Since there have been no interesting threads (at least for me) in WEPR lately, I think I'll start one.
So I was reading Obama's Plan to reduce the deficit over the next 12 years, and basically he decided to take out tax cuts, eliminate loopholes for taxes, raise taxes, and cut government spending.
I fully support his plan because that is what I think should happen. I am 100% behind him and I will (try to) debate this until there is no more blood to squeeze from this rock.
I have morals, just none of them involve helping people run. First come first serve is the only equalizer.
Besides, watching them trip and fall will be funny.
Yes, because knowing that there are families on the street starving is funny.
Why should I? People don't help me. Only one person helps me, and that's me. Numero uno. The rest can die for all I care.
So again, not many friends.
I probably have more than you.
I have more than 0 friends.
Then they deserve to fail.
Who is "they?"
You respond to all my points, that's what you do.
If it doesn't cover anything you need covered, it's obviously bad insurance. It needs to insure you against harm. If it doesn't do that, it's not insurance.
Exactly. If the only insurance you can receive is bad insurance, then your ****ed.
The government is provides, services, much like any other business. The difference is, the government provides services that humans are entitled to.
Shamwow! is not a human entitlement, therefore, the government has no reason to provide it.
The government is not a business since its sole purpose is to govern and not to make a profit. It makes a profit by doing so, but when there is a surplus, they usually spend it on something worthwhile.
The government is provides, services, much like any other business. The difference is, the government provides services that humans are entitled to.
The problem with being entitled to goods is that you have no choice to decline paying for the goods.
The government is not a business since its sole purpose is to govern and not to make a profit. It makes a profit by doing so, but when there is a surplus, they usually spend it on something worthwhile.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit.
When a business makes a profit, they do so by offering goods that people buy. If you do not support a certain company, you do not have to buy their product.
When it comes to government, you are forced to pay for their services.
When a business goes into debt, they must shut down. Why should businesses be required to make a profit to stay up and running? Money needs to flow. A business is made up of people who work hard to make a living. A business that does not make a profit can not afford to pay these people.
Government, on the other hand, does not need to turn a profit to continue running. If there is a government run service that does turn a profit, the only way to pay the workers is to take money from tax payers, including those who have never used the service. Of course, it's sometimes impossible to get out of debt even with taxes! This is why the government must often borrow money from other countries. If this money is not payed off, other countries will often stop lending you money. So who will pay this debt? The people will. They will be forced to work for the state so that the state can get our of debt. Slave state.
The government is like a business, whether it's purpose is to create a profit or not.
If you increase taxes, ideally the services will be payed for through tax money. This isn't reality. When people pay more money in taxes, politicians often believe that they have room to create even more entitlement programs that will create more debt. Why do politicians want to create more entitlement programs? They want votes. By lowering taxes, you force government to cut back on spending.
I want to pay for sick little Johny and sick little Susie as much as the next guy, but I should do so by my own free will. There's this idea that if you do not have universal healthcare, many sick people will die. This doesn't take into account the fact that competitive hospitals can become more affordable and charities can be created for the sole purpose of taking care of the sick. This world is full of people who care enough to donate.
So I was reading Obama's Plan to reduce the deficit over the next 12 years, and basically he decided to take out tax cuts, eliminate loopholes for taxes, raise taxes, and cut government spending.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats produced viable deficit reduction plans.
As broken as British politics is, I do have to thank First Past the Post for the decisive majorities it gives British governments, and in doing so prevents these American style budgetary stalemates.
The people in DC need to realise that while they're busy playing partisan, the American economy is in its worst state since the 30s,and the temporary reprieve offered by the stimulus is not enough to guarantee a long term recovery.
That said America's debt levels are insane, and does need to be addressed.
Morality should not be governed by gunpoint.
It should when not enough people are donating to said charities and private hospitals. The idea that philanthropy is a suitable substitute for government spending when it comes to an industry as capitally intensive as health care is simply ludicrous. Not to mention all the other government services which need to be provided for.
NoName, I've come to realize that the argument is whether being forced to choose in the best form of entitlement programs or being able to choose a form of entitlement programs is best.
Choose from the government, or choose from companies.
The problem is, you keep referring to the government as a business, thought it is not. You believe that the government has a monopoly on these entitlement programs, and since they have a monopoly, they cannot possibly provide the best form. There is no competition.
What I believe is, given sufficient funds, the government can perform the services better than any other company, and do it indiscriminately.
