Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- tommyo0
Well thanks for the straw man treatment. When have I said that the government giving money to poor people, educate the masses, or keep people healthy takes away freedoms? All or nothing eh?
We NEED education, yes, I'm with you. How is our education system doing these days? Slipping, right? Who runs it?
"And what makes you think (food) agriculture is profitable all by it's lonesome? Do you have any idea of how deeply subsidized the food industry is?"
Of course I know this. You act like government doesn't already subsidize a ton to the healthcare of this country. Medicare, Medicaid, etc etc. Does government pay for ALL of the food to be produced? NO. So what's your fucking point? They should pay all of medical, for everyone simply because they subsidize parts of other necessity industries?
I'm not even supporting the freemarket here. All I'm saying is that you expect an inept group of individuals who have proven time and time again that can't make the right choices in SOME industries, to now preside over your health and it will run smoothly. That's just fucking insane to me. How may times does this dog need to shit on your carpet before you decide he probably shouldn't be inside when you go to the market?
- ********0
- "if you love amerika you'd throw money in it's hole"robotron3k
- hahaaMirpour
- TheBlueOne0
What he said:
- lowimpakt0
tommyo - as a matter of interest.
is there anywhere in the world that operates and economic system similar to what your are trying to put forward?
I can't understand what you are proposing and would like to see an example.
- tommyo0
:-/
I don't understand your question. I'm not trying to suggest some sort of new economic system. The government that governs least governs best is my favorite system. Leaving a majority of choices to states and people. A government that does not take as much and is not relied upon to give as much. Good old fashioned US standard operating procedure. Nothing new.
- DrBombay0
hey tommy, remember when you were talking about potentially moving to another country a while back? what fantasy country has the type of government you like?
- lowimpakt0
so is your problem with federalism? to what level do your minarchist tendancies stretch? macro-meso-micro?
- tommyo0
More or less, yes. I believe that federal powers by their very nature are dangerous. Just look at what Bush and the inept Congress did in 8 years. The abuse of power has arguably never been more transparent and the approval ratings so low. To think that every person entering office can abuse their position and walk away without repercussions is illustrative of the need to limit the reach of government.
I don't see the benefit of bigger government. Poverty levels are relatively at the same percentage they've been since the 50's. Just look at California. It's economy is ranked between 7th and 10th in the world. We're bankrupt and selling bonds (at 8% interest rates, which is nuts) to try and cover the proposed 2009 budget ... in the last 10 years our state government budget has doubled. The 2009 budget is a 10% increase over last year. Our state schools rank almost dead last nationally (47th).
So I'm sorry, but I've come to the personal conclusion that our system, and rapid increase in government expenditures does absolutely nothing except put hardships on our entire society. Everyone from the poor, middle class, businesses, foreigners and rich people. Governments as far as I'm concerned are as akin as you can get to 'design by committee.' I don't think the founders ever expected them to wield as much power as they do now. Destined to make horrible if not catastrophic decisions.
As far as my level of libertarian leanings, I'd say it's a 5 out of 10. I believe taxes are good thing if used transparently and conservatively. Governments are really good at certain tasks and really horrible at others. I'm not a huge believer in the libertarian freemarkets per se, seems too idealistic, but with the same breath I think the concept of over-regulation is too damaging to the marketplace.
- BattleAxe0
taxes= government
all I am saying is supriese you are going to pay taxes weather you are this guy/gal or that guy/gal, you pay. So what would be so wrong as to collectively creating a socail health care program for all. How crazy is that really. We already do that, we already collectively pay for things to get done. Bailouts, Stim packages, subsidaries , schools, moon shots, running water , the list is endless, some could be done away with ,
- TheBIueOne0
So what SHOULD government do then Tommy? And just to say "be small" doesn't really work. What are feasible and workable parameters of a government of a nation of 303,824,640 people who has the world's largest military and the world's reserve currency? A nation where 2% of the population ontrol 90% of the wealth. A government who half the world looks to for leadership.
While I value the principles of the founding of this nation, the United States is no longer a nation of landed farmer-statesman and small town crafts people. To expect it's government to operate the same way is just madness.
- What and just give away my political ideas for free on a graphic design forum? :Ptommyo
- tommyo0
Something I find really weird about health care and the current system, why is it tied to employment? We all take this employment / health benefits pairing for granted but it still seems completely odd; when you take a step back and think about it. What does health care have to do with employment?
With that thought, if it were still just individuals paying for their own health care would it be nearly as expensive as it is now? The same rules apply to doctors as they do to other businesses, supply and demand. So I don't see why not. The prices would have to be more closely representative of real life and what an individual can afford, etc etc. Instead we have individuals who don't get employment health coverage mixed in the same customer pot with companies with large pockets.
I mean, why don't companies issue food coverage to their employees? Or home rental benefits packages? Sure health insurance isn't fun, but neither is paying for your grocery bill or your rent. When and why did it get tied to employment? Just seems odd and no one really talks about it.
- Wow. You really don't get it, do you?TheBIueOne
- Okay, explain it. I've often wondered. You don't need to be a dick about it. I prefaced it with a question mark for fucks sake.tommyo
- SOrry...I'm tired and hungry..bit of a pissy mood...TheBIueOne
- TheBIueOne0
Here's what our government should do, in fact the parameters of the US government are the very first fucking thing in the Constitution, the whole reason for which this government, the 2nd republic of the US, exists for:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "
Tommy, I would think most of the issues you seem to take issue with are right there in "promote the general Welfare" and "insure domestic Tranquility". These are reasons the government exists. I would think the very bodily physical health of the people might come under the purview of general welfare. I would also think that keeping domestic tranquility might have something to do with keeping the nation from becoming a rome-like oligharchic assembly, like it is today with it's vast unequality of wealth distribution. The founders were well aware of the problems that plagued Rome, and it's not like the Fed. government hasn't acted before to counteract uneven wealth distribution - you know like that famous communist Teddy Roosevelt..yeah that old Republican was a nasty lefty..oh no...wait...not so much...
- Thanks TBO. I think you and I just have completely different ideas about what governments role should be. It seems like it'stommyo
- swinging in the direction of your point of view. Honestly it's only a matter of time before banking and health are nationalized.tommyo
- I think wealth equalization is a horrible agenda for your gov to aspire to achieve. Same with the control of health care.tommyo
- I don't equate the Constitution and Gov's role the same way you do, which is likely the source of our differences.tommyo
- ukit0
The real problem is that both parties, Republican and Democrat, are heavily influenced by their corporate backers.
With Republicans it's just more obvious because it aligns with their philosophy. With Democrats it comes across as weakness because they are afraid to push for what they believe in because they have both the Rs and their donors trying to stop them.
- TheBIueOne0
A bit of a downer, but a provacative neccessary read imho:
- ukit0
It's why both Obama and Clinton position themselves as "centrists" while Bush is free to be a raving right-wing lunatic even though he barely got elected.
- tommyo0
WHERE IS MY FUCKING EXPLANATION ABOUT THE ILLOGICAL COUPLING OF HEALTH BENEFITS AND EMPLOYMENT?!?!?
heheheh Sorry, just wanted to be angry and yell. But seriously, I get berated for my question I want a god damned answer. Let's go TBO, don't slack off now. Mama wants her milk and bread. :)
- threadpost0
^^ It's all right here. Very logical and pragmatic solution to employment and healthcare in a global economy.
http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-De…
http://www.colbertnation.com/the…- Matt Miller hosts one of my favorite podcasts: http://www.kcrw.com/…threadpost
- tommyo0
Hey Threadpost,
Thanks for the links, however that's not what I was asking. I was asking why health care was coupled with employment in the first place. Read a few posts up.
- right, thats what I thought you were asking, and this author gives a very good explanation of the history...threadpost
- ...the pitfalls, the way it has evolved in a global econ, and possible solutions. Great read.threadpost
- Oh cool thanks. His interview on Colbert looked good. I'll check out the book.tommyo
