My belief is that if given the same amount of money, the private sector can significantly outperform the government in terms on efficiencies and output. The government is wasteful and inefficient. I respect it as your belief. It is not my belief and I don't believe it is true in some important cases. You guys porovide not shred of proof for your position. Repeat something often enough and it is perceived as common sense truth. National health care is more efficient than private medicine when supplying medical services to everyone. The State of Wisconsin has a non-profit government run life insurance program. (Unfortunately only available for Wis residents). It gives higher coverage and lower premiums than any for profit insurance company. It does this by lower administrative costs, which you can say include profits. It can therefore afford to pay out more benefits and charge less. Term life insurance is a no brainer. The concept was invented years ago. Forget your ideas of rugged Ayn Rand capitalists, taking big risks etc. Prior to the social welfare system in the US many more old people sold apples and pencils etc. during their old age. Private charity existed then. It just couldn't keep up with the needs. I know you guys would like to rewrite history. Private food pantries and church charities are dwarfed by the food stamp program when it comes to feeding the hungry etc.
That way everybody can get the same crappy care after a 6 hour wait at an astronomical cost to the taxpayers. Way to go, glynch.
As someone who lives in a country with socialised healthcare, I just wanted to let you know that you have *no idea* what you're talking about.
Let's keep this Republican thread where it belongs... on charities. Health care policy (not to mention my insurance statements!) gives me a sharp pain right behind the eyes.
Brilliant...now you are an expert on American healthcare...how rich. You'll never be able to do it the same way in the States because doctors come out of school in SIX FIGURE DEBT. This is not the case in most places with socialized medicine. The system would collapse from the top down, and it would ultimately lead to the lines I referenced earlier.
I believe I do better things with my money than the government therefore I am all for lowering taxes. THe governemtn wastes so much money, and is ver inefficent. I believe the federal governemnt should only supply the national needs (military, protecting out borders, assisting with infrastructure for interstate commerce) I guess my beliefs come back to people should be able to take care of themselves and their families. No need for the governemnt to be paying $300 for a toilet seat of for them paying to do a study that says "people need food to survive" or any other nonsence study that everyone knows is true. I am for the arts and charities, but they should be funded by individuals not by the governement allocating funds. I am also pre-agriculture but I say do away with subsidies. Let market prices prevail. If Milk goes to $4 a gallon so be it, it's not the goverenemt who should control prices.
I live in a country with socialized health care, and it sucks, and the natives think it sucks. I do strongly disagree that the private sector is necessarily more efficient though. Within that assertion is the assumption that the goal of the corporate world is to be most efficient in a way that is beneficial to the populace. That is simply laughable. The goal of all corporate entities is profit, for the executives and for (presumably although not always) the shareholders. In case after case (not even talking about criminal activity like Enron) corporations will sacrifice their workers health, the environment, even the overall economy to increase their own (mainly) short term profits. That is not conducive to long term efficiency nor to the short or long term health of the populace at large. While government intervention can be inefficient when compared to a theoretical market driven efficiency, that comparison changes radically when you compare government intervention to ACTUAL market response.
Might this have to do with all the money purloined via taxation for a good number of decades? Charities necessarily line up in second position looking for their handouts. The government is gonig to get their's no matter what. And you want to broadly compare them?
Don't do it!!! Make the l*zy f*cker actually read a book. In theory, he would have to read thousands of history books before he could come up with a shread of evidence for his "theory". And it would be a better world with a better educated bigtexxx.
Don't do it!!! Make the l*zy f*cker actually read a book. In theory, he would have to read thousands of history books before he could come up with a shread of evidence for his "theory". And it would be a better world with a better educated bigtexxx. My vote for one of the funniest posts ever. My wife heard me laughing out loud and wanted to know: "what's going on"! hehehehe
Unfortunately these ideas that become conservative cliches are dreamed up in think tanks, sponsored by multimillionaires or billionaires. They are then filtered down through Fox, talk radio and Reader's Digest type level to the bumper sticker. Those who've heard it thousands of times, don't feel the need to check it out. It's like the law of gravity. Why bother to learn the facts or assumptions behind gravity when it is so obviously "true". It is relatively easy for them to find junk rewrites of history that blame all American social problems on the income tax or the government. It is also easy to fantasize about how if you just gave it all to Christian churches ,who would teach everyone to read the Bible and think right, and love their neighbors, everyone would be made responsible and you wouldn't have any social problems so we could be free of the taxes that go to gov spending on health education and welfare. (Of course you would still have to fund the military heavily as you can't trust those people in other, particularly Muslim countries, to think right. As seen in another post everyone yearns for the glorious years before 1913, before , mass communications, automobiles, electricity in homes, social security, medicare, food stamps etc. when people were supposedly free, happy, all responsible with little care, before big gov funded by taxes screwed it all up. by making them iresponsible. It can be appealing to reduce all social reality to a couple of slogans.
Still cursing at me without providing me evidence dimsie... I think you might need a "Time Out". Rimrocker and Major did a good job of providing why they believe how they do, and I'm totally cool with that. Your outbursts started with me simply asking you to provide evidence why you believe the way you do... A little defensive, I think...
My wife (also a Republican) and that was when I was working and she was unemployed. Gave $25 to help the families of slain police officers. After I posted that message, 10 different people replied in this thread, and no one else mentioned a response to my question. So between the 10 people, that's $3000 in tax cuts, and $25 more contributed to charity. This is exactly why I am not a proponent of assuming people will donate to charity to cover society's needs if government stops taking care of the poor.
I like Max's answer...in BOTH threads. Actually, I think these two threads represent a really interesting debate in American politics. On the one hand, you have the GOP. They have been the cleverest of the two parties in the way they have angled themselves: For smaller government. For economic progress. For good ol' fashioned American values, work ethic and patriotism. Pragmatic and realistic. By using these key values to define themselves, they have been able to label the other side as: For not just big government, but huge, wasteful government. Against progress and for making the rest of the country pay higher taxes for it. Amoral. Silly, immature and overly idealistic. By doing so, they have made themselves the "tough love parent who gives us everything we need to do well but we don't always understand why." It's like spanking your child and telling him you are doing it because you love him. It makes perfect sense to the adult but the kid is like, "WTF???" On the other side, you have the Dems. They have, in many ways, attempted to cling to an outdated way of promoting themselves: For protection of workers and the little guy. Compassionate of the less fortunate. Diverse and open-minded. Idealistic and ethical. The problem is that they come off either as wealthy, aristocratic socialites who love to give to the "little people" without getting their hands dirty OR they sound like aging hippies trying to prove to everyone that the secret group of wealthy industrialists with cigars really do control the world. In reality, this makes them look more like: Ass kissers to the labor unions and trial attornies. Impractical in handling social welfare. Politically correct. Snobbish and elitist. As successful as the GOP has been at painting the Dems as flighty, aristocratic, know-it-all's who are really just immature however, the Dems have done a decent job recently showing the GOP to be full of greedy, antiquated, far-right wackos with their fingers on the trigger. The reality, of course, is that they are both wrong. There are some Republicans and some Democrats who fit that bill. Truthfully, about 20 to 25 percent of all Americans fit into one of those two categories. Either moralistic and judgemental or politically correct and elitist. Pretty sad. The REAL problem is that the majority of us who sit in between the two polar extremes have allowed those at the opposite ends of the political (and socio-economic) spectrum control the dialogue. In essence, the only people talking are the one's who are screaming. On one side, you have the conservative talk show guys who spend far time railing on liberals than they do actual saying something meaningful. On the other side are the liberal talk show crazies who spend all their time trying to prove wacko conspiracy theories. As a result, the voice of the everday American is lost. When you look at issue-oriented opinion polls, they are nearly always the same: Majority supports gun control. Majority supports the death penalty. Majority supports the right to an abortion but want them limited. Majority supports environmental protection. Majority supports lower taxes and less WASTEFUL government. Majority supports healthcare and support for the less fortunate. Majority supports a strong military and public saftety. Majority supports regulation on big business. Majority supports campaign finance reform. Majority supports term limits. If you notice, those issues fall on both sides of the political spectrum. Some are by wider majorities than others but whenever a poll is done by Gallup or any other agency, they find these types of issues don't change much. The reality is that most Americans want to feel safe, they want peace, they want choice and diversity and they want a better world to be left to their children. Unfortunately, we allow those who have the loudest voices, and not necessarily the most representative voices, control the agenda for the rest of the country and that is the real issue.
It just occurred to me what a complete and total jackass you really are. These are my BELIEFS...they have been my beliefs for a long time. Yet you think you have it all figured out and that I get my beliefs out of cereal box or something. You really should consider how a person derived their belief system prior to trivializing it in this manner. Bottom line: You are very unpleasant and I will consider myself very fortunate if I never have to have our poaths cross in person.
you couldn't possibly arrive at your conclusions by reading the works of john locke...or thomas jefferson...or friedrich hayek...it had to be rush limbaugh, ref. there is no other way.
Refman, sorry you like to turn political opinions into personal pissing contests. Hey, Refman, would you be willing to forgoe the eimination of the inheritance tax to pay for a militray pay increase?
