This guy speaks the truth...Wow! That guy's cool. I'd never heard of him before. Thanks DE.
Well, I took his advice and stopped watching halfway through.
He sure talks a lot, but I'd love for him to back up all of the assertions he's making. I think he'd have a hard time doing that.
|
The only job government has is taking care of its people.
This statement really surprised me. I typically don't get into political debates (religion is much safer). But seriously?
I take care of myself. I see the government as an entity that allows me to do that. I can't even conceive of a time when I felt like the government took care of me.
The only job government has is taking care of its people.This statement really surprised me. I typically don't get into political debates (religion is much safer). But seriously?
I take care of myself. I see the government as an entity that allows me to do that. I can't even conceive of a time when I felt like the government took care of me.
Isn't providing the framework for the country and providing the means for you to take care of yourself (infrastructure, laws protecting you etc.) a way to take care of you?
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Let's face it, we are living in the information age. The idea of a representative democracy made sense back in the day, when news took weeks or months to travel around. These days we don't really even need the House of Middlemen to put forth our issues for us, and yet we continue to let it go on unabated.
Sadly, with the flow of information comes the flow of misinformation. The state of education, even in the best schools in the nation, are not such that most Americans are taught to distinguish bias from truly balanced accounts of what's really going on, and so much of our media is owned or operated by large commercial conglomerates that getting facts across without some agenda—be it liberal or conservative in bent—is nigh on impossible. So before we put the decisions directly in the hands of the public, we'd have to insure that people were actually being informed of the facts instead of given half-truths or propaganda from info-tainment personalities like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow.
|
|
Isn't providing the framework for the country and providing the means for you to take care of yourself (infrastructure, laws protecting you etc.) a way to take care of you?
Yes and no. I guess that a lot of it is attitude. Saying something like "The only reason the government exists is to take care of me" seems rather selfish and ... (something, but I can't think of the word.)
It takes the blame off of the individual. It takes the responsibility off of the individual. It provides an easy scapegoat to blame. Also "take care of..." is rather ambiguous. What does that mean? Does welfare "take care" of you? Will social security "take care" of me? Does unemployment "take care" of you? No. In which case, if that's the government's "only" job, they seem to be doing a pretty piss poor job of it.
...Sadly, with the flow of information comes the flow of misinformation...
Too true. Even worse is the proliferation of "data" available to support or deny almost any assertions. The internet has allowed a proliferation of organizations purporting to provide unbiased data while in truth forwarding an agenda. In many cases, it's necessary to unravel funding to discover whose interest is being served. That's more than most people are willing to do.
Sadly, it seems to me that people are only becoming more entrenched in their positions, not persuaded or enlightened.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
The only job government has is taking care of its people.I take care of myself. I see the government as an entity that allows me to do that. I can't even conceive of a time when I felt like the government took care of me.
The idea that everyone has the same opportunities and abilities to "take care of themselves" lacks compassion, empathy, and an ability to comprehend reality. A government must ensure that each of its citizens is not denied any of their human rights, including shelter and sustenance. In the case of someone who loses their job of no fault of their own, who is going to "take care of them" if not the government? If someone gets cancer and can no longer work, or reaches an age at which they can no longer labor to put food on their table or medicine in their cabinet, what then? Survival of the fittest?
To your question, I would ask
|
|
Is the idea of a government which takes care of its citizens so scary that people refuse to believe that doing so is the primary tenet of the institution?
As with most things there is a balance. And probably a rather tricky balance to mantain. I guess that I am scared that we seem to be looking more and more to the government to solve all our problems. I don't know why exactly, but that really does scare me.
|
The only job government has is taking care of its people. That's the only reason to have government. In fact, it's the only thing government is. The exclusive purpose of the state is taking care of its people.
But the government has NO business dipping into MY pocket, telling me how I MUST spend the money I earned!
If you (for example) get sick, and can’t pay your medical bills, I'm sorry, but you should have better prepared for that eventuality (you can buy health insurance if your job does not offer it). It is not my obligation to pay one red cent of your medical expenses!
But the government is trying its best to pass a bill that will require me to do just that...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
The only job government has is taking care of its people. That's the only reason to have government. In fact, it's the only thing government is. The exclusive purpose of the state is taking care of its people.But the government has NO business dipping into MY pocket, telling me how I MUST spend the money I earned!
If you (for example) get sick, and can’t pay your medical bills, I'm sorry, but you should have better prepared for that eventuality (you can buy health insurance if your job does not offer it). It is not my obligation to pay one red cent of your medical expenses!
But the government is trying its best to pass a bill that will require me to do just that...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I have seen this rationale repeatedly in various places, and I honestly don't get it. To me this would be akin to having resentment for your fellow motorists because "they are using the road that YOUR money paid for!"
|
|
To me this would be akin to having resentment for your fellow motorists because "they are using the road that YOUR money paid for!"
ROFLMAO!!!
The roads are for public and private use...
Your visit to the hospital (for whatever reason), and however you decide to pay for said visit, is between you, your doctor and possibly your insurance agency! The government needs to stay the heck out of that equation...
By PAUL KRUGMAN
What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment.
That is certainly textbook. Unfortunately, it is "textbook Keynesian economics". And it never works.
The idea that it stimulates the economy by putting money in people's pockets assume the money appears out the air, instead of admitting that for every $10 it puts into the economy it has to first take $12 out somewhere else.
As to morality, helping people is moral.
Using the police powers of government to force some to be hurt in the process of helping others is immoral.
Also, reducing the work motive and perpetuating poverty is immoral.
You reaching into your own pocket is the first.
Government mandated redistribution is the latter two.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
But the government has NO business dipping into MY pocket, telling me how I MUST spend the money I earned!
Do you have the same problem with them "telling you" to spend your money on roads, to pay for injured veterans' medical care, for the guys who will try to put out a fire if it's burning your house down, the establishment of libraries, museums, and schools, judges' and district attorneys' salaries, pensions for teachers who instruct your children? This line of reasoning seems incredibly selfish to me, and always has. I make enough money to put food on my table and pay my rent. I'm more than happy for anything else to go to those who need it more, and I don't have the time to allot and manage it across various institutions; I leave it to the government to administer my tax dollars. A certain level of bureaucracy is unavoidable, but it's better than everyone thinking only of themselves and others needlessly going without.
But the government has NO business dipping into MY pocket, telling me how I MUST spend the money I earned!Do you have the same problem with them "telling you" to spend your money on roads, to pay for injured veterans' medical care, for the guys who will try to put out a fire if it's burning your house down, the establishment of libraries, museums, and schools, judges' and district attorneys' salaries, pensions for teachers who instruct your children? This line of reasoning seems incredibly selfish to me, and always has. I make enough money to put food on my table and pay my rent. I'm more than happy for anything else to go to those who need it more, and I don't have the time to allot and manage it across various institutions; I leave it to the government to administer my tax dollars. A certain level of bureaucracy is unavoidable, but it's better than everyone thinking only of themselves and others needlessly going without.
Hooray for the moral obligation speech!
|
|
ROFLMAO!!!The roads are for public and private use...
Your visit to the hospital (for whatever reason), is between you and your doctor! The government needs to stay the heck out of that equation...
The details of your visit may be kept in confidence, but what and how much you pay could become very public. Even if you are insured, bankruptcy is only one life-threatening catastrophe away. If someone can't pay their bill, the hospital and insurance companies will make up their loss by forcing everyone else to pay more. You also act as if you would be taxed and then have no claim to the benefits.
Furthermore, with the public option off the table, what specific portion of the bill do you object to?
Furthermore, with the public option off the table, what specific portion of the bill do you object to?Any portion of it which would further the spending of capital that this country won't produce at any time for the next two or three gnerations; in short, all of it.
Hooray for the moral obligation speech!But the government has NO business dipping into MY pocket, telling me how I MUST spend the money I earned!Do you have the same problem with them "telling you" to spend your money on roads, to pay for injured veterans' medical care, for the guys who will try to put out a fire if it's burning your house down, the establishment of libraries, museums, and schools, judges' and district attorneys' salaries, pensions for teachers who instruct your children? This line of reasoning seems incredibly selfish to me, and always has. I make enough money to put food on my table and pay my rent. I'm more than happy for anything else to go to those who need it more, and I don't have the time to allot and manage it across various institutions; I leave it to the government to administer my tax dollars. A certain level of bureaucracy is unavoidable, but it's better than everyone thinking only of themselves and others needlessly going without.
So if you slipped and fell on some ice in the street, leaving you on the ground with two broken legs and a broken cell phone (because you happened to land directly on it), you'd be perfectly OK with people just passing you by without helping you out? I mean, you can take care of yourself and there is apparently no moral obligation to help your fellow man, right?
|
|
Do you have the same problem with them "telling you" to spend your money on yada yadda yadda
Ah yes, he's a heatless Republican response...
LOL...
See, the things you listed, well, they're not even the same thing. The only thing that remotely even comes close would be veteran’s medical care. But I support our troops (shocking huh), and they earned it serving our country (Joe Blow down the street's broken arm, not my problem)...
Most of the things you list are poorly run, and severely mismanaged. And I do not like seeing my tax dollars spent so recklessly...
Government run healthcare will be no different...
|
|
Any portion of it which would further the spending of capital that this country won't produce at any time for the next two or three gnerations; in short, all of it.
According to the CBO, both the house bill:
and the senate bill:
would reduce the deficit by 100 billion dollars over the next 10 years.
So if you slipped and fell on some ice in the street, leaving you on the ground with two broken legs and a broken cell phone (because you happened to land directly on it), you'd be perfectly OK with people just passing you by without helping you out? I mean, you can take care of yourself and there is apparently no moral obligation to help your fellow man, right?Hooray for the moral obligation speech!But the government has NO business dipping into MY pocket, telling me how I MUST spend the money I earned!Do you have the same problem with them "telling you" to spend your money on roads, to pay for injured veterans' medical care, for the guys who will try to put out a fire if it's burning your house down, the establishment of libraries, museums, and schools, judges' and district attorneys' salaries, pensions for teachers who instruct your children? This line of reasoning seems incredibly selfish to me, and always has. I make enough money to put food on my table and pay my rent. I'm more than happy for anything else to go to those who need it more, and I don't have the time to allot and manage it across various institutions; I leave it to the government to administer my tax dollars. A certain level of bureaucracy is unavoidable, but it's better than everyone thinking only of themselves and others needlessly going without.
No, I'd be pretty pissed at the passersby, because their sense of morality did not mesh with my own. However I also wouldn't wish to empower my government to pass some sort of Seinfeldian "Good Samaritan Law" that would force those same people to do anything that they did not feel they must do.
In other words, just because my sense of morality (or yours) would cause me to want to act in any particular manner to help my fellow man, does not give me the grounds on the basis of some sort of "moral authority" to force others to do the same.
Do you have the same problem with them "telling you" to spend your money on yada yadda yaddaAh yes, he's a heatless Republican response...
LOL...
See, the things you listed, well, they're not even the same thing. The only thing that remotely even comes close would be veteran’s medical care. But I support our troops (shocking huh), and they earned it serving our country (Joe Blow down the street's broken arm, not my problem)...
Most of the things you list are poorly run, and severely mismanaged. And I do not like seeing my tax dollars spent so recklessly...
Government run healthcare will be no different...
But you have no problem forking over your hard earned money to a for-profit organization which can decide your medical fate (and indeed maybe your whole financial fate) at their whim?
I don't get this, to me, irrational distrust against anything that's labeled as "the government" - but you apparently blindly trust businesses implicit, businesses whose sole purpose is to make money for their owners, not to help you (which is just the current bi-product of their business, if something else would be more profitable, they'd run that kind of business instead).
|
So, anything the Government runs is severely mismanaged and poorly implemented, yet you think the Veterans deserve Government run medical care? Further, is this a uniquely American thing, where the Governments can't run anything even remotely efficiently? Finally, do you support the Government dipping into your pocket and taking money to pay for roads, defence, Medicare, Veteran Care etc?
Over here in the Socialist Hell we call the UK, we have a welfare system that runs pretty well. Everyone's insured under the NHS, and surprisingly, this means we spend less of our GDP on Healthcare then you do in the US.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
But I support our troops (shocking huh), and they earned it serving our country (Joe Blow down the street's broken arm, not my problem)...
You're making the assumption that it's always gonna be the other guy. In my experience, very rarely does someone maintain this viewpoint after they've needed assistance, whether it be from losing their job, suffering a natural disaster, or coming down with an illness or disability that they can not handle themselves. I'm not saying I wish these things upon you, but I would be curious to see how things might change should your circumstances ever be different.
Any portion of it which would further the spending of capital that this country won't produce at any time for the next two or three gnerations; in short, all of it.
According to the CBO, both the house bill:
and the senate bill:
would reduce the deficit by 100 billion dollars over the next 10 years.
According to the CBO we also aren't currently in as much debt as we all know we are in. Also according to the CBO Medicare is self-sustaining.
Do you have the same problem with them "telling you" to spend your money on yada yadda yaddaAh yes, he's a heatless Republican response...
LOL...
See, the things you listed, well, they're not even the same thing. The only thing that remotely even comes close would be veteran’s medical care. But I support our troops (shocking huh), and they earned it serving our country (Joe Blow down the street's broken arm, not my problem)...
Most of the things you list are poorly run, and severely mismanaged. And I do not like seeing my tax dollars spent so recklessly...
Government run healthcare will be no different...
But you have no problem forking over your hard earned money to a for-profit organization which can decide your medical fate (and indeed maybe your whole financial fate) at their whim?
I don't get this, to me, irrational distrust against anything that's labeled as "the government" - but you apparently blindly trust businesses implicit, businesses whose sole purpose is to make money for their owners.
If anything in a review of 2500+ years of human history has taught us that an immediate distrust of anything labeled as "the government" is anything BUT irrational.
The only job government has is taking care of its people.This statement really surprised me. I typically don't get into political debates (religion is much safer). But seriously?
Seriously. The state itself is a social welfare undertaking from start to finish. Among the entitlement programs it runs are the police, public utilities, the military, the fire department, the courts, and so forth. These are all for the public good. We benefit from having them. (Well maybe not so much the military in my book, but most people would count it.)
I take care of myself. I see the government as an entity that allows me to do that. I can't even conceive of a time when I felt like the government took care of me.
It's really what I believe. I am a known weirdo. But tell me if you disagree with any of the following:
Need for the government's services is far from uniform. (Nor, sadly, is the ability to secure them when they are needed.) If you've lived an amazingly fortunate life, maybe it's the case that you never needed the services of the state. Have you ever driven down a public road? The government built that, not just for you but for all of us. Ever been to a national park or historical site? Thank the government for preserving it for you and everybody else to enjoy. Ever appreciated that the cashier at the store knew squiggly lines on the buttons meant so he could enter the correct amount and then count out the correct change? Not all of those people went to private school, and even many who did probably benefited from having access to public libraries and the like.
If you've ever been in a hospital, even a private one, you're the likely beneficiary of some government funding. Were you vaccinated as a kid? Many municipalities subsidize childhood immunization. If you went to the family doctor, consider that it cost him probably a few hundred thousand to get his education...but it would have cost far more if not for state subsidies to the programs up to and including the building and underwriting of entire universities. (I forget the exact numbers, and it's been a few years, but the actual cost of training a doctor is somewhere in the millions of dollars range. Yes, just one doctor.) The food you're eating? Guess what roads it came to you on. That's true even if you've never touched a food stamp or had to eat welfare cheese.
It's not a you thing, though. It's not a me thing either. The government is taking care of us. All of us, all the time. That's what we have it for. And we benefit even if we're not direct participants in the programs, by virtue of living in a society that's more educated, orderly, and so forth than it would be without them. It's protecting us from violence, famine, disease, any number of things.
It has its faults (some very grievous), its follies, and the like as any other human institution does. It's certainly not perfect or all-wise. But it's not all-evil or all-incompetent either. It provides an almost endless list of services which we benefit from, directly or indirectly, from before we're born (Remember those doctors again? How about prenatal exams? The sterile hospital room where most people are born? For that matter how about public sanitation, period?) right up through our dropping dead when its laws and courts will enforce our last will and testament.
But it's not a binary thing. It's not the case that the government takes care of you and therefore no one else has. Today I got up without its intervention, but I might not have. I was born with hip dysplasia. If not for a doctor who got his training in part due to the government carrying most of the costs, and then more doctors and nurses and a surgeon or two, I might not have ever walked.
The house I grew up in might not have been there for me, since my father was laid off for 18 months well before he could finish paying for it. But due to government assistance he was able to keep up mortgage payments so the bank didn't come for it. The state didn't sent a person to feed me as a baby. My parents did that. But the food came to them on state-built roads and was certainly cheaper than it would be if it had to navigate a maze of private and for-profit tollways.
My parents might have been able to send me to private school. I'm an only child. My father went to private school. But they opted for public school so the government took care of my basic education. I was taught by teachers who doubtless themselves went, by and large, to government schools and government colleges. Some of them doubtless benefited from government financial aid. Then their schools, public or private, likely benefited from some state subsidies. And they went to them on those public roads again. :)
I could go on and on, as I usually do.
I don't know if you've felt like it, and certainly the American government doesn't go out of its way to do things for its citizenry compared to other modern democracies, and we are encouraged to take these services for granted and then carp about paying for them, but I think that the facts strongly argue that the state does take care of us. It's not, by and large, direct personal care but be benefit enormously from all its myriad programs, grants, subsidies, services, and the like.
|
|
You're making the assumption that it's always gonna be the other guy. In my experience, very rarely does someone maintain this viewpoint after they've needed assistance, whether it be from losing their job, suffering a natural disaster, or coming down with an illness or disability that they can not handle themselves. I'm not saying I wish these things upon you, but I would be curious to see how things might change should your circumstances ever be different.
If you lose your job, most of the money comes from your old paycheck...
But I have been in a situation where I have needed assistance (in the form of food stamps). I hated it, and it wasn’t long before I was off of them. Welfare has its purpose. But too many leech off this system, because somehow they feel it's owed to them...
Government provided Healthcare will not be any different...
No, not a model of individual liberty. Just a real world instance of your crank anarchism put in practice. I'd call it the very opposite of individual liberty and freedom, just as I would Stalin's USSR.
There are other African nations with larger governments that have very similar conditions and higher death tolls. I take it that you see Somalia as a model of individual liberty.
Interesting.
In your world view is there anything that the government should not control?
But you have no problem forking over your hard earned money to a for-profit organization which can decide your medical fate (and indeed maybe your whole financial fate) at their whim?It's called capitalism...
I have a choice. If company A does not perform to my satisfaction, then I choose B or C...
Except when company A won't cover your medical expenses and suddenly you're in deep, deep debt and you can't pay the premium that company B or C charges. Not that it matters anyway, because they won't take you on as a customer because of a pre-existing condition (and neither will company D to Z), the condition company A didn't want to cover.
Then you're up shit creek, but hey, you made your choice and you didn't want universal health care, so it's really your own fault.But again, that would NEVER happen to you, right?
|
|
So, anything the Government runs is severely mismanaged and poorly implemented, yet you think the Veterans deserve Government run medical care? Further, is this a uniquely American thing, where the Governments can't run anything even remotely efficiently? Finally, do you support the Government dipping into your pocket and taking money to pay for roads, defence, Medicare, Veteran Care etc?
I said most, not all things run by the government are mismanaged (though I'm hard pressed to name something run by our government that is properly managed)...
Paying taxes for the road's upkeep (which here in California is next to non-existent), is just not the same as somebody’s medical bill. And the reason I don’t see this as an issue with our service men and women, is because they volunteered to enter the armed service, and they got hurt on the government's dime, so it is only fitting that the government pay for their medical expenses...
If anything in a review of 2500+ years of human history has taught us that an immediate distrust of anything labeled as "the government" is anything BUT irrational.But you have no problem forking over your hard earned money to a for-profit organization which can decide your medical fate (and indeed maybe your whole financial fate) at their whim?
I don't get this, to me, irrational distrust against anything that's labeled as "the government" - but you apparently blindly trust businesses implicit, businesses whose sole purpose is to make money for their owners.
Ahh but of course. While those nice altruistic for-profit companies have done absolutely nothing to make anyone distrust them... at all.
So, government can't be trusted, they always screw up and have, throughout the history of man, never done anything good or useful. Gotcha.|
|
Except when company A won't cover your medical expenses and suddenly you're in deep, deep debt and you can't pay the premium that company B or C charges. Not that it matters anyway, because they won't take you on as a customer because of a pre-existing condition (and neither will company D to Z), the condition company A didn't want to cover.
Then you're up s%~# creek, but hey, you made your choice and you didn't want universal health care, so it's really your own fault.
But again, that would NEVER happen to you, right?
Right, and when the government runs things, they would never NOT accept anyone based upon existing preconditions either would they?
Interesting.In your world view is there anything that the government should not control?
Given how I described Stalinist Russia, I would think the answer obvious.
But sure. Luxury good distribution, for one. The private sex lives of consenting adults. The content of entertainment. (I don't think it's any kind of government issue if you hear a naughty word or see someone's genitals on TV, or if your child does in the middle of his or her cartoons as the case may be.) Personal fashion choices. The color you paint your house. The length of your hair. How frequently you masturbate. The selection of chemicals are are permitted to knowingly consume for your own recreation.
I could go on and on.
Right, and when the government runs things, they would never NOT accept anyone based upon existing preconditions either would they?Except when company A won't cover your medical expenses and suddenly you're in deep, deep debt and you can't pay the premium that company B or C charges. Not that it matters anyway, because they won't take you on as a customer because of a pre-existing condition (and neither will company D to Z), the condition company A didn't want to cover.
Then you're up s%~# creek, but hey, you made your choice and you didn't want universal health care, so it's really your own fault.
But again, that would NEVER happen to you, right?
Not to my knowledge, but that's speaking from an European point of view. If you were ill you'd never be turned away from your doctor or the hospital over here. If it isn't life threatening, you might have to wait a little while instead of getting immediate treatment, but that's called triage and is basic common sense.
I can also inform you that here in Denmark we have a treatment guarantee, meaning that if the state hospitals can't fit you into their schedule and treat you within 1 month, then you can be referred to a private hospital, with the government paying for the treatment (at the actual cost of the same treatment done by a state hospital).|
|
If you were ill you'd never be turned away from your doctor or the hospital over here.
We have that too; it's called an emergency room...
No one can be turned away...
Problem is, many of those that have no health coverage (and in some cases, enough to cause several emergency rooms in California to shut down, no legal status to be here), tend to abuse this and go in when they have a simple case of the sniffles...
quoted Paul Krugman. The same Paul Krugman who helped Enron. You remember that company, don't you? The one that lied to regulators, demanded its employees buy up its stock, and then suck like a lead balloon because they never actually made a profit. Yeah, that Paul Krugman.
Senator Bunning did what more people should have done: pointed out that the current "pay as you go rules" are constantly circumvented. The political parties apparently have no interest in truly stopping the massive debt mounting upon the taxpayers. Every time there is a "crisis" or a "problem" the politicians will claim "it's an emergency" and violate whatever promises they have made to stop spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave.
The funny thing is, at least the drunken sailors are spending their own money. Politicians have no option but to take it, by force, from their constituents.
I have always found it amusing and quite sad that those who support stronger government control must always impose such control at the point of a gun. Never do they say "please donate money to our cause." Always, it is "you will pay us, you will be forced into national health care, you will use an outdated pyramid scheme for your retirement, or you will be sent to prison."
Never has someone on the left offered to create a voluntary system, where people have the freedom to choose what is best for themselves.
If you were ill you'd never be turned away from your doctor or the hospital over here.We have that too; it's called an emergency room...
No one can be turned away...
Problem is, many of those that have no health coverage (and in some cases, enough to cause several emergency rooms in California to shut down, no legal status to be here), tend to abuse this and go in when they have a simple case of the sniffles...
And if they had health coverage they'd probably go to their doctor instead. I know that the use of ERs for trivial matters are a problem, but the question is whether that's the fault of the government? Education is another important government issue and people should be taught to go to their primary care taker instead of the ER for anything not immediately dangerous (i.e. open wounds, fractured bones etc.).
So yes, in theory you could be turned away at a hospital over here, if you just came in with a cold. You'd be told to go see your doctor instead (and 99,9% of people here would go see their doctor first anyway).So in that regard it's a "cultural" thing that needs to be changed.
quoted Paul Krugman. The same Paul Krugman who helped Enron. You remember that company, don't you? The one that lied to regulators, demanded its employees buy up its stock, and then suck like a lead balloon because they never actually made a profit. Yeah, that Paul Krugman.Senator Bunning did what more people should have done: pointed out that the current "pay as you go rules" are constantly circumvented. The political parties apparently have no interest in truly stopping the massive debt mounting upon the taxpayers. Every time there is a "crisis" or a "problem" the politicians will claim "it's an emergency" and violate whatever promises they have made to stop spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave.
The funny thing is, at least the drunken sailors are spending their own money. Politicians have no option but to take it, by force, from their constituents.
I have always found it amusing and quite sad that those who support stronger government control must always impose such control at the point of a gun. Never do they say "please donate money to our cause." Always, it is "you will pay us, you will be forced into national health care, you will use an outdated pyramid scheme for your retirement, or you will be sent to prison."
You are free to try moving to parts of the world where there is no real government and thus no "taxing you at gun point" (which is hyperbole if I ever saw any). See how you like it there. You'd be free to do as you please and could forge your own destiny!
If the government is oppressing you so much, why haven't you left a long time ago?Edit: For a humorous take on this, watch this clip, especially the last part. :-)
Never has someone on the left offered to create a voluntary system, where people have the freedom to choose what is best for themselves.
Can you point out where the right has done that?
|
|
Can you point out where the right has done that?
The right wanted to reform social security so that one could open a "retirement account" in their name and with the ability to manage it themselves, or they could choose the system currently used (this was during the Bush Administration), but the left wanted nothing to do with it...
Can you point out where the right has done that?The right wanted to reform social security so that one could open a "retirement account" in their name and with the ability to manage it themselves, or they could choose the system currently used (this was during the Bush Administration), but the left wanted nothing to do with it...
More importantly private charity would be the obvious answer.
This line of reasoning seems incredibly selfish to me, and always has. I make enough money to put food on my table and pay my rent. I'm more than happy for anything else to go to those who need it more, and I don't have the time to allot and manage it across various institutions; I leave it to the government to administer my tax dollars.
I find something humorous about this comment, coming from someone who is a "superscriber". Looks like you have plenty of disposable income that you are selfishly using to purchase the things you want. If you would be satisfied with having just enough money to cover your cost of living, why not cancel all of your subscriptions and donate that money to a worthy cause of your choice. There is surely some non-profit charity that you deem worth out there.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I find something humorous about this comment, coming from someone who is a "superscriber". Looks like you have plenty of disposable income that you are selfishly using to purchase the things you want. If you would be satisfied with having just enough money to cover your cost of living, why not cancel all of your subscriptions and donate that money to a worthy cause of your choice. There is surely some non-profit charity that you deem worth out there.
You don't have all the facts, and I'm not about to discuss the ins and outs of my finances or the specifics of my subscriptions with you, especially not in a public forum. You're welcome to make any assumptions you like, but claiming I'm a hypocrite is hardly the way to win people over to your side of the argument.
Interesting.In your world view is there anything that the government should not control?
Given how I described Stalinist Russia, I would think the answer obvious.
But sure. Luxury good distribution, for one. The private sex lives of consenting adults. The content of entertainment. (I don't think it's any kind of government issue if you hear a naughty word or see someone's genitals on TV, or if your child does in the middle of his or her cartoons as the case may be.) Personal fashion choices. The color you paint your house. The length of your hair. How frequently you masturbate. The selection of chemicals are are permitted to knowingly consume for your own recreation.
I could go on and on.
Ironically every example you have given is regulated by the government in one form or another.
This is the failing of the states kindness that you are in favor of.
I don't think that state should be in the business of defining marriage and family, but a welfare state requires such thing to be defined for the purpose of benefits. Pro family conservatives argue that changing the definition of marriage impacts the tax payer. They seem to conveniently forget that these systems were theoretically engineered to benefit their preferred definition of family. All of this supposed government help comes at the price of individual liberty.
The state claims to own the airwaves, so they control them to protect the citizens. I would prefer the issue be removed from the state altogether.
Would you do away with the FDA and laws scheduling drugs? For the most part I would beyond transparency, but the FDA in protecting us from "bad" drugs also prevents life saving drugs from being legally available. In some cases they prevent drugs that are legal for one purpose from being prescribed for "non approved" life saving purposes. I you want the drugs to save your life in these cases you must commit a serious crime or leave the country sometimes permanently. You believe that this is a net plus trade off I gather. I don't.
More over the state that is supposedly protecting us is politicized and corrupt. I'm sure we would differ as to the extent.
I don't think the state is the solution to most of our problems. You think it is the solution to a lot more than I do.
On a side note it may be helpful if both sides try to avoid the error or assuming the other to be the most extreme. You calling me an anarchist is inaccurate, and my implying that there is no area of human existence that you would not have the state regulate is probably not useful.
This line of reasoning seems incredibly selfish to me, and always has. I make enough money to put food on my table and pay my rent. I'm more than happy for anything else to go to those who need it more, and I don't have the time to allot and manage it across various institutions; I leave it to the government to administer my tax dollars.I find something humorous about this comment, coming from someone who is a "superscriber". Looks like you have plenty of disposable income that you are selfishly using to purchase the things you want. If you would be satisfied with having just enough money to cover your cost of living, why not cancel all of your subscriptions and donate that money to a worthy cause of your choice. There is surely some non-profit charity that you deem worth out there.
I'm fairly certain this line of reasoning is a fallacy, but I'm not sure what I would call it.
In any case I think the default assumption should be that it's his money to do with as he pleases.
The direction this argument usually goes is along the lines of "If liberals think the government is so great why don't you give them all your disposable income?" followed by a private charity version back at the conservative side. It tends to go down hill from there.
It may just be my private nature, but questioning how someone else spends their own money doesn't really seem right.
|
More importantly private charity would be the obvious answer.
A pet peeve of mine with private charities (to include tax exempt churches). Removing the "loophole" that allows people to avoid taxes by donating to a charity or to a church would do alot to help with the deficit.
The other thing i would like to see happen is removal of the current income tax system and move to a value added, "use based" tax. Simply putting x% tax on all goods (with the exception of groceries and clothing up to a certain dollar amount). This would encourage restraint and saving by the general populace and rich people wouldn't be taxed more unless they spent exorbitantly.