Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson Claims Government 'Science' Overrides Medical Freedom

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Aazadan

Of course not.

But could you explain to me in detail how high tax rates creates jobs? How does taxing income create jobs?

How does increasing the size of government create jobs in the private sector?

Because taxing money doesn't remove it from the economy. The government is just another consumer, and it's a consumer with expensive tastes and deep pockets. Any tax money spent goes right back into the community in the form of contractors that get hired.

If you tax something, you're also spending. A job is created.

If you don't tax something, private citizens are spending. A job is created.

The only real difference is in volume. 200 short $5 jobs vs 1 long $1000 job.

Well, that's an interesting view on taxation. I'm not entirely sure I've ever run into that one before.... It might apply to some degree to local taxes but not to federal. We don't have local income taxes in our community.
No jobs are created when the taxes paid go to banks for interest on the loans the government keeps getting.
Every sector of government borrows money---none of them can live within their means. That's the issue that is going to cause the entire structure to collapse. That's the issue that Johnson can address in a knowledgeable way. That's probably why he won't be in the debates. Neither party wants to reign in spending other folks' money. They're having too much fun spending it!
It's time to get someone in the office who actually knows how business works, has built a business and understands the relationship between government and commerce. Johnson has been successful in both the commercial and governmental spheres. Weld has a degree in economics and extensive experience in cutting spending. As independents they can talk with both sides. They seem to me to be the logical choice.
They acknowledge the authority of the US Constitution. That's a refreshing thing.
Johnson was plain in his answer. Vaccination is a state issue.
What he could have said was that only in some sort of extreme emergency would the feds have any input into the vaccination issue. He could have gone on about it I'm sure but his time in front of the cameras is limited so I'm thinking he moved on to talk about issues that he might actually face. It's a polite way to answer such nonsensical questions.

"CDC’s Purchase of $4 Billion of Vaccines a Conflict of Interest in Overseeing Vaccine Safety"

From: healthimpactnews.com...

Funny how hundreds of millions and billions in profits and contracts keeps coming up when research all the money vaccine companies lose.

And this does not cover the research money government hands out?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Aazadan

Really, what about the money that goes to pay the interest on the 18 trillion in debt. Or the money that gets sinked into treating health wise and educating illegal aliens. You give Apple and Microsoft business, they generate wealth. Government only consumes wealth, hence a 18 trillion national debt.

Money that pays interest doesn't get removed from the money supply, it goes to pay bond holders. Some of that is banks, the largest chunk of it private US citizens

Money that educates illegal aliens is given to those who teach them in the form of wages. Even if it were given directly to the illegals, the illegals still spend it (even if it gets sent home, it still ultimately gets spent, and circulates back to us over time).

originally posted by: Kapriti
Such a rose-coloured view is very striking. It of course fails to account for all of the missing tax dollars that have vanished from the USA's Pentagon and State Department to name but two.

That missing tax money was spent, we even know what it was spent on. What isn't known is how much was spent on each service because government accounting is a giant unfixable mess once you get into the fact that they have to hand transcribe stuff from one system to another.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Well, that's an interesting view on taxation. I'm not entirely sure I've ever run into that one before.... It might apply to some degree to local taxes but not to federal. We don't have local income taxes in our community.
No jobs are created when the taxes paid go to banks for interest on the loans the government keeps getting.

It applies to all taxes. Money leaves through taxation and reenters through spending. The only difference is in the type of jobs it creates. The private sector creates wants while the public sector creates needs. Also, plenty of jobs are created when you pay the interest on loans. I said this before but the bond holders get their interest payment, you also get payment to retirement accounts, which ultimately becomes a persons income stream and is spent. Furthermore, if it goes to a bank it becomes part of their cash on hand, which they can then write loans against in order to fund private business.

a reply to: Aazadan

You are wrong, governments destroys wealth, hence our 18 trillion in debt. What brought the USSR down.

By your logic, no state government should be in debt. That should clue you in your arguments are pseudo-logic and half truths.

Sorry you cannot see the truth.

The guy is a whack job anyway.

Catch him with Chris Wallace.

Oh boy! lol.

originally posted by: neutronflux


"CDC’s Purchase of $4 Billion of Vaccines a Conflict of Interest in Overseeing Vaccine Safety"

From: healthimpactnews.com...

Funny how hundreds of millions and billions in profits and contracts keeps coming up when research all the money vaccine companies lose.

And this does not cover the research money government hands out?

The FDA oversees vaccine safety, so there is no conflict of interest.

a reply to: Aazadan
Are you being serious? If taxation were the subject of the thread----well, let's say you need to re-investigate your economics education.
Simply put---government does NOT create needs. That's the first thing you need to understand.
But nice try at derailing the thread to talk about the need for more government....and taxes.

a reply to: diggindirt

Simply put---government does NOT create needs.

No, but it can create demand, which can get an economy running again if it has been contracting.

a reply to: DJW001

Well, gone from no money in vacations to the FDA has it. It's that like saying the 911 WTC dust samples were harmless by the EPA finding s? Or the DOJ saying the FBI does not need to investigate the Clinton Foundation?

How many FDA approved drugs have been taken off the market due to unforeseen complications?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: diggindirt

Simply put---government does NOT create needs.

No, but it can create demand, which can get an economy running again if it has been contracting.

You mean just not tax as much so people have more buying power. Oh, it's better to have an insufficient IRS collect taxes and have corrupt politicians redistribution the wealth with added overhead and waste. Like buying hammers for 100s of dollars so lobbyists can trickle in the kick backs.

Gary Johnson vs Pickle Jar.

Who will win?

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Aazadan
Are you being serious? If taxation were the subject of the thread----well, let's say you need to re-investigate your economics education.
Simply put---government does NOT create needs. That's the first thing you need to understand.
But nice try at derailing the thread to talk about the need for more government....and taxes.

Government provides for needs. Utilities, defense, safety standards, and so on.

originally posted by: neutronflux
By your logic, no state government should be in debt. That should clue you in your arguments are pseudo-logic and half truths.

If they taxed more, they wouldn't be but people have an irrational dislike of taxes and governments (especially state/local) have an irrational desire to waste money.

a reply to: DJW001
Oh, you mean like "demand" for health care insurance by passing a law making those of us who have no need for health care insurance into outlaws with a stroke of the pen?
No thanks.

a reply to: Aazadan
My electricity comes from a consumer-owned cooperative. My water comes from a well in the back yard. Federal taxes have nothing to do with either.
Perhaps your education needs some tweeking before you continue telling us how the government creates needs---more education than the typical reporter---like the ones asking federal candidates about state issues. Don't believe what you hear from those poor "journalists" who don't recognize the difference between state and federal issues.
The topic of the thread was mandatory vaccines---which Johnson correctly pointed out is a state issue.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: DJW001
Oh, you mean like "demand" for health care insurance by passing a law making those of us who have no need for health care insurance into outlaws with a stroke of the pen?
No thanks.

No, that is not what I'm talking about. I hope you never need medical attention, because you will be in for a most unpleasant shock, whether you are insured or not.

originally posted by: diggindirt

The topic of the thread was mandatory vaccines---which Johnson correctly pointed out is a state issue.

I don't even think it is a state issue.

it's an individual rights issue.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yup, you have the right to not be vaccinated. You have the right to remove yourself from polite society as well as employment by those who may required vaccination.

You have the right, through your inaction, to allow your children to be disallowed from entering public schools.

a reply to: Phage

you are so right.

Forgive me for having the temerity of questioning authority.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: neutronflux
By your logic, no state government should be in debt. That should clue you in your arguments are pseudo-logic and half truths.

If they taxed more, they wouldn't be but people have an irrational dislike of taxes and governments (especially state/local) have an irrational desire to waste money.

Always raising taxes to pay for a debt that never gets paid off. Or just the general misuse of public funds. Again it's not irrational when the public servants fail at stewardship and funnel money to their cronies. I would rather have the right to spend my money and not give that right up.

How does it feel to fail at so many levels?