/liberty/ - Liberty

lol wat why do u hate people why dont u want people to have stuff

>>16714

sorry forgot flag

>>16713

Neither party is anything close to being fiscal responsibility, the republicans seem to want to increase military spending while cutting taxes.

If the nation is going to go in debt, may as well do it giving something the American people.

>>16713

holy shit taxes aren't just going to 'rise' they're going to fucking skyrocket

>>16713

FEEL THE BERN IN YOUR POCKET

18 trillion.

Total pop. of the US - 322 million

average rise ~ $55900 per annum per person

~ $ 4658 per month

lol da 1% will pay for this xd

let's use the 2%, because, who am I kidding, they're gonna tax more people than they say they are going to.

~ $ 2795031 per annum

~ $ 232919 per month.

>>16726

Military spending is so marginal compared to new deal welfare bullshit it's often not even worth mentioning.

>>16731

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax

>>16737

Numbers add up to $18.28T

Source

https://archive.is/WxOi6

Infographic doesn't mention that its over 10 years, still though hes asking for nearly a 50% increase in national spending, furthermore he has admitted that his plan to increase taxes can only fund 1/3 of it.

>>16741

ahahahahahahahahahaaa

my bad, it was so bad I couldn't believe it

>>16742

>it was so bad I couldn't believe it

I didn't believe it either when he first announced it, whats more is that hes still saying its viable even though its missing 2/3 of its funding even after raising taxes.

"We are just going to raise taxes!" - Sanders, a few days ago

He is a complete retard.

>>16746

America wasn't the freest nation on Earth during its first 200 years?

>>16745

>Still wont be as free as us

Don't you have shocktroops breaking into people's houses for saying bad words on the internet, newzie?

>>16882

You're absolutely right. There's plenty of room for cuts in the US's military budget, mostly due to it primarily going toward wars that we have no business fighting against people who are in no way, shape, or form a threat to us. The United States could easily remain the dominant military power on the planet with only a small fraction of the budget.

But, like that other anon said, the money wasted on the military is nothing compared to the money thrown away on welfare and other social programs. It doesn't really matter what other nations are spending "compared to us", what matters is that a huge sum of money is being completely wasted. Given a choice, cutting/vastly reducing the social programs will do way more good than slashing the (comparative) drop in the bucket that is the military budget.

>>16882

All this map tells me is that the USA subsidizes other country's militaries. If we want to make the socialist hellholes in Europe collapse already, we should just stop funding wars in the Middle East/stop strengthening their militaries. The extra €€€ they'll have to spend on their military to keep up with their current bloodlust afar and on the home front will cause them to collapse.

>>16884

In RA's defense, military are some of the biggest welfare queens in the USA, and I hope you include social programs like the GI bill and their free sorry, "subsidized" housing, as well as veteran's benefits when calculating that out.

>>16888

Oh, and per capita we have about the same size military as the US, its just that the vast majority of the spending goes to 'projects' run by politically connected people where they always blow way over budget because bolts suddenly cost $400 rather than $5 and toilet seats have to be gold plated for some reason.

Like that gas station in Afghanistan, projected cost was something like $1M and it ended up costing $40M.

>>16891

Sorry, the US has twice the armed forces per capita than us

my bad

How does deregulation decrease prices? How can I prove this?

>>16895

Regulation stiffles competition, as it makes entering the market a lot harder and tends to be overproportionaly harsh on smaller companies. It also prevents many innovations from ever happening.

>>16897

Yes, but if the government can just tax/print money, then won't they be able to make services like college and healthcare extremely cheap?

>>16898

They could make it free, in that colleges and healthcare cost the recipient nothing. Still, someone will have to pay, but that's always the case. There are a few unique problems with pseudo-free education and healthcare.

One, inflation, if you print money. This should go without mention.

Second, you can't really do this without patronizing specific educational and healthcare services. This creates a number of problems. Imagine that there's two mechanics in town, Carl and Mike. Mike is a natural talent; if your car is broken, he won't fix it, he'll essentially tune it. Carl is a talentless heck, just good enough to get the job done. In a free market, all things being equal, Carl will have to make his service much cheaper than that of Mike if he wants to get customers. If the government patronizes them, things become different.

If they patronize only Carl, so only he can repair cars "for free", then he will have an unfair advantage over Mike, and many people will go to him, not Mike. Mike will have to raise his prices to stay in business, so now, fewer people will be able to afford his services when they need them. Furthermore, the incentive for Carl to do a better job? Now gone. He already has a stable base of clients now.

If they patronize Mike, then Carl will go out of business. Mike now has a monopoly. But surely the government will prevent him from raising his prices too much, right? They will try, but then his other services, like the customer service, will suffer, and his "necessary expenses" or whatever the bureaucrats will call it will skyrocket. Suddenly, every customer needs the most expensive repairs on the planet, and the customer won't have to pay for it so he won't complain.

If they patronize both, then the outcome depends on the specifics, but what'll definitely happen is that you'll have an army of bureaucrats whose only job is to watch out that neither Carl nor Mike do shady shit to get the most out of their subsidies. Both of them will have to hire a new lawyer, keep more detailed books and generally work a shit ton more just so they and the government will be able to get along. They'll also listen less to their customers and more to the government, so the quality of their services will suffer. You'll be able to get your car repaired for free, but you and every taxpayer in your jurisdiction will just pay more taxes for it, and the sum of money paid for one car repair will be much higher than if the governmet just kept out of it.

>>16898

taxes will come from the people, so its not free. its just forced redistribution

printing money doesnt actually create any value. it just makes the money people already have worth less, the difference goes to the 'new' money / whoever recieves it. wich is always big banks.

Free college is dumb. You're going to college so you can learn to be rich and have a high income. That means you can afford to pay your debts.

Why should poor people pay for that shit? Not only does free college mean an inefficiently large number of people go to college (often enough when they should instead be doing things that are actually useful or educational), it's also unfair on the people that didn't go to college but still pay taxes.

That's before you go into the deadweight loss of taxation- since people now have an incentive to avoid paying taxes instead of an incentive to pay off their debts

>>18460

Also the main effect of free college is to pay for things that people don't consider worth the price (in terms of cash + interest) if they're paying for it themselves- since otherwise they would have taken out a loan for that much

>>18462

>>18460

yes

also if they werent assholes intervening in everything, other finance models than classical loan would crop up

e.g. venture capital style, or junk bonds

both of wich have no unlimited liability for debtor. unlike the the govermental loans.

the us government are loan sharks that lend to people who have no chance of paying it pack. wonder how that will end.

>>18475

>>18475

The humanities served a purpose before FAFSA and the GI bill fucked it up in America.

Europe fucked up their humanities the moment they started sending people to college for "free."

You know, I think Sanders is a good guy. He strikes me as honest, not paid off, and well-meaning. I think he honestly cares and believes socialism is going to help people. It won't, but his heart is in the right place even if he's dead wrong.

Though I guess it just goes to show how good intention alone isn't enough. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. I think that can be said for a lot of statists. They're not all power-hungry control freaks. A lot of them are decent folk who do care and believe their form of government will improve the lives of the people around them.

>>18569

My last girlfriend was a supporter of Sanders, and she is one of the most hard-working people I know. So yes, I do believe that many statists do have their heart in the right place, they are just misguided. Judging by how Bernie fucked up in that interview where he literally couldn't comprehend why someone would object to being ruled, I'm not willing to give him the benefit of doubt, though.

>>18574

>Judging by how Bernie fucked up in that interview where he literally couldn't comprehend why someone would object to being ruled

Are you talking about that one where he just couldn't seem to give a straight answer to "Can someone delegate rights that they don't have themselves?", or was there another interview that I'm not aware of? I just really like seeing that guy flounder.

Anyway, I'm generally of the same opinion as you. It's often somewhat difficult for me to keep in-mind when I see a lot of the stupid shit they say, but I really don't see most statists/leftists as being bad people. They just don't seem to realize what the policies they're proposing actually mean, or what the results of those policies always wind up being (namely that the lower and middle classes just end up worse off).

Sanders, on the other hand, just seems like he's never done honest work in his life. He's a classic example of a parasite who's spent his entire life trying to squeeze more free money out of the government/taxpayers, and the only thing he seems to be any good at whatsoever is being a career politician – which basically makes him the scum of the Earth in my eyes.

>>18608

I figured it was obvious that most statists have good intentions, they're just fucking retards with their methods.

>>18617

To me, some of the more outspoken ones just come across as wanting to take a moral high ground without actually doing anything. And it can be easy to get tricked by a vocal minority.

>>18633

Also, there's the matter of them not fully comprehending what they're actually proposing. There's a big difference between someone who actually understands the tenants of socialism/communism/whatever and still supports it, and someone who thinks to themselves "Welfare? Sure, helping the poor is a good thing to do".