Debate: Should Obama get his second term?
Side: yes

Answer these questions.How is government funded? Does government possess any assets without taxation? Does government have any financial authority without taxation?Technically speaking our government owns nothing because it is public, however practically speaking it owns its institutions and their collective works.Does a business have any financial authority without charging a bill? In other words, speaking in the context of our discussion, taxation and a private bill are practically the same.Government is funded by private citizens in an capitalist economy. Government has no assets so none of the taxation is generated by its own means.It doesn't matter if a business generates income by itself, it matters if it generates it by exchange with others.There is no transfer because government prohibits these types of jobs to the private sector by law.Does not change the fact that they are not transferred jobs, but created ones.Again, you only presume government is the only entity that can provide certain services. The private sector is may be unable to provide a service because of the laws prohibiting competition such as NASA or USPS.Only the wealthiest oil corporations could hope to touch our military budget, and yet they fall short by about half. That is to say nothing of medical research, aerospace research and engineering, and physics research like the LHC which are all in addition to the military budget.All of the employees who work at NASA or Defense, whose money is it that they are using. Are these organizations self funded through their own personal money?, No because the employees whom work at these places are funded by taxation, who is paid by private citizens. Government employees taxes are just recycled into the system because their source of money can from the private sector. It is government taking from private citizens.They use their own money, which comes from providing a service to the public (taxes), through trade of goods (technology to the private sector and other governments).There is no such as as surplus wealth. If government accounts for 40% of the 100% of the economy, that means that 60% of the economy must provide for 100% of the people because 40% is being transferred from private to public.It really isn't that simple, because a portion of that 40% is often made accessible to the people in the form of student aid, welfare, unemployment, social security, schools, medicine, etc. The other 60% as utilised by the private sector is never distributed in a manner approaching equality and that is why you have one percent of the people holding fourty percent of it (which would mean as per your numbers that 1% of the people hold 16% of the nation's economy in their hands).To answer your actual question however, what I mean by surplus wealth is that wealth which is beyond the living means of the owner.For instance, lets say I am a private citizen and you are government. I produce 100 dollars of the entire economy in our world for 100% of the population, so you impose a tax of 5%, so now I only have 95 dollars. Next, you say that you will create more jobs. Where are you going to get it? Well, me because you don't possess any assets. So, you impose a tax of 10%, now, I only have 90 dollars. Now, you want more government jobs, impose 25%, now, I only have 75 dollars. So, now, I have to support our economy on only 75 dollars where it was 100 because 25 are being diverted to the public sector.It's the same exact issue with private companies. If you have 100 dollars, and this is the total GDP, and a business charges you 5$ for medicine, you now have 95$ and the business has 5$. The business did not increase the GDP to 105$. Conservation of wealth, like conservation of energy.MiltonMiltonI never cared for Milton Friedman's opinion. He's a bit of a nutter.This only shows your lack of knowledge of Keynesian economics. It is not about fixing social problems.Keynesian economics is merely the idea that government can intervene to stimulate the market where it is acting with reduced efficiency.Because private entrepreneurs use their own money by saving and invest or if they borrow money, then they pay it back, government doesn't use its own money because it doesn't have any of its own, so any money it borrows, neither are they paying it back with your own money, that burden is put onto the shoulders of taxpayers.You just explained how a government uses tax, and the behaviours surrounding government borrowing. What I'm interested in is the fundamental changing of hands which both sales and taxes employ.And that money is who money does it belong to.It would be the government's money, since they provided a service and you are paying for it.It's how corporatism works in democracy.Same thing.Healthcare coverage is so poor because it is rationed care not driven by market forces, but you want government run health care where even more ration care will emerge.The healthcare act is not socialised medicine. It is private medicine, which means that the "rationed care" you speak of is a capitalist phenomenon.Well, they cured Polio. BUTYour going to cry over the few for the many. REMEMBER YOU ARE A BIG ADVOCATE FOR GREATER GOOD.Polio was a life threatening disease, and it is gone.It is a matter of the "welfare of the few, for the many" because right now those bad ethics are wildly illegal. If they were not, it wouldn't be the few any longer but a large number of annual deaths and deformities caused by standard medical research practice.There is nowhere where government has done better than private industry if so, because government has no competition, NASA, USPS (First class mail), and EducationMost of them you hardly notice: roads, research, technological development, military, police, courts. Also: government put a man on the moon and a probe on mars. What has big business done for you?Why do you keep assuming I applaud Bush? Those laws hurt non profit search as well as your government research.I don't.Despite your sentiments for the little guy, you are because no matter how much of a complete failure management was, you think that they should be bailed out. Those workers would just find different jobs.Just wait until you get fired or laid off from your career at age fifty, and are desperate to find work for almost a year but no one hires you because you're old and they want new, young professionals. You really have no empathy for these people because you're too self-absorbed.One other detail: since many thousands of them would be laid off, this means that the market would be suddenly flooded with people who have the same credentials, which means they would probably receive lower salaries on top of losing their retirement.I am certain that one man, Branson, will be able to provide space travel for any paying customer instead of the select few the government picks. Maybe, space travel may become as inexpensive that anyone will be able to fly and experience it.I'm not as hopeful, look at airline security and how often a plane crashes. I can just imagine the skies being littered with thousands of bodies due to cost-cutting and terrorists.