Whitney's Profile · Whitney's Wall
  • Whitney Bandel
    Ron Paul comes in from the fringe
    www.latimes.com
    Laura Burkett, a conservative Republican from Coralville, Iowa, didn't give Ron Paul a second thought in the 2008 presidential contest, turned off by his calls for an end to military action around the globe and unswayed by his warnings that the nation was teetering on economic implosion.
    Sunday at 3:30pm · · ·
      • Eric Newport And he'll stay on the fringe, because his political positions on economic policy are even more crazy (by crazy, we mean extreme by the standards of the mainstream Republican party) than those of mainstream conservatives.
        Sunday at 4:08pm ·
      • Dustin Franz By crazy, you do mean correct right? (Dustin has declared himself a libertarian on the economy at this point by regarding Ron Paul's policies on the economy as correct.) Because all other views, republican or democrat thus far, amount to more of what we already have enough of: Debt. (That statement is factually incorrect and we challenged it in our next reply.)
        Sunday at 9:13pm ·
      • Whitney Bandel Well it would be rather unfortunate if the mainstream keeps ignoring him (We agreed with you about that, so we didn't challenge it.) considering he's correctly predicted every economic hardship since the 80's. (That statement is false, but we didn't feel that it was important to pick that nit because we wanted to keep the discussion focused on the current economic dilemma.)
        Sunday at 9:21pm ·
      • Eric Newport
        Well of course the debt is a problem and both sides of the issue acknowledge that. The real issue is how to solve it. We have these options: 1. Raise taxes so we can afford all our current expenses, 2. Cut spending so we're not deficit spen...ding anymore, or 3. Some combination of both. Most Democrats want option #3, including Obama. Ron Paul along with most other Republicans want option #2, although Ron would want to cut even more than most mainstream Republicans would be comfortable with. That said, if you're comfortable with no more Social Security, Medicare, or pretty much any other federally funded program, then by all means, vote Paul. But if you have a sense of decency and don't hate poor people, old people, and sick people, (We're sorry you felt insulted by that statement, but it was sarcasm. We don't think you hate poor people. We think you're unaware of the harm your politics would cause to poor people.) you might want to consider backing off from Paul and supporting option #3. Starving the government of tax revenue is not patriotic. See More
        Yesterday at 12:02am ·
      • Dustin Franz Personally, I believe I can care for myself, I have my own retirement, my own HSA, because I understand that really cool stuff you like will not be around when I retire. I will secure my own future. I refuse to be treated like a child from birth to death. (We took no objection with anything Dustin said here. We're glad Dustin is personally responsible, but it doesn't really address our argument about poverty on a societal scale, so we ignored this post due to its lack of relevance.)
        Yesterday at 6:40am ·
      • Dustin Franz Starving the people of their paychecks and the value of their currency is very unpatriotic. So is paying for other peoples free lunches, it is heavily abused and needs to go away. (We took that statement to mean that Dustin favors cutting social programs, which is one of Ron Paul's political positions.)
        Yesterday at 6:44am ·
      • Whitney Bandel
        We wouldn't need to increase taxes if we would stop military funding and stop policing other countries. (You're right of course, but that's a separate discussion entirely. To keep the discussion more focused, we decided to table that issue and focus solely on whether or not social programs are worth keeping around.) We spend billions every day in other countries instead of our own. Ron Paul is the only one that has consistently supported pulling out ...of other countries and investing in our own.

        Why should we increase investing in a system that is corrupt and broken? Why be at the mercy of a bunch of people who put our interests at the bottom of their to-do-list? Instead of raising taxes you could just take whatever percent you want and invest it into something yourself. It would get to the people a lot faster than trying to go through the government. (We took that statement to mean that like Dustin you favor cutting social programs, which is one of Ron Paul's political positions.)

        Our country needs real jobs with real production. Sure it's nice to have programs to support each other, but does it really count as us working together if other countries are footing the bill for our welfare? We can't always get what we want/need, that's not hate, it's reality. The best we can do is to help the economy recover the quickest.        See More
        Yesterday at 10:02am ·
      • Eric Newport Just to make sure I'm reading you right, you guys actually want to see Social Security, Medicare, and other social safety net programs abolished because you don't want to "pay for people's free lunches?" (That was a reasonable clarifying question for us to ask, since you both made statements above indicating that you favor cutting social programs, which is one of Ron Paul's political positions.)
        Yesterday at 3:22pm ·
      • Dustin Franz
        If that's the only way your brain understands it, then I guess so. (We took that to mean yes.) I am more than willing to pay for my own fortunes and mistakes, and I am not about to place my misforture on anyone else because I made a mistake. That is not fair, plain an...d simple. If you can't agree with that, then you go right ahead and bail out every company that nears bankruptcy, establish nearly communist social programs, and go to work, just to pay for all the free crap. Nevermind a pay check, you won't have one because of all the "perks" you want.See More
        Yesterday at 5:04pm ·
      • Dustin Franz Oh, since your on a roll here, who are you voting for?, not that I'm gonna bash your candidate too. (A simple read of our profiles would have told you that we favor the Democratic party. And you're free to bash whichever political positions of ours you like. But we felt staying on topic would benefit the discussion more than replying to that.)
        Yesterday at 5:10pm ·
      • Eric Newport You do know what would happen if we actually did abolish all those social programs, right? Poverty rates would skyrocket. Is that what you want for America? A vast increase in poverty just so you can save a few bucks in taxes? (Since you both admitted to wanting to cut social programs, we felt the most succinct way to keep the discussion on topic would be to ask you if you're aware that your political positions would lead to more poverty.)
        Yesterday at 7:28pm ·
      • Dustin Franz
        A few? try 40% of your income and then some, to what few bucks do you speak of? I'm pretty sure those people near poverty would do a lot better with 40% or more of their income. (That statement is factually incorrect. People in poverty are already taxed very little or not at all. But we didn't feel that it was terribly important to pick that nit, so we ignored it.) But of course, something you will never come to realize, is th...at most people that are impoverished put themselves there (That statement is also factually incorrect, and it's the one we decided to focus on in our next reply, as we felt that it was the most important one to address.), and will never try to better themselves, because the minute they cross the "poverty" line, they lose all of the freebies. Does the name Dylan Bandel ring a bell? We could tell you about his misuse of the system, or Jean's.See More
        23 hours ago ·
      • Dustin Franz Do you know what would happen if we keep funding these programs? We go broke (Not if we raise taxes, but we already said that, so it would have been redundant to repeat it...), which we are, and that doesn't hurt the poor as much as it does the middle class, the backbone of America. Or should I say used to be. You would rather "save" the poor, at the expense of the WORKING middle class? Are you stoned?
        23 hours ago ·
      • Dustin Franz From your point of view, if you file for a tax REFUND at the years end, you contradict yourself. Every dime you pay in, should stay with the government, to fund these outrageous obligations. But of course, I know well enough you get every penny you can... (Since we never claimed anything silly like "every dime you pay in should stay with the government" we ignored this post due to its lacking in relevance to the discussion.)
        23 hours ago ·
      • Whitney Bandel
        Do you really think that just by giving the government more money that you somehow have a say over what they spend it on? They could care less about what we want to support. (Those statements are just political cynicism. Of course our elected officials care about what their constituents want. Otherwise they won't get elected again. But we decided not to pick that nit to keep the discussion on topic.) The programs that the people want the most are the first on their ...chopping block. Obama even said if we don't get more money he's going to take money away from social security. (Because we won't be able to afford it anymore, which you yourself have argued. But again, not a nit we felt like picking at the time.) However, did he ever say how much we'd need before it finally got the attention it deserves? (Yes, he did. The details of his proposal can be found on whitehouse.gov. But again, not a nit we felt like picking to keep the discussion on topic.)

        Obama has had plenty of time to get rid of military spending (This is true, but doing that would give power in Afghanistan back to the Taliban. But we once again ignored this point to keep the discussion on the topic of whether or not social programs are worthwhile.) and other areas of the budget to make room for what the people find important. Giving the government more money doesn't guarantee a thing. Why trust someone else to do your work when you can do it yourself? And why trust someone with such a bad history of spending? Doing things yourself doesn't mean that you hate poor people, it just means you're independent and don't need someone to twist your arm behind your back to give towards the community. There are plenty of people in the country who can handle giving money to charities without Obama holding their hand or taking the money and using it for purposes other than what it is intended for. (We disagreed with you that private charity is more effective than social programs, but we had to table challenging that point until the important issue of Dustin's statement above of "poor people putting themselves there" was addressed.)        See More
        23 hours ago ·
      • Eric Newport
        It's easy to demonstrate that you're wrong about most poor people putting themselves there. In the US, more than 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical debt alone. Do you think personal responsibility is going to stop you from getting multi...ple sclerosis, a life threatening blood clot, or any number of other medical conditions which couldn't possibly be your fault? And what about Jean and Dylan, since you brought them up? In your world, what should have happened to them instead? Would you have preferred that they ended up dying on the street because in your Libertarian utopia there are no social safety nets out there for serially irresponsible individuals? Is that really a characteristic of a morally sound society? (As noted above, we ignored your other points temporarily so the discussion wouldn't get confusing. We wanted to focus on one issue at a time.)See More
        23 hours ago ·
      • Dustin Franz Do you know why so many people go bankrupt on medical expenses? Probably because the government monopolizes health care, too easy man. (A factually incorrect statement, which we addressed in our next reply.)
        5 hours ago ·
      • Dustin Franz
        Do you think government safety nets will keep me from getting MS? (Our point wasn't about preventing sickness, it was about preventing medical bankruptcy. We clarified this in our next reply.) Nope. In fact, I will have to fight for any government assistance. Well, as far as Jean is concerned, she is living with her dad now, who barely has enough for himself. She o...nly got help from local churches, and last I checked, they aren't funded by your safety nets. And Dylan was pitied by some generous donor, no help from the state at all, which gave him an apartment, furniture, and other household things. (We didn't know any of that, so definitely a good thing to bring up. Keep in mind though that Jean and Dylan have benefited from the social safety net too through disability [on the part of Jean] and shelters [on the part of Dylan].) So if your telling me that the only way we can save society and all the poor people is to surrender our paychecks to programs which we very well may never see when our time comes, you are wrong. When people have money, they are generous people. I do not believe any society to be morally sound if you think other people are entitled to the fruits of your labor just because they had a bad day. It should be done out of generosity, not obligation. (Now that you both have argued that private charity is more effective, we felt it proper to address that point in our next reply.)See More
        5 hours ago ·
      • Whitney Bandel http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-t-schwartz/questioning-your-compassi_b_574030.html
        Questioning Your "Compassionate" Politics
        www.huffingtonpost.com
        ‎"You oppose Medicaid and government-run schools? You're heartless and lack comp...assion." If you have ever made this accusation, even tacitly, I invite you to reconsider.See More
        5 hours ago ·
      • Whitney Bandel
        It's pretty clear by now that your only concern is taxes and how they have the potential to help poor people. (You misunderstood us. We were just trying to keep the discussion focused on one issue at a time, so we were temporarily tabling the discussion about whether or not we should defund the war.) So I'll leave it to you to worry about the potential aid they might receive through the gov't, while I'll concern myself with all ...of the people in the countries that we are bombing and exploiting for natural resources and everyone who will be affected by the devaluation of our national currency. After all someone has to think about them, and it doesn't look like it'll be Obama.See More
        5 hours ago ·
      • Whitney Bandel http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers
        A Nation of Givers — The American Magazine
        www.american.com
        Americans are remarkably charitable. But what sorts of people give the most? And how do we compare with the Europeans?
        5 hours ago ·
      • Eric Newport
        We don't have a government health monopoly. Programs like Medicare cover only a very limited number of people. Everything else is up to the private sector. That's why we have so many medical bankruptcies. If we had a universal healthcare sy...stem it wouldn't prevent you from getting MS, but it would prevent you from getting stuck with six figures of debt because of it. As for the Jean and Dylan anecdotes, they're lucky to have generous benefactors, because statistics clearly illustrate an inverse relationship between strength of the welfare state and poverty rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_on_povertySee More
        Effects on poverty - Welfare state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        en.wikipedia.org
        Empirical evidence suggests that taxes and transfers considerably reduce poverty... in most countries, whose welfare states commonly constitute at least a fifth of GDP.[20][21] Most "welfare states" have considerably lower poverty rates than they had before the implementation of welfare programs.See More
        5 hours ago ·
      • Eric Newport Whitney, nobody wants the war expenses. (We realized at this point that you mistook our ignoring the war expenses point as indifference to it, so we decided to stop ignoring your point about the war expenses and explain our position on the issue, even though it's really a separate discussion entirely.) We're stuck with them because if we pull out tomorrow and Afghanistan implodes into theocracy again, that won't translate to good things for anyone. Personally I wish the US bore less of the burden of policing all these pariah states, but c'est la vie.
        5 hours ago ·
      • Dustin Franz Your wiki-stats will not hold up because most of our GDP is based on borrowing, (Where the money came from is irrelevant. The stats prove that social programs reduce poverty and not having them increases poverty.) when the borrowing stops, poverty will skyrocket, as it inevitably will. Plus 1991 is not 2011, most of the massive spending occurred during that era. As for your universal one-size-fits-all health care, http://mises.org/daily/5066/The-Myth-of-FreeMarket-Healthcare.
        The Myth of Free-Market Healthcare
        mises.org
        While most people believe that our healthcare industry is one comprised of free markets, it is anything but. (After reading the article, we noticed that the article misused the term monopoly, which was the source of Dustin's confusion above. But we decided to not pick that nit to keep the discussion on topic.)
        3 hours ago ·
      • Dustin Franz Who said that Afghanistan will implode? Could it be the same people that created this mess? I think so!
        3 hours ago ·
      • Eric Newport
        The stats are airtight. If you look at them more closely, you'll notice those stats list several countries, not just ours. There is a direct correlation between more welfare state and less poverty. If we approach our budget problem with a c...ombination of spending cuts and tax increases, we can easily render our welfare state sustainable. As for Afghanistan, if we leave tomorrow, our efforts to create a stable democratic government there will most certainly implode when the Taliban restores Islamic theocracy in the region.See More
        2 hours ago ·
      • Dustin Franz Tell me oh great master, what welfare would you cut?
        2 hours ago ·
      • Eric Newport
        My personal preference is no cuts, quite the opposite in fact. We need a stronger welfare state, as our poverty rates are still shamefully high compared to those of other western democracies which happen to have more comprehensive social pr...ograms. (Remember that correlation?) But to make a stronger welfare state would require more spending, and to do that we need more revenue. If we repeal the Bush tax cuts and then substantially raise taxes on the top two tax brackets, that will generate considerable revenue by itself. To get more, I would also certainly support scaling back our military operations, which President Obama has repeatedly indicated is on the roadmap.See More
        about an hour ago ·
      • Dustin Franz Okay so you say stay the course. Great idea, that's all I needed to know. /thread (That isn't what we said at all...)
        33 minutes ago ·
      • Eric Newport And if you ever want to see how great an idea libertarianism is, just pop on by to Somalia. It's working out real great for them. (If Dustin's going to use condescending humor, we might as well join in on the fun.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/somalia-libertarian-parad_n_197763.html
        Somalia: Libertarian Paradise (VIDEO)
        www.huffingtonpost.com
        The inimitable Andy Cobb is at it again, taking libertarians to task for their h...atred of all things government. You know what has no government?See More
        14 minutes ago ·
      • Eric Newport
        Oh BTW, what I said was raise revenues, which is far from staying the course. But don't let pesky facts get in the way of your grossly unpopular political ideology... You know, I've been real kind to you in this discussion. Insult after ins...ult you throw at me, and I let it go. You really should find a new way to be persuasive. Most people would have told you off by now. Maybe that's why libertarianism is so unpopular. Maybe all the libertarians out there act like you. (A polite warning to Dustin that if he wants to be more persuasive next time, he should improve his debate decorum.)See More
        5 minutes ago · · 1 personLoading...
Close
In this photo:
Sponsored
Loading...
Dustin Franz
5 mutual friends