr patients and wins the cases 99% of the time. However he needs lawyers to represent him and their time cost money, hence 100k a year insurance cost.

How do they deal with malpractice in Europe?

>>3392740
>blaming the republicans
Really brah? Really?

>>3392750
wrong...doesnt even make sense.
>people get richer if you dont pay them money for their goods and services

>>3392740
>mfw you think republicans horde money

> mfw you can't spell

>>3392750
Soooo, keeping your money in a vault helps the economy by not circulating how?

Fact: Clinton raised taxes, and created 51 million jobs.
Fact: Bush cut taxes, and created 3 million.

>>3392797
clinton cut taxes like a mad man

>>3392796
Seriously dude, who do you think keeps their money in vaults? The rich guy from Monopoly?

>>3392796

It doesn't have an effect on economy.

If you have $100 dollars in a system where bread cost $10 a piece and then hoard $90 and lock it in a vault... The system will have $10 and bread will cost $1.

Give the transition will be a bitch and is also known as deflation.

>>3392797
Fact: Clinton raised taxes, and caused the Mississippi to flood.
Fact: Bush cut taxes, and caused hurricane Katrina.

>>3392796

A'cmon guys, really? I thought /sci/ was smarter than /b/

see:
>>3392811

>>3392750
Right, so those corporations sitting on enormous piles of money due to market uncertainty is benefiting our current economy by not creating jobs?

>>3392797

you're daft if you think that a simple tax rate will affect the entire economy. Clinton rode the 90's technology boom all the way to a surplus. He also had some fairly conservative policies.

>>3392838

They're just too pussy to invest. By taxing them more they might have more incentive.

>The richest 1% has tripled its share of the income pie over the past 30 years, mainly through tax cuts and financial deregulation.

>That extra income could provide a $40,000 per year job to every unemployed person and college graduate in the United States and have enough left over to pay off the deficits of all 50 states.

>Meanwhile, average Americans make the same money, adjusted for inflation, that they made 30 years ago. If the median household income had increased at the pace of American productivity (80%), families would be making $92,000, not $50,000.

way to go, ameritards

>>3392838

see

>>3392811

>>3392307
taxes are directly proportional to the general stupidity. At best societies depend on (by paying) their government where it is unable to help itself, at worse societies serve their government (where taxes become tribute) where they are being oppressed and suppressed: either way, giving government money is because of stupidity, one is to service it and the other is to reinforce it.

tl;dr fuck the system

>>3392811

Except the 90 is horded in a bank where its still seen as part of the system, though there is only really 10 in the system and no one can afford any bread.

>>3392854
The rich are getting richer everywhere, not just in America.

>>3392854

That doesn't bother me in the least. America alone controls 1/3 of the entire world's GDP. Our poverty line is one of the highest in the world. Poor people today live in the same size homes middle class families lived in 30 years ago. the division between rich and poor means almost nothing.

>>3392868
>the division between rich and poor means almost nothing.
okay.

>>3392861

If it's not circulating (being spent by whoever hoarded it) it will never been seen in the system. Once it gets spent, that $90 will create inflation and bread price will jump from $1 to $10.

If you think simply, as a monetary exchange example. When baker needs a knife, he'll make monetary exchange that makes sense with a blacksmith. If the effort and cost to make bread equals that of a knife then bread and knife both cost $x, regardless of $90 kept(or not) in the vault by their lord.

>>3392878
The idea I think he's promoting is that there is not a significant amount of suffering among the people considered "poor" in the US, especially compared to poorer countries.

Still, things should not be justified by "better than that other guy is doing".

>>3392712
>Privatising drug testing is insane; Drug companies have a strong economic incentive to falsify results

wrong they have a strong incentive to test so that people trust their products, you're still thinking like a retarded socialist. Why don't they make cars that break after 1,000 mile? because no one would buy them.

>>3392878
Its a common fallacy that you need to take from the rich or else they will take everything from you. Which is nonsense they rich can't part you from your money unless they give you something of equal value in return such as a product.

>>3392894

To me the 90 is 'in circulation' in a balance book somewhere. 'imaginary money' if you will being invested/traded in other imaginary markets. It exists in a world of pure speculation which keeps prices up artificially without creating or having any 'real' value.

If it was purely 'money stuffed under the mattress' then yes, it would work as you describe.

Could someone explain a Yoorupeean how the American taxsystem works?

>>3392712
>Privatising drug testing is insane; Drug companies have a strong economic incentive to falsify results
There are private testing and certification in other sectors.
The 'UL' mark on some products is a private safety and reliability certification for instance. I'm afraid I don't agree that allowing private testing and certification leads to falsified results.

>>3392924

They do make cars so they break down. Hence why you can't get a GM to last 10 years. Cars could easily be designed and made to last longer. It doesn't happen because if everyone's car lasted a long time, then nobody would have to buy a new one. Can't sell a new car, won't make more money.

You're still thinking like a retarded Republican. Where some politicians platform = economic policy

>>3392947

The more money you make, the more you get taxed. Pretty simple

>>3392868
>has never been poor

>>3392895
Poor people from lesser developed countries live in houses. Poor people from America does not.

>>3392962

I have worked plenty of minimum wage jobs. And your argument is fallacious anyway.

>>3392947
You pay X percent tax on your first A dollars of income.
Then you pay Y percent on the next B dollars.
Then you pay Z percent on the next C dollars.
Z>Y>X. It maxes out at 35% on the highest bracket.
On top of that you have state taxes (sales, income, car registration, etc, some states lack some of these categories though). You also have a payroll tax payed by your employer and you pay social security and medicare tax out of your income that is separate from your income tax.
Gas and property taxes are substantial too.

tl;dr: it is a complicated system of many different taxes applied in different ways.

>>3392957
>mfw I drive an 11 year old Chrysler
>mfw I'm now a mantis because you made you '10 year' fact up
Thanks a lot.

>>3392958
then why make more money?

do you see how idiotic you are?

why not tax people 100% and get all the money?

>>3392958
I was more referring to how big your tax burden is, stuff like that. How much do you have to earn before you start paying taxes? Do you have a higher rate for the exceptional rich? Also, why the hell haven't you patched all your god damn tax loopholes?

>>3392957
Because it would cost too much to make a car that lasts forever retard.

>>3392964
Where do they live?

>>3392994
>How much do you have to earn before you start paying taxes? Do you have a higher rate for the exceptional rich?
93% of people who make less than $16,812 a year pay nothing. 60.3% of people who make between $16,812 and $33,542 pay nothing, 30% of people who make between $33,543 and $59,486 pay nothing.
The rich do pay a higher rate.

>why the hell haven't you patched all your god damn tax loopholes?
Because people like them since they pay less taxes if they use all of them that they can. I'm against the loopholes myself. I'm not in the majority with that opinion though.

>>3392977
>many different taxes applied in different ways
Yeah, we have kinda the same thing over here, at least in and with Scandinavia, we just have a lot more smaller taxes which lead up to a rate of around 45% - 65%.

I think they should raise taxes, but also cut spending. I think that everyone should pay alittle more if it means saving the nation, only if it does some good though. The problem with raising taxes though is that, One: obama lied and said he wouldn't do that during a recession, and Two: If they do raise taxes what will keep the government from keeping it's greedy hands off it? Just like what they did with SS. The dems usually have no problem cutting spending when it doesn't involve losing something they care about. I remember when I was a kid they closed the Charleston Naval yard and nobody thought twice about it in DC, many jobs were lost in the area as a result affecting both civilians and us navy troops. Nobody gave a shit about us, so why should I about the TSA, EPA, etc. right now? When it something they don't care about, its OK otherwise don't cut it, business as usually is their motto. The funny about this is that when a citizen point out all this wasted spending, like dollar coins being made that nobody ever uses and Alaskan flower research paid for by the stimulus money nobody listens. The problem is either the government is to big to handle everything, or the size of things like congress are to small. Either way I don't think wasteful spending on the TSA, EPA, and other organization should be considered top priority at this time.

Americans are afraid of raising taxes because they live in hopes that they will be rich enough for their taxes to be higher one day.

>>3393052

>>3392957

not only cars but nylon stockings, printers, lightbulbs ect. every consumer good we use are being deliberately produced to fail within x amount of years to encourage more spending and to update technology at a faster rate.

this was done after the great depression when production outdid demand and made everything so fucking cheap that producers couldn't pay their workers and ended up buttfucking the entire country.

>>3393052
personally I think something bigger is happening, combined with past mistakes. A power shift to the east. Also everyone wants to be heard and pretend that their way is right. Both the dems and repubs can attest to that statement.

>>3393065
>every consumer good we use are being deliberately produced to fail within x amount of years
This is a false statement.

Republicans aren't pushing the no tax hikes issue because they care about people's incomes. They're doing it because they're trying to "starve the beast" and reduce the power of the government. Not reduce *governance* mind you, although that is their claim. No, everyone will still be governed just as much if not more than before, but it will be done by unaccountable corporations. That is the republican plan.

>>3393076
How so? Planned obsolescence is the most profitable avenue.

>>3393101
>How so?
Because that is a conspiracy theory rather than a fact.
It isn't true, but people like to blame things on corporations.

>>3393064
The US nation is alot like a new house that isn't finished yet and the movers want to move in NOW. The pumping isn't ready, the power is on, the floors are half done. What do you prioritize your resources on?

>>3393076

>Planned obsolescence

Buy the new ipad4 featuring half the stuff it should/could have had since day 1. But don't even dream of replacing that battery with its X years of life 'cause the ipad5 will be along before then! Don't want people to think you're poor now do you?

>>3393110
But there is a conspiracy, it's just that everyone is in on it. Consumerism and cheap energy has made us a culture of disposable goods; durability is low priority these days.

>>3393126
no point in making something last long if people get bored of it easily. How often does a person move from their house?

>>3393110

apple, for one, were actually sued for making their batteries last only half a year and you couldn't replace it. they lost the case and had to include a 2 year insurance on the batteries after that.

Don't worry, we'll just pray to the almighty lord and savior, and hope he will drop a pile of gold.

>>3392307
>>3392307
>>3392307
You mean Tea Partiers and House Republicans?

Because they're retarded. Nobody else has a problem with it.

>>3392328
taxes are good. Unless you are entirely self sufficient, there is absolutely no justification for not paying taxes.

>>3393052
>I think they should raise taxes, but also cut spending.
So does Obama and so do the House Dems. But Repubs are not willing to let a plan like that pass because they're unwilling to consider raising taxes.

>>3393189
>nobody else has a problem with it

except the american public

>>3393065
>being deliberately produced to fail within x amount of years to encourage more spending

nope.jpg

A Product will fail at some point no matter how well made. Well made products are expensive, but people want cheap products. They are made cheaper and as a result fail sooner.

>>3393245

failing faster than they should.

just over 2 years ago the EU passed a new law that banned traditional lightbulbs for more efficient and longer lasting bulbs.

they had to PASS A FUCKING LAW to make companies sell energy efficent fluorescent bulbs .

they went from 5-10% efficiency to 65-80% lifespan expanded eight-fold going from 1000- 2500h to 8000h and LED lights can last 25.000-50.000h and do not expire like regular bulbs but fade out, emitting about 70% of their light at their 50.000th hour.

>>3393371
But I don't like fluorescent bulbs. I much prefer the traditional ones.
I can't believe you are glad that the government just robbed you of consumer choice.

>>3393399

Luddite

>>3393399

though i agree that fluorescent bulbs aren't as comfortable as regular bulbs, i don't think being wasteful and fucking up the environment is worth it.

>>3393245
Fucking this.

Products would last forever if people would pay for them.

Even now, high quality products exist. But not many people buy them. They buy cheap-ass pans at Walmart, instead of a pan that will last for a natural human lifespan with room to spare.

>>3393479
>Products would last forever if people would pay for them.
Well, I guess I should say "for a long time".

Here is what's gonna happen.

Republicans will drop the ball and let obama hike up the credit limit without a spending plan. And then they will argue like this again for budget 2012 which is due to start in Nov 2011. Then, next year when obama is re-elected and republicans loose bunch of seats they will learn to compromise.

because taxing is socialism hurr and socialism is bad durr.
i really hope see your empire fall soon.
europe too, those are as capitalists as americunts.

that would prepare the way for the great socialist humankind of the future.

>>3393548
obama's budget has actually outpaced the republican demands in cuts by at least 1 billion dollars from the very beginning. it is actually a gripe of many liberals that he is being so... accomodating to their wishes while asking for and getting NOTHING in return.

first, he promised to freeze spending and cut 10 billion dollars preemptively, BEFORE beginning budget negotiations.

the republicans originally asked for 32 billion in total cuts, without presenting a budget plan. obama's administration responded by offering 33 billion in cuts, in addition to the original 10 billion. that's not really meeting the other side in the middle and that's not really the slap in the face that the republicans say it is. that's giving them everything, plus a 1 billion dollar cherry on top.

the republicans then asked for 36 billion in cuts and obama parried that by saying well how about a round 40 billion in cuts? the republicans are now saying that medicare, medicaid and social security are off the table, because they know they're going to get blamed for these cuts, and obama is saying, well lets not be hasty, lets go ahead and cut these programs for the poor and needy because i'm actually on your side; after all, i ended a 4 billion dollar deduction for heating the homes of the poor and elderly while keeping a 4 billion dollar deduction for second homes...

obama is fiscally more to the right than the fucking republicans. only the 'zero tax' lunatics are more to the 'right' than him -although those morons still somehow want higher spending on defense and to engage in yet another unpaid war with iran.

>>3394438
for a period of time i'm uncertain of, our corporate controlled news medias have been reducing the attention span of the american people, while shoving lies down their throats. The republican party is essentially the super-rich pulling the strings for a bunch of people on TV. And americans have been sucking the nipple of the GOP and its misinformation campaign for as long as i can remember.

I actually support the republicans, they're going to destroy this country and its government, and hopefully something less fascist and retarded will take its place. I pray for a Socialist Technocracy personally.

>medicare is ... significant part of bankrupting the government
>Yes lets as a country spend almost all of our money on medicine
actually, all domestic spending in the us combined, including social security (even though social security is NOT a cost because it is drawing from a fund with a gigantic surplus that will last over 30 additional years without adding any new money before it BREAKS EVEN -and then it would still not be drawing a dime from the budget AND such projections get drawn further and further into the future every time a new assessment is made...), all of it accounts for less than 30% of total combined spending.

BUT, lets just say that we were spending more on medicine than anything else. lets say we get rid of the wars. we still have to pay for the development and upkeep of infrastructure and research as well as those 'directly unprofitable' but useful or necessary services -which are considered TOO UNPROFITABLE for private industry, unless private industry jacks up the cost so much that the people who need these services can't afford them, thereby proving that they cannot serve the consumers better the govt serves... BUT lets just play devils advocate and say that despite all of these costs, the govt is spending more on healthcare than anything else.

SO FUCKING WHAT?

if it becomes this way, it will be because private industries have proven themselves too greedy, too unreliable, too inefficient, too slow, too fraudulent and too inaccessible to be trusted. a profit incentive is not always the best one because there is always risk, liability and costs of time and capital but there is often very little or NO profit to be made (such as with vaccines).

>>3394483

get this /sci/entists. over 70% of polled TEA PARTY supporters support continuing social programs like social security, medicare and medicaid.

the most radical of the rabid right wing -excepting their backstabbing, profiteering politicians- support these social programs.

so WHO really gives a fuck if we someday end up spending 'almost all of our money on medicine.' this would only be the case for a fully mature society where war is impossible and every other method of exploiting nature has been found -but really, it's not true now, it won't be true for a long time... and lets just say it is true... WHO GIVES A FUCK? less than 30 percent of the most radical of the most selfish cocks who themselves account for less than 50 percent of the voting population (and MUCH less when it comes to questions based on personal stance, issue by issue, rather than personal identification with a party name).

lets not be ludicrous. you're saying that it's better for less advantaged people to suffer and die than for those who have benefited the most from society to give back to its workers. NOT EVEN THE TEA PARTY IS ON YOUR SIDE.

>>3394487
>over 70% of polled TEA PARTY supporters support continuing social programs

sauce plz?

>>3394487
according to polls, americans aren't really afraid of raising taxes. around 80 percent of polled americans favor raising taxes on the wealthy. over 70 percent of polled REPUBLICANS favor raising taxes on the rich.

it's just that most americans are completely jaded or else are completely disinterested and ignorant, because 'hurr hurr, it's a representative republic and i ain't gotta kno shit' -and the only people who go out to vote tend to personally, directly gain from it.

that's the moderately wealthy and the rich, like my father, who HATES republicans with a passion but still votes for them every time because fuck you it's his money. also, apparently teachers, the fire department and the police make too much (and paradoxically, they need more money).

every time he and i have a conversation, i manage to swing the man to my side with facts and statistics, but he still manages to vote for the republican candidate in the end.

he admires sarah palin. he thinks mitt romney is a swell businessman. he gives me a fucking headache.

also -and i'm only saying this for a laugh- the man is a retired electrical engineer. also, he is a naturalized immigrant who owes every dime he's ever earned as an engineer to scholarships and low cost public universities like cal tech.

go ahead and make your jokes.

captcha: education autissed

>>3394556
oh yeah, also, voting puts you in the registry for jury duty and a lot of people avoid voting just to escape that -even though skipping jury duty is one crime that you will never get caught for unless you are involved in a car accident or are caught breaking another law.

Americans have internalized anti-government sediment. It's only natural that they elected people who are anti-government to become government officials.

>>3394556
I have no jokes, I've met a few engineers irl. Concrete coated cupcakes most of 'em. Nice enough, but you can't tell it until you get to know them.

the path to hell is paved with republican intentions though. <-- a little joke I made implying there's a hell and republicans have good intentions. just for fun.

>>3394491
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/03/03/tea-party-voters-by-almost-2-1-oppose-social-securi
ty-cuts/
there's a more recent poll than this one but this is the first result when i search for 'tea party polled about social security'

>>3392444

>Social Security
>Medicare
>Medicaid
>Welfare
>Homeland Security
>War on Drugs

You got to be fucking kidding me. Do you know how many people will be homeless if that happens? Here's a hint: you will when you turn 50.

ITT: Smart people and opposing ; Neoliberals, Randriods and Friedfags.

If you like right wing libertarianism move to somalia.

If you don't, read some Noam Chomsky and don't be such a cancerous dumbass.

>counter inflation to a small degree
Contrary to popular knowledge, inflation isn't as dangerous as you might think. Unless it's way out of hand, it hardly does much to the economy. Inflation can simply be a result of fast economic development. There are countries who had inflation of up to 20% at certain points, and they didn't have any trouble.

What's the problem with inflation? Unles it's 20000% or something, it only shows rapid growth.

Why are people so afraid of looking after themselves?

>>3395788

Because not everyone was born into enough money to be able to do so.

I have to hope nothing ever goes wrong with my body because I could never afford the hospital bill.

I have to hope that I continue to get financial aid to attend college to get a physics degree. While I do have a job, it wouldn't be enough to cover the tuition, nor could I work two jobs and still do well in my classes.

I have to hope that nothing ever goes critically wrong with my car because I wouldn't be able to afford a replacement. If something did happen, I wouldn't be able to go to work or college.

I don't have rich parents, in fact my father has a ton of debt and my mother and I live off the combined income of her, myself, and a small sum of money from the grandparents on occasion.

What can I really do about it? I'm already going to school for a difficult degree and doing the best I can, and there is plenty of people who are even worse off than I am.

Because rich people don't pay a damaging amount of taxes, they have enough influence and mobility to avoid doing so. So raising taxes means poor people foot the bill.

>>3395817
>Because not everyone was born into enough money to be able to do so.

You don't have to be born with a certain amount of money to do so, haven't you heard of getting a job. Why do people believe in some bullshit lie that they can't have what they want with out the government stealing others money.

>>3394641
>Noam Chomsky
>thinks direct democracy would work


Noam Chomsky is the biggest idiot ever.

>>3396119

He HAS a job. But entry level jobs aren't a secure income, particularly now.

>>3394487
>liability and costs of time and capital but there is often very little or NO profit to be made (such as with vaccines).

this assumption has been made time and time again about the private market and it has always been wrong.

>you're saying that it's better for less advantaged people to suffer and die than for those who have benefited the most from society to give back to its workers.

Have you ever heard of a wage?

>>3396170
The solution isn't to stifle the economy with government. Everything that the government is involved in get prohibitively expensive for instance school and medicine. When the government has an infinite pocket to pay from they skew supply and demand. The government doesn't understand thrift.

>>3396128
Either Chomsky is an Idiot, Or you are.

Voted #1 Intellectual and valued as one of the biggest Philosophers of our time vs a fag.

I'll go with Chomsky thanks

>>3396338
I'm sick and tired of these Chomsky nut-huggers who just tell other people to "READ CHOMSKY HURR DURR". I've actually read and watched Chomsky, and i still think he is wrong on many issues.

> Why are Americans against having more of their money stolen from them?

You serious bro?

inb4 "it's not theft because i think it should be taken from you!"

>>3396338

that's a fallacy known as argument from authority

Noam Chomsky is correct, the only moral system is direct democracy.

The reason you believe direct democracy cannot work is because the elite who controls things right now feels that direct democracy works against their own interest (controlling shit themselves), and so you are taught in school and in propaganda that direct democracy can't work.

You are told that "once the people find out they can loot the treasury, it will break the system," magically this somehow doesn't apply to the elite who control shit now, eg "Once the elite realize they can loot the treasury (what's happening right now in current events, BTW), it will break the system."

You seriously convince yourself that it's better for OTHER PEOPLE to loot the treasury than for YOU to loot it. Sad to see people this brainwashed.

>>3396583
I'm sick and tired of these Friedman Brownosers who just tell other people to "READ HIS ECONOMICS HURR DURR". I've actually read and watched his economics, and i still think he is wrong on many issues.

>>3396599
Yes, but relative to him/you , it is applicable.

Chomsky isn't pro State, he is pro democracy into the private sector.

Inb4 he wan'ts to steal your shitty little house.

>>3396629

no, a fallacy isn't a valid argument

>>3396638
Thats why it is called an Opinion

>>3396653
lol

>you're saying that if medicare didn't exist, PEOPLE WILL BE DYING ON THE STREETS!
which is entirely true and historically accurate.


>If we let anyone certify doctors, IT WOULD BE MADNESS!
you say madness, i say caveat emptor. what's that, your doctor was a walking shitbag with a scalpel and a pen? well, clearly you should have hired a private investigator, from a land far, far away, to check on his background before deciding to suffer an ailment...

/sarcasm

>I'm afraid I don't agree that allowing private testing and certification leads to falsified results.
i'm afraid that i have to agree with historical evidence and common sense that suggests that human nature will dictate the behavior of ceos and the board members that they hire ('self regulation' in the private sector means that if you don't own at least 3% of a company, you don't get a say as to who gets a seat on the board -not even warren buffet owns 3% of any of the companies that he manages... practically, NO ONE DOES. the owners, that is the shareholders, don't get a say!) and it is only a matter of time before a wily ceo driven by a pure and personal profit motive will invaribly seek higher short term profits for higher personal rewards at the expense of the businesses that he manages which he does not own and -somehow- cannot be found personally liable for...

captcha: negritude nterodur

>>3397833

>The FDA forces companies to test their medication at insane expense when it could be done privately.
right, because private regulation worked so well for wallstreet.

private bond rating agencies rated PURE CRAP as A++ because it's more profitable to do so, because they don't get business otherwise. they're still in business because they bought the regulators and they bought the legislators (which imho is a failure of democracy rather than a failure of regulation -but if you insist that it is the latter then it is simply more proof that the system cannot be trusted to regulate itself) and they're somehow claiming that specific, company wide policies are somehow emergent behavior that can't be traced to anyone except low level employees.

what do you say to that? caveat emptor (which i tentatively agree with but this is clearly a failure of labelling and self regulation)? the free market, capitalism, blah blah blah it all balances out (except that it doesn't, especially if you're old)?

private regulators aren't enough. third party regulators aren't enough. you need the law on your side. you literally need the threat of being personally thrown behind bars or having your personal fortune destroyed in order to dissuade the profit motive from sellling FRAUDULENT CRAP.

-the fact that the service is expensive is a separate issue.

>>3397845
-also, products with a ul label aren't reliable for shit. i'd say roughly 90% of these low energy light bulbs -that i've ever used- 'pop' long before they start dimming. 10 thousand hours? NOT EVEN FUCKING CLOSE. i don't know if i'm in the majority or minority but i know i'm not alone.

i'm actually not that bothered by this because each bulb is actually quite cheap (thanks to govt subsidy), but still... it's kind of a bother when you screw in a brand new bulb and just 3 weeks later the fucking thing makes a pop sound and stops working. as far as i'm concerned, the ul stamp just means the bulb isn't going to explode in my face (-because that's what it's going to take for me to approach a lawyer about some fucking 1 dollar light bulbs).

a bump because sci is slow and i enjoy browbeating shitbags.

>republicans ... unwilling to consider raising taxes.
it is a damn lie that republicans are unwilling to consider raising taxes.

read the house republican budget proposal. not only does it reduce spending and the deficit much LESS than *obama's plan while necessitating ludicrous things like instantaneously having unemployment magically shrink to 2% from 15% WITHOUT any govt intervention, the republican budget effectively RAISES TAXES on the lower and middle classes, partly by getting rid of deductions that only the lower and middle classes can qualify for.

-but of course, at the same time, deductions on private jets, yachts, vacation homes and other things that only the very wealthy can qualify for are sacrosanct. because, y'know, those who can help themselves and have the most wealth naturally need the most help and monetary assistance. not the fuckers who are simply going to put the money they save right back into the economy.

if you're making less than $250k per year, which john boehner says is 'middle class (which is tentatively true if you're a doctor),' your cost of living will skyrocket -and your living standards will go down- if the republicans get their way.

legislators. worth every motherfucking penny.

>>3398452
the republicans want to INCREASE SPENDING and give MORE MONEY TO THE RICH -in the form of subsidies, credits, tax deductions and no bid contracts for selling MORE CRAP in anticipation for MOAR WARS which they are itching to start (because wars are profitable for business because it's fucking SOCIALIST SPENDING that draws from the govt) on the backs of the poor and middle class. according to the republicans, those who have the least purchasing power should naturally give up the most because they have the least ability to buy any legislators. it's only natural, they say! lets remember that this purchasing power was only gained through participation in the us economy which is indisputably affected by having social services such as a strong military, police, legal system, infrastructure, regulations against fraud, an educated, healthy and well fed working and buying public as well as all those fucking subsidies that these fuckers simultaneously revile and clamor for...

the first person to ask for pork when it came to healthcare reform to demand spending for his county and probably his own business, for matters that are completely unrelated to healthcare, was a republican. after that, the fucking gates fell open.

only the liberals and the rich know about this disparity because only the fucking liberals and the rich care enough to collate the fucking news and separate the substantive wheat from the chaff.

>>3398454
'conservative' motherfucks still think iraq attacked us on 9/11 and that obama is a muslim who was raised in kenya (according to some shocking number of fox news viewers, as recently as april). they still think republicans are FOR net neutrality when the republicans are the ones in favor of a more expensive, tiered internet service where access to certain privately owned sites is restricted or is made slower according to media conglomerates that own access lanes that offer competing services -and these same conglomerates, according to the republicans, should also get to dictate who owns the material that gets released on the web, which will inevitably result in CORPORATE CENSORSHIP.

the republicans are the ones in favor of censoring the web and shutting down access under the banner of 'freedom.'

*i'm not in favor of obama's plan. i favor the progressive caucus' plan which -oh look, the corporatist lamestream media never fucking brings it up even though it COMPLETELY ELIMINATES THE DEFICIT WITHIN 10 YEARS, all without necessitating ridiculous, unreachable conditions such as having unemployment magically diminish to 2% -without any cause-, and begins with something as sensible and moderate as restoring clinton era taxes.

speaking of taxes: if you don't want to pay taxes, the answer is simple. MOVE. the us will not chase you for taxes -excepting those that are already owed. haul your ass off to somalia and go show the world how much being a wealthy asshole benefits those around you.

ITT: why antisocial nerds shouldn't be allowed to vote.

>>3398454
>>3398458
tl;dr
conservatives are all about giving more power to those who already have power while doing nothing to help the lower classes
because hey it's only right to give more money to corporations because its only the corporations that make jobs!

>Everyone ITT

I'm an American, and I wish our taxes were much higher. The golden age of the American economy started with the highest taxes our nation has ever seen under FDR. Reagan fucked us all over by dropping them so low, now people accuse Obama of socialism when he isn't even close to the former glory of our tax income. Honestly, at the end of the day, if a tax system is working like it should, you're just buying a bigger, better, society in which people are on a whole, happier.