Things I would fight for if I am elected president

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 35
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
1) Paying off the entire US debt using the following plan:
2) Aim to increase the stock market 500% by increasing our population 500% and putting the people in the counties that want them.
3) Want the federal standard for abortion to be up to 8 weeks into pregnancy (unless your a rape victim, then you get 12 weeks, or unless you need the abortion to save your life, then up until the moment of birth)
4) Protect family values; more prosecutions for deadbeat dads, and making sure fathers raise their kids.  This includes if the fathers are undocumented.  All fathers matter.
5) Bring back the death penalty in every state for murderers rapists, and kidnappers, saving $25.2 billion a year, and using that money to give our struggling teachers a $8400 a year raise, providing better education for our kids since better people would be attracted to teaching.
6) Nationalize the education system once the US debt is paid off so the states can use the money they dedicated for education to pay off their state debts (teachers get a starting salary of $68400 a year)
7) Implement a federal rape victim insurance plan.  It works by every female paying $.15 a day to the federal government and if they get raped, get pregnant from the rape, and are able to successfully prosecute their rapist, they get $300,000 restitution for the trauma of being raped.  If they abort, they get $100,000.  The rapist gets killed.
8) Replace prison sentences with lashings for minor crimes to save the taxpayer money and to reduce re offense rates.
9) Anyone that steals would be subject to a day of hard labor per $160 they stole.  After their sentence, the state hooks them up to a job to where they don't have to steal anymore because they are busy and not poor anymore.  The job would pay $40,000 per year with healthcare as a salary.  The jobs they would be doing are outlined here:
10) Run this country like a buisiness; customers aren't kicked out for being undocumented, customers pay money for the stuff they get here (taxes, jobs, goods and services bought here), this business doesn't bomb other businesses in war unless for self defense, and America gets rich off of freedom. 

If anyone disagrees with any part of this, let me know; I don't block and it's okay if we don't agree 100%; I don't expect anyone too and I'm not going to get mad over disagreements.


TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Think this is based?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Terminating pregnancies at birth is generally referred to as either giving birth, or a caesarean section.

And good luck with the plan, which seems to mostly hinge upon reforming the criminal justice system.


Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,971
4
6
9
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
9
I am actually impressed by the level of detail in that link.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Thanks.  Would you support it?
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Terminating pregnancies at birth is generally referred to as either giving birth, or a caesarean section.
The kid doesn’t die from this, so it’s not an abortion.

And good luck with the plan, which seems to mostly hinge upon reforming the criminal justice system.

Thanks; I have other beliefs outlined in a different spreadsheet, but I am a big death penalty supporter for murder, rape, and kidnapping; it helps reduce the incarceration rate.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,696
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Lots of work clearly went into that spreadsheet. However it seems that the fundamental assumption is that if you somehow get 1.5 billion people in the front door the stock market would increase in value by the same ratio as the population shift.

It does not work that way. Let's set aside all the nonsense about manipulated currency and assume a perfect currency which always buys the same basket of goods.

The people coming in have no assets (wealth in real goods or liquids like gold, silver, diamonds, currency). They don't have the means of production. Most are unskilled. The only thing they have to sell is manual labor.

Of course, given time to work they will produce value. Given time to learn and an efficient education sector they will also become more skilled.

However, in the interim they will add almost nothing to the wealth of the nation. Mechanization does almost everything, by that I mean almost all the energy we use in our economy (for growth) is expended by machines and not humans or animals.

In many cases we simply couldn't even organize a way for humans to do it faster or cheaper no matter how many there were or how cheaply they were willing to work.

Most simple treatments of macroeconomics lump everything together into GDP, but the more classical theories and the more obvious truth is that spending money on lipstick and silicon valley social media companies (for example) is not producing any further wealth.

It is luxury (or you might say discretionary) spending, economies grow fastest when you invest your production in further means of production. If you have a lathe in a town of a thousand, don't spend all your time making bolts. If you do bolts will always be expensive. Spend as much time as you can building new lathes.

I don't want a society based on manual labor. Great empires destroyed themselves with slavery (the cheapest of manual labor). When human time and effort is cheap there is no economic motivation to become more efficient (or stay efficient). Efficiency multipliers are what increases the average quality of life.

We should run headlong into the utopia singularity and that is not done by drowning ourselves in desperate misguided people. When we put ourselves back on the exponential growth curve we will be able to afford to bring in people and educate them in one shot so they can do things that humans do best (not working in the fields).

What you think your chart shows is a way to get out of debt, but only by magically assuming that you can 5x the population and production while not 5x the spending. The spending is already ridiculous, and so long as you don't address the root cause of that it will simply continue to outpace all economic growth and potential.

The root cause is government action based on the premise that failure indicates insufficient funding no matter the details. There is no upper limit to the wastefulness of this notion.

The government has thrown away the greatest of advantages after WW2 and lost the manufacturing edge. The US is a dying economy living on old credit, clout, and military/clandestine interventionism.

The government spends more than it has and burns fat. The trade deficit is the other glaring clue.

The inexorable laws of economics are causing the world to ask the simple question: What has the USA done for us lately?

The answer is: Not much, we barely build anything, our new tech is no longer cutting edge, our science is average.

We sell weapons, food, culture, and culture related accessories (like everything silicon valley does).

Culture and weapons, and the culture is barely selling anymore (Hollywood is crap).

All we have left is weapons, and wow look a war started that just happens to call for an enormous amount of US weapons. Weird coincidence.

We need to stop wasting all the stolen money, best way to do this is to stop stealing the money. Then we need to stop skewing the market in detrimental directions. If skewing must be done it should be towards investing in better means of production and more durable products.

Only then will our wealth begin to build fast enough to satisfy the ever increasing expectations for luxury and free time.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
So why would anyone abort/kill a foetus at 9 months.

Can you give me examples of where this normally occurs in the U.S.

Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,984
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
2) Aim to increase the stock market 500% by increasing our population 500% and putting the people in the counties that want them.
As President, how would you go about increasing the population 500% exactly?

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The people coming in have no assets (wealth in real goods or liquids like gold, silver, diamonds, currency). They don't have the means of production. Most are unskilled. The only thing they have to sell is manual labor.
Labor is worth money.  If they ALL work a minimum wage job that pays $7.25 an hour for 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, and there are 900 million workers, this produces an additional $13 trillion in the US economy.

However, the vast majority will work non minimum wage jobs and the minimum wage is higher in many locations, so this adds even more value.  I have to assume that they will earn the same amount as the typical US citizen because I don't know what else to assume.  The market won't increase 500%; but it would still skyrocket overall because even in the worst case scenario, it still goes up 50% in one year and realistically, I could expect the market to go up about 250% (but the model would have it increase 500%).

I don't want a society based on manual labor. Great empires destroyed themselves with slavery (the cheapest of manual labor). When human time and effort is cheap there is no economic motivation to become more efficient (or stay efficient). Efficiency multipliers are what increases the average quality of life.
Empires destroyed themselves because countries invaded them.  When there are a lot of labourers, you have more of a capability to innovate because there are more minds in the country with the possibility to innovate.

What you think your chart shows is a way to get out of debt, but only by magically assuming that you can 5x the population and production while not 5x the spending. The spending is already ridiculous, and so long as you don't address the root cause of that it will simply continue to outpace all economic growth and potential.
If the US population increased 4.64 fold, the US GDP (assuming the GDP per capita stays constant) will increase 4.64 fold, but the spending only has to go up by about 20%.  This is because the US government spends money on many expensive items that don't have to go up with population growth.  Certain items would increase with population, just not the majority of items.  I also don't support giving government funds for projects where the undocumented benefit.  They can go through the legalization process, then they will get treated as citizens.


TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
There are 800,000 annual abortions in the US.  About a third of them are after 8 weeks and these abortions should mostly be banned.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
If the US population grows by 500% by letting people come into the country, the stock market would increase by about 500% because more population->more workers->more customers->more money for companies->higher stock market value.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,696
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
The people coming in have no assets (wealth in real goods or liquids like gold, silver, diamonds, currency). They don't have the means of production. Most are unskilled. The only thing they have to sell is manual labor.
Labor is worth money.
Only if it produces something that is worth something to others who have something to trade.

If they ALL work a minimum wage job that pays $7.25 an hour for 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, and there are 900 million workers, this produces an additional $13 trillion in the US economy.
You've discovered the conceptual error at the root of minimum wage laws. You can't mandate value into existence. All you can do is mandate a certain level of compensation.

In circumstances where the work is not worth the product, there simply won't be a job opportunity.

There is a very useful skill in critical (rational) thinking: Take it to the extremes. Just like there are interesting points in the domain of a mathematical function, you learn about the nature of a relationship by looking at the extrema, equilibrium points, and asymptotes of proposed dynamics (even if they don't have explicit mathematical formulation).

What if you added to your plan that minimum wage is $1000/hr?

Wouldn't that imply that you don't need any new people and the GDP would just grow by the factor of approximately 1000/7.25?

You must see that is not what would happen. If the Federal Reserve didn't print 1000X the dollar bills almost all people would become instantly unemployed. If the Fed did print the money people would stay employed but a chicken sandwich would be $899.

You can't produce chicken sandwiches by signing a piece of paper or printing money.

I don't want a society based on manual labor. Great empires destroyed themselves with slavery (the cheapest of manual labor). When human time and effort is cheap there is no economic motivation to become more efficient (or stay efficient). Efficiency multipliers are what increases the average quality of life.
Empires destroyed themselves because countries invaded them.  When there are a lot of labourers, you have more of a capability to innovate because there are more minds in the country with the possibility to innovate.
No, that is a shallow analysis. Like guns, germs, and steel. The threats to the Roman Empire for example only went down with time. Carthage was a greater threat than the Goths ever were. It was Rome that became weaker, yet they had more slaves than ever.

It's true that if everyone is doing manual labor there is no time to do anything else, however it was innovation not slavery (or cheap labor) that freed people by increasing the food production per person.

The agricultural revolution was not built on the back of slaves either. Slavery was an "innovation" born of war. Prisoners put to work.

If the US population increased 4.64 fold, the US GDP (assuming the GDP per capita stays constant) will increase 4.64 fold
No, the real GDP will not increase at all due only to human bodies.

This is because the US government spends money on many expensive items that don't have to go up with population growth.
U.S. Spending under deep state policies is proportional only to what they can get away with. If you increased the real GDP by some means they would simply spend more on something or other.

You must understand our current spending is at least ten times what could be considered necessary. There was a time before income tax, and while things have gotten better it has not been due to things paid for with income taxes.

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Only if it produces something that is worth something to others who have something to trade.
True, but the workers will produce things others are willing to buy.  Otherwise companies wouldn't hire them.

You've discovered the conceptual error at the root of minimum wage laws. You can't mandate value into existence. All you can do is mandate a certain level of compensation.
The companies still manage to make profit from the minimum wage; otherwise they would have gone out of business.

In circumstances where the work is not worth the product, there simply won't be a job opportunity.
True, but if this is the case, companies would have already gone out of business.

What if you added to your plan that minimum wage is $1000/hr?
I don't agree with this and have never advocated this position.  I think counties should set their own minimum wages, provided it's at least $7.25 an hour.

You can't produce chicken sandwiches by signing a piece of paper or printing money.
True, but more workers and more customers means you can produce more chicken sandwiches and more people would buy them.

It's true that if everyone is doing manual labor there is no time to do anything else, however it was innovation not slavery (or cheap labor) that freed people by increasing the food production per person.
Innovation allows for more food to be produced, but so does more workers.  Why not both?  I don't think they are mutually exclusive, in fact I think the more people are in your country, the more innovation comes to your country.  It's why as the world has gotten more people, technology levels have skyrocketed.

U.S. Spending under deep state policies is proportional only to what they can get away with. If you increased the real GDP by some means they would simply spend more on something or other.
I'd want to end that; the only spending I propose is outlined in operation get out of debt.

You must understand our current spending is at least ten times what could be considered necessary.
What would you cut to reduce spending by 90%?

There was a time before income tax
My plan has no income tax.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,696
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Only if it produces something that is worth something to others who have something to trade.
True, but the workers will produce things others are willing to buy.  Otherwise companies wouldn't hire them.
... but companies won't hire them. That's the point. If you have a field that can be fully harvested by two machines and ten workers, and 100 workers ask for a job; what are you going to do?

You're not going to hire 100 workers. Most would just be standing around, you couldn't afford to hire them because if 90 just stand around you aren't producing anymore than you used to.

You're going to hire the smartest/most hardworking workers that are willing to work for the least pay. If the wage is forced by government you will simply hire the smartest/most hardworking. If the wage the government demands for 10 workers is less than the cost of buying a specialized machine, you'll buy the machine and then you'll be employing nobody.

You've discovered the conceptual error at the root of minimum wage laws. You can't mandate value into existence. All you can do is mandate a certain level of compensation.
The companies still manage to make profit from the minimum wage; otherwise they would have gone out of business.
That is fallacious reasoning. Companies go out of business all the time. Do you simply assume that none of them have gone out of business because their business model required less than minimum wage labor?

Do you know how many currently unemployed could have been employed had those business models not been effectively outlawed?

Do you think the currently unemployed are better off getting no wage rather than a wage arbitrarily decided to be illegal?

Of course not, and it is quite plainly a vicious cycle. The more people sitting around doing nothing but collecting unemployment the less actual production goes on. The less production the more expensive things are. The more expensive things are the higher the poverty threshold and then ignorant left-tribers want to raise the minimum wage thus resetting the cycle.

In circumstances where the work is not worth the product, there simply won't be a job opportunity.
True, but if this is the case, companies would have already gone out of business.
Or automated...

What if you added to your plan that minimum wage is $1000/hr?
I don't agree with this and have never advocated this position.  I think counties should set their own minimum wages, provided it's at least $7.25 an hour.
Irrelevant what you agree with, we're testing your economic assumptions here.

You can't produce chicken sandwiches by signing a piece of paper or printing money.
True, but more workers and more customers means you can produce more chicken sandwiches and more people would buy them.
They aren't customers unless they're producing value to trade. They can't produce chicken sandwiches without a chicken farm. Like I said it depends on the available means of production. If there was a plethora of potential productive positions to fill more people will increase production. That is conditional, not some reliable law of economics.

Perhaps you could argue that you could open up federal lands and let them build new low-tech farms and mines... That would hardly be instant growth.

It's true that if everyone is doing manual labor there is no time to do anything else, however it was innovation not slavery (or cheap labor) that freed people by increasing the food production per person.
Innovation allows for more food to be produced, but so does more workers.  Why not both?  I don't think they are mutually exclusive, in fact I think the more people are in your country, the more innovation comes to your country.  It's why as the world has gotten more people, technology levels have skyrocketed.
Or maybe the population skyrocketed with more technology... When 3/4 of your kids die from starvation and sickness it really dampens the enthusiasm.

U.S. Spending under deep state policies is proportional only to what they can get away with. If you increased the real GDP by some means they would simply spend more on something or other.
I'd want to end that; the only spending I propose is outlined in operation get out of debt.
Then the necessary condition to get out of debt is within your plan and the rest are unrelated points. We don't need more or less people, we need to stop wasting money and driving the means of production out of the country.

You must understand our current spending is at least ten times what could be considered necessary.
What would you cut to reduce spending by 90%?
First define a standardized government contract (SGC) system with rules and requiring double-blind and  confrontational evaluation mechanisms.

Abolish taxes, causing the last veto on inefficiency to be the paying public. From that point (assuming the paying public agreed with whatever I said):

Cut the military budget by 80%, destroy the military industrial complex with SGC. Preparing to take over the world is an enormous waste of money if you aren't going to take over the world. There is much waste in government spending on top of that. So long as we have ICBMs we are immune from traditional forms of aggression.

Abolish both social security and income security and replace it with a closed wallet system with clear rules administered by computers (blockchain). Closed wallet = no discretion in spending money in hopes that future generations will buy in, that's called a pyramid scheme. The idea behind it is welfare/retirement insurance, run it like welfare/retirement insurance.

Abolish medicaid, medicare, and all government medical programs. Replace it with:

1.) A government option medical service. Government medical service (GMS) is just a corp of doctors, hospitals, pharmacological factories, and insurance program all administered as a non-profit. If the theory is that big pharma is conspiring to keep prices high, undercut is the obvious answer. If the non-profit can produce drugs cheaper then you were right. If it can't you were wrong. Neither scenario justifies stealing or (much much) worse threatening violence to anyone who doesn't practice medicine under your command.

2.) Public medical charity fund on the order of $10/year per citizen. The purpose of this fund is to provide for medical care through the GMS (or cheaper) to those people who genuinely can't afford it and only in cases where the medical situation threatens their life/productivity, is easily treated, and is not due to their idiocy.

So a homeless person breaks a bone for example. Someone who gives themselves diabetes is not. The rules governing what qualifies must be clearly spelled out and if they are not popular it may cause the fund to split. So for example left-tribers might think that someone contracting COVID would not qualify if they choose not to get vaccinated. Right-tribers might disagree, then they would have two different funds. One which funds unvaccinated covid patients and one which doesn't.

With computers, keeping track of thousands of different rule sets and getting instant answers about qualification is quite possible.

Abolish DOJ. Replace it with standard cooperation protocols between police forces of different states and counties. (there never was any intention for the federal government to enforce common law and the corruption of the DOJ is such that it is better to start over)

Declare the US insolvent and delete the debt. Constitutionally prevent the US from taking on debt again. Adopt a blockchain currency as the national currency to remove currency manipulation as an option for theft and fraud. (this removes all interest payments).

Department of education abolished and not replaced with anything with a significant budget. National guidelines on objective levels of education is fine, but it takes like a hundred people in a single office floor to maintain and publish such things. There is absolutely no reason for the federal government to steal money from the people just to give it to states in the name of "education". Those who care about education can and should do it as locally as they want. If an efficient system emerges it can grow organically.

Transport budget remains but becomes more efficient via SGC.

That reduces the total spending by 90% and makes the remaining 10% an order of magnitude more efficient.

There was a time before income tax
My plan has no income tax.
Your plan assumes that the portion of GDP spent by government can be much lower than it is now. You're wrong about what would produce a much greater GDP but you are right that public sector spending need not be so high.

It thus follows that if the economy could grow by 500% without the government spending growing, that we could reduce the current government spending by 1- 1/500% = 80%.

Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,984
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
If the US population grows by 500% by letting people come into the country, the stock market would increase by about 500% because more population->more workers->more customers->more money for companies->higher stock market value.
That's almost 1.7 billion people,  a fifth of the total world population, where would you get them, where would you put them, how would you feed them, how would they make a living.   I don't really think 1.7 billion homeless starving people will increase the stock market.  
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you have a field that can be fully harvested by two machines and ten workers, and 100 workers ask for a job; what are you going to do?
If you have 5x as many customers and before you had 10 workers that you would hire to maintain all the customers, now you would need 50 workers and 10 machienes to maintain all the customers.  If the company only has 10 workers for maximum profit, it's not going to lead to 90 unemployed people.  The unemployment rate in the US isn't 90%, it's about 3% (and it was higher when there were less immigrants in the country).

If the wage the government demands for 10 workers is less than the cost of buying a specialized machine, you'll buy the machine and then you'll be employing nobody.
This is an argument against automation, not mass immigration.  I am pro AI restriction to reduce the unemployment rate.

Companies go out of business all the time. Do you simply assume that none of them have gone out of business because their business model required less than minimum wage labor?
Companies go out of business, but they are less likely too if there are more customers in the economy supplied by mass immigration.

The more people sitting around doing nothing but collecting unemployment the less actual production goes on.
I am anti welfare.

The more expensive things are the higher the poverty threshold and then ignorant left-tribers want to raise the minimum wage thus resetting the cycle.
I think the minimum wage shouldn't rise to help reduce the unemployment rate.

Irrelevant what you agree with, we're testing your economic assumptions here.
The economic assumption is that more workers leads to more customers and more GDP.  This has nothing to do with the minimum wage.

They can't produce chicken sandwiches without a chicken farm.
If 5x as many people wanted chicken sandwiches, more infrastructure would be built by the private sector to accommodate everybody and more chicken sandwiches are being produced by more workers.

Perhaps you could argue that you could open up federal lands and let them build new low-tech farms and mines
I would argue that the existing land would be good enough to manage more chickens needed to produce chicken sandwiches since the facilities can just expand in size.

When 3/4 of your kids die from starvation and sickness it really dampens the enthusiasm.
I don't think this is going to happen with extra population growth.
we need to stop wasting money and driving the means of production out of the country.
What specifically would you cut by 90% or more to reduce the debt?  Is it social security?  Is it military spending?  Is it Medicare or Medicaid?  This is what you would have to cut in order to stop, "wasting money".  But if someone tried to eliminate these programs, it's going to be very unpopular with the American people no matter what your intention is.

First define a standardized government contract (SGC) system with rules and requiring double-blind and  confrontational evaluation mechanisms.
I don't know what your asking.  Your using big words.

Abolish taxes
How are you paying off the debt with no taxes?

Cut the military budget by 80%
I support making our military spending from 3.4% of our GDP to 1%.  This is a similar view to yours.

Abolish both social security and income security and replace it with a closed wallet system with clear rules administered by computers (blockchain). Closed wallet = no discretion in spending money in hopes that future generations will buy in, that's called a pyramid scheme. The idea behind it is welfare/retirement insurance, run it like welfare/retirement insurance.
If you abolish social security, the elderly that paid for it in advance are going to sue and win the legal case, causing us to go deeper into debt.

A government option medical service. Government medical service (GMS) is just a corp of doctors, hospitals, pharmacological factories, and insurance program all administered as a non-profit.
I don't think you will be able to provide healthcare to 32 million Americans under a nonprofit.  Nonprofits get little funding.

 If the non-profit can produce drugs cheaper then you were right. If it can't you were wrong. Neither scenario justifies stealing or (much much) worse threatening violence to anyone who doesn't practice medicine under your command.
Mark Cuban produces drugs significantly cheaper than big pharma.  People who need drugs should go to him for the drugs.

Public medical charity fund on the order of $10/year per citizen. The purpose of this fund is to provide for medical care through the GMS (or cheaper) to those people who genuinely can't afford it and only in cases where the medical situation threatens their life/productivity, is easily treated, and is not due to their idiocy.
This doesn't raise enough money to pay for Medicaid as it currently is.  Medicaid costs about $300 billion a year.  This idea cuts their funding to $3 billion a year.

So a homeless person breaks a bone for example. Someone who gives themselves diabetes is not. The rules governing what qualifies must be clearly spelled out and if they are not popular it may cause the fund to split. So for example left-tribers might think that someone contracting COVID would not qualify if they choose not to get vaccinated. Right-tribers might disagree, then they would have two different funds. One which funds unvaccinated covid patients and one which doesn't.
Doing this costs more than $10 per citizen in taxes.

Abolish DOJ. Replace it with standard cooperation protocols between police forces of different states and counties. (there never was any intention for the federal government to enforce common law and the corruption of the DOJ is such that it is better to start over)
The DOJ consumes very little federal funds.

Declare the US insolvent and delete the debt.
This is unfair to the entities that borrowed money from the US.  You can't just delete a debt without paying it off.

Department of education abolished and not replaced with anything with a significant budget.
The department of education does not consume a significant portion of the budget.

You're wrong about what would produce a much greater GDP
I disagree on this.  More people means more GDP since more workers means more salaries coming into the US.

It thus follows that if the economy could grow by 500% without the government spending growing, that we could reduce the current government spending by 1- 1/500% = 80%.
Most of the economy isn't reliant on government spending too much (except for things like roads, but not government subsidies).
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
That's almost 1.7 billion people,  a fifth of the total world population, where would you get them, where would you put them, how would you feed them, how would they make a living.   I don't really think 1.7 billion homeless starving people will increase the stock market.  
Multiple different points.  I'll address them one by one:

That's almost 1.7 billion people
1.2 billion migrants, 300 million citizens.
where would you get them
From wherever they happen to be from.  Gallup said that 1.2 billion people would move to the US if the government got out of the way and let people move in here.

where would you put them
In counties that voted for Clinton in 2016.

how would you feed them
They feed themselves by getting a job and buying food from the private sector.

how would they make a living
They get a job like everyone else for the most part.

I don't really think 1.7 billion homeless starving people will increase the stock market.  
The vast majority of them wouldn't be homeless; they would get jobs, build up homes managed by the private sector, and then they would be tenants paying rent or they would own the home through a mortgage.  They wouldn't be starving either since they would pay for their own food.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,696
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you have a field that can be fully harvested by two machines and ten workers, and 100 workers ask for a job; what are you going to do?
If you have 5x as many customers and before you had 10 workers that you would hire to maintain all the customers, now you would need 50 workers and 10 machienes to maintain all the customers.  If the company only has 10 workers for maximum profit, it's not going to lead to 90 unemployed people.  The unemployment rate in the US isn't 90%, it's about 3% (and it was higher when there were less immigrants in the country).
I may not respond to everything else, but this is the most important because this is the heart of your error.

I gave an example where economic production is not proportional to labor availability and you just blew through and assumed it was still proportional.

"A field", a field grows plants. Plants need certain things to grow: Water, carbon dioxide, secondary biological elements (fertilizer), and energy.

The energy comes from a nuclear reaction in a nearby star. The irradiance on the ground is fixed.

A field represents a fixed amount of power, a very quantifiable amount of energy is delivered to it every year. A certain percentage of that energy can be used by crops.

Once a farmer has added all the other ingredients in excess there is nothing (without further technology) he can do to get past the limiting factors of power and carbon dioxide.

In my example it took 10 people and some machines to provide excess for everything else. You just assumed you could scale up production to 50 workers. You can call 50 people workers, and you can put them to work, but that field will produce exactly the same amount of crops.

If the wage the government demands for 10 workers is less than the cost of buying a specialized machine, you'll buy the machine and then you'll be employing nobody.
This is an argument against automation, not mass immigration.  I am pro AI restriction to reduce the unemployment rate.
You're still not getting it. If the specialized machine is outlawed the business dies, or never starts. You can't make something profitable by law. If you could communism wouldn't have failed every time.

They can't produce chicken sandwiches without a chicken farm.
If 5x as many people wanted chicken sandwiches, more infrastructure would be built by the private sector to accommodate everybody and more chicken sandwiches are being produced by more workers.
If desire was the same as economic demand, and demand inevitably caused supply; they wouldn't want to come to the USA in the first place because their desire for chicken sandwiches exists in their home country even now.

They want to come because their country is poor and they think they can become rich in the USA. Why? USA is rich. Why? Means of production. Why? We were a bit more free for a bit longer than others.

If population predicted prosperity the USA would never have overtaken the old world, Europe would have never overtaken the classical and ancient world.

First define a standardized government contract (SGC) system with rules and requiring double-blind and  confrontational evaluation mechanisms.
I don't know what your asking.  Your using big words.
I was describing, not asking. The legal system is confrontational, you don't just have a judge that works with cops to decide if you go to jail or not. Prosecutors and barristers confront each other. Double blind is a mechanism for preventing conspiracy or contagious biases, it keeps people more honest when they can't tell what the opinions of others will be before deciding.

If you abolish social security, the elderly that paid for it in advance are going to sue and win the legal case, causing us to go deeper into debt.
Come on now, this is all fantasy anyway. Your plan and mine would never pass any congress likely to exist before some kind of armed revolution.

Why in the world would the rules of this imaginary world allow my plan to have near total popular support and yet I get a foolish judge. The truth is that those old people who were forced into social security were victims of theft. Their money is gone, it was wasted. It was a scam. The government is not responsible for making whole the victims of a scam.

If a judge would dare to imply that the previous system was not a scam, I'll simply pay plaintiffs in US dollars printed for the very purpose and utterly worthless since they were superseded by an honest currency.

A government option medical service. Government medical service (GMS) is just a corp of doctors, hospitals, pharmacological factories, and insurance program all administered as a non-profit.
I don't think you will be able to provide healthcare to 32 million Americans under a nonprofit.  Nonprofits get little funding.
The funding would depend on how many people use the service. If 32 million Americans pay into it, it will have money. The only reason it wouldn't have money is if nobody subscribed. The only reason nobody would subscribe is if it's doing a shit job compared to the private sector medical services.

Thus I don't give a shit how much funding it gets. It will get exactly as much as the "greed"/(quality + efficiency) of the private market allows.


Public medical charity fund on the order of $10/year per citizen. The purpose of this fund is to provide for medical care through the GMS (or cheaper) to those people who genuinely can't afford it and only in cases where the medical situation threatens their life/productivity, is easily treated, and is not due to their idiocy.
This doesn't raise enough money to pay for Medicaid as it currently is.  Medicaid costs about $300 billion a year.  This idea cuts their funding to $3 billion a year.
...
Doing this costs more than $10 per citizen in taxes.
First, you're confusing two different things. Medical charity is not a replacement for medicaid. Charity is for those who find themselves on the wrong side of bad fortune. If 32 million Americans couldn't provide for their own medical care that is proof positive the medical costs have been blown way out of proportion.

If it really costs $10,000 a year people need to make that choice themselves. I seriously doubt it costs truly $10,000 per year on average. ['Truly' means in an unmolested market, a market where prices were strongly negotiated and not skewed by government regulation and willingness to spend stolen money]

Declare the US insolvent and delete the debt.
This is unfair to the entities that borrowed money from the US.  You can't just delete a debt without paying it off.
They, like the medicaid and social security beneficiaries were scammed.

Scams are not fair, but neither can the victims be made whole in all cases.

Department of education abolished and not replaced with anything with a significant budget.
The department of education does not consume a significant portion of the budget.
650 billion dollars is significant enough to mention.

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"A field", a field grows plants. Plants need certain things to grow: Water, carbon dioxide, secondary biological elements (fertilizer), and energy.
This is correct, but there are 2 possibilities:
1) More fields can be produced with the excess population (like with deforestation).  if this happens, America merely does this, creating jobs and causing the economy to skyrocket.
2) More fields CANNOT be produced with excess population.  If this happens, then the private sector buys the food they need to sell to the American free market from overseas, and since letting people into the country does not cause the world's population to increase, there is still enough food to feed everybody, and the people that move here will get jobs in non farming industries, leading to these industries skyrocketing due to more customers buying more goods and there being more workers to produce them.

 If the specialized machine is outlawed the business dies, or never starts.
This is an argument against automation, not mass immigration.  I am skeptical about automation, only supporting it under the condition that all automated employees get hooked up to a job that pays at least as well as the one they previously had.  But in practice, if businesses could be automated now, they would have been automated a long time ago, so it would have been machines, not migrants, that took people's jobs.

If population predicted prosperity the USA would never have overtaken the old world, Europe would have never overtaken the classical and ancient world.
High population isn't correlated with GDP per capita.  Some of the wealthiest countries have small populations.  But high population is correlated with GDP since GDP=GDP per capita * population.  America's GDP per capita would stay roughly the same, it would probably fall a little, but not by much.  But the GDP would skyrocket, making it easier to pay off the debt.  It is harder for a nation to pay off it's debt if the GDP is $25 trillion and the GDP per capita is $70K than if it's GDP is $100 trillion and GDP per capita is $55K.  It's also not like your salary is going to shrink because of this, in fact you would be getting a raise because this allows the US to eliminate the income tax at the federal level, giving you a roughly 20% raise by not having to pay income tax anymore.

Your plan and mine would never pass any congress likely to exist before some kind of armed revolution.
If I get power, my plan has the potential to pass because I met many people who approve of it and even the government has a vested interest to approve of it because it pays off the debt, so they have a higher chance of getting re elected.

 If 32 million Americans pay into it, it will have money.
If those 32 million Americans are poor, they can't afford it.  This is Biden's plan of a public option (I'm not knocking you for supporting this, I'm just surprised since you are a libertarian).

They, like the medicaid and social security beneficiaries were scammed.

Scams are not fair, but neither can the victims be made whole in all cases.
I don't want the government to be a scammer.

The department of education does not consume a significant portion of the budget.
650 billion dollars is significant enough to mention.
I don't think the department of education costs $650 billion a year.  20summary.pdf (ed.gov) puts the figure at $64 billion.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,696
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
"A field", a field grows plants. Plants need certain things to grow: Water, carbon dioxide, secondary biological elements (fertilizer), and energy.
This is correct, but there are 2 possibilities:
1) More fields can be produced with the excess population (like with deforestation).  if this happens, America merely does this, creating jobs and causing the economy to skyrocket.
2) More fields CANNOT be produced with excess population.  If this happens, then the private sector buys the food they need to sell to the American free market from overseas, and since letting people into the country does not cause the world's population to increase, there is still enough food to feed everybody, and the people that move here will get jobs in non farming industries, leading to these industries skyrocketing due to more customers buying more goods and there being more workers to produce them.
It was an example of how production does not always scale with workers. There are thousands of other examples. In general we know mechanization has moved us far away from the days where production was proportional to population.

This "problem" is general, you can't just hand waive it away. I'm not going to go through every single scenario, as I said there are thousands. I shown the assumption of proportionality is incorrect.

 If the specialized machine is outlawed the business dies, or never starts.
This is an argument against automation, not mass immigration.
It is not even close to such an argument. If you outlaw sailing ships because you think employing rowers is a good idea, you simply won't get colonies or overseas trade because it's not worth it to anybody.

Limiting advancement is always the wrong move (strategically and morally).

But in practice, if businesses could be automated now, they would have been automated a long time ago, so it would have been machines, not migrants, that took people's jobs.
Depends on the cost of the labor, but can't you see that demonstrates non-proportionality?

If machines have already replaced people almost everywhere they can, then immigrants would compete with machines, not people. If you're claiming they can try to compete with a machine and still feed themselves I doubt it.


 If 32 million Americans pay into it, it will have money.
If those 32 million Americans are poor, they can't afford it.
If you are admitting that every poor person costs the public $10k/year in medical costs on average (and this is how much it really costs, it won't go down) how can you assume they would be a net positive to production? There mere fact of greater medical demand would increase costs further.

They either produce more than they consume or they don't. If they do, they don't need charity. If they don't, they certainly aren't helping you pay off any debt.


This is Biden's plan of a public option (I'm not knocking you for supporting this, I'm just surprised since you are a libertarian).
The liberal (renamed libertarian by left-tribe) checkbox is filled already by "abolish taxes". Anything that works or fails would then be by consent alone.


They, like the medicaid and social security beneficiaries were scammed.

Scams are not fair, but neither can the victims be made whole in all cases.
I don't want the government to be a scammer.
*darth vader voice* It's too late for that now, Underdog.

The department of education does not consume a significant portion of the budget.
650 billion dollars is significant enough to mention.
I don't think the department of education costs $650 billion a year.  20summary.pdf (ed.gov) puts the figure at $64 billion.
You misread:

The President’s fiscal year 2020 Budget Request (the Request) includes $64.0 billion in new discretionary
Budget Authority for the Department of Education
That was how much it was going up with no strings attached, also it was a request not a final budget decision.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It was an example of how production does not always scale with workers.
It might not, but for many industries, more workers means more machienes being built and more GDP being produced.

If you outlaw sailing ships because you think employing rowers is a good idea, you simply won't get colonies or overseas trade because it's not worth it to anybody.

Limiting advancement is always the wrong move (strategically and morally).
Fair point, but I'm worried about not having a job if a machine takes it.

If you are admitting that every poor person costs the public $10k/year in medical costs on average (and this is how much it really costs, it won't go down) how can you assume they would be a net positive to production?
I don't support giving government programs to the undocumented.  If they need a hospital visit and can't afford it, I'm cool with letting them die since I don't want to pay for their healthcare bills; it's too socialist for me.


ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,006
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
 If they need a hospital visit and can't afford it, I'm cool with letting them die since I don't want to pay for their healthcare bills; it's too socialist for me.
If you needed a hospital visit and couldn't afford it, would you be cool with dying? 
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,696
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
It was an example of how production does not always scale with workers.
It might not, but for many industries, more workers means more machienes being built and more GDP being produced.
Ok, we've been around the wheel too many times on that. I still disagree but you're not coming up with new arguments so I'll let it go.

Fair point, but I'm worried about not having a job if a machine takes it.
You should be worried about somebody trying to monopolize the machine. The value is product not effort.

If you are admitting that every poor person costs the public $10k/year in medical costs on average (and this is how much it really costs, it won't go down) how can you assume they would be a net positive to production?
I don't support giving government programs to the undocumented.  If they need a hospital visit and can't afford it, I'm cool with letting them die since I don't want to pay for their healthcare bills; it's too socialist for me.
How in the world would you have a government program to increase the population while calling the immigrants "undocumented?"

More relevantly taxing company income vs individual income is merely a layer of indirection. You're still stealing, you're just planning to allocate the stolen money on the premise that the existing budget is sacred even as the average quality of life goes down.

I guess that explains why you think this plan could be carried through instead of being voted down by the billion new people. They don't get votes right?

So you're telling them to come on over, there is no new land for them, no better tools, no affordable education, no affordable medical care, no right to vote.

I know it seems like the ride of immigrants never ends, but that is a bad deal and at some point people will notice. They can leave just as easily as they came, especially if they own nothing.


TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
If you needed a hospital visit and couldn't afford it, would you be cool with dying? 
I wouldn't want to die, but I would expect other people to rather have me die than to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of dollars to take care of me.  Just lie if I'm a starving child in Africa, I don't want to be in that situation and I would like it if I got adopted, but I can't FORCE anyone to adopt me.

One just has an obligation to not harm, not to help.
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,006
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
One just has an obligation to not harm, not to help.
And this is the source of our fundamental disagreement, I guess. I'd rather you not have to die for want of money. 
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
I'd rather you not have to die for want of money. 
So are you willing to adopt starving children you meet on the streets?  After all, if innocent human life must be saved no matter what, then that sets the precedent of the government mandating adoption to save lives, as the main thing preventing people from adopting is the fact that they don't want to spend money on other people's biological kids.
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,006
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
So are you willing to adopt starving children you meet on the streets?  
Can you really see no difference between adopting a child and contributing a very small amount of money to a collective pool of resources dedicated to healthcare? Those two things are ABSOLUTELY THE SAME to you? Let me help. Which one represents a commitment and rearrangement of my life, and which one do I forget about every two weeks?

 if innocent human life must be saved no matter what, 
Not what I said in any way. 

that sets the precedent of the government mandating adoption to save lives,
A straw man, graceless one at that, even for you bro. 

the main thing preventing people from adopting is the fact that they don't want to spend money on other people's biological kids.
Source.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you really see no difference between adopting a child and contributing a very small amount of money to a collective pool of resources dedicated to healthcare?
Implementing UHC in the US costs $3 trillion a year.  Adopting a kid costs $10,000 per year.  Since there are less than 300 million taxpayers in the country, it is more expensive to implement UHC on average for the typical taxpayer than it is to adopt a kid.
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,006
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Can you really see no difference between adopting a child and contributing a very small amount of money to a collective pool of resources dedicated to healthcare?
Implementing UHC in the US costs $3 trillion a year.  Adopting a kid costs $10,000 per year.  Since there are less than 300 million taxpayers in the country, it is more expensive to implement UHC on average for the typical taxpayer than it is to adopt a kid.
Adopting a child =/= raising a child, comparing the two is idiotic. And it has nothing to do with being willing to pay a tiny slice of your healthcare so that I don't have to pay as big a slice of mine when I need it, in the richest country on earth.