Well, it's nice to see that we have a lot of budding Socialist/Communist types here. It's very heartwarming.
While people may not be able to agree with what kind of solution should be implamented to solve our problems in america; does everyone agree that our current government is a model of ineffeciency?
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
That is to be expected. The government should NOT be efficient for the most part...
Total efficiency in all government functions would mean instant executions without trial by jury, instant changes to the constitution without debates and ratifications, etc. Why hold elections and vote, how inefficient
There are of course areas that the government should strive for efficiency, and one of them is money. As long as the government can draw on an infinite pool of money from income taxes, they never have to bear the brute of the consequence of bad actions.
"Amendment XVI - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. "
This was enacted in the early 1900s, how did the government get by before the 16th amendment???
Originally posted by: exdeath
That is to be expected. The government should NOT be efficient for the most part...
Total efficiency in all government functions would mean instant executions without trial by jury, instant changes to the constitution without debates and ratifications, etc. Why hold elections and vote, how inefficient
There are of course areas that the government should strive for efficiency, and one of them is money. As long as the government can draw on an infinite pool of money from income taxes, they never have to bear the brute of the consequence of bad actions.
"Amendment XVI - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. "
This was enacted in the early 1900s, how did the government get by before the 16th amendment???
Less spending for one thing.
TheLonelyPhoenix
Diamond Member
- Feb 15, 2004
- 5,594
- 1
- 0
You're an idiot.
Every developed nation in the world (except the U.S.) has at least a partly socialized health care system, many of them fully socializied.
While private health care has benefits, it greatly favors the rich (more money = better care). A comprimise between the two systems needs to be found.
Efficency certainly does not mean instant execution without jury or changes without debate. How can you equate the two. Efficency simply means lessening waste, and our government sure likes to waste things. Like you tax dollars to name one.
What kind of broad definition of 'rich' are you using? I'm not rich and my healthcare is fine.
Just because "every developed nation in the world' is doing it, does not mean that the United States should do it. Simple as that.
Adam8281
Platinum Member
- May 28, 2003
- 2,181
- 0
- 76
There is a difference between the government providing a service that handles emergencies which affect a relatively small percentage of the population (fire department) and providing a service that EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN will have to use quite frequently throughout their lifetime. I mean, estimate how many times per day the fire department in your town is called out to a location, and compare that to the number of people in your town who visit the doctor in one average day. The expense of the government providing universal healthcare would make the cost of fire departments seem almost nothing. And remember where the fire department does get its money; it gets it from your taxes. That's the same place universal healthcare funding would come from, and I can't imagine how the federal government could implement a competent universal healthcare program without jacking your taxes up through the roof.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
the US has a partly socialized healthcare system.
iirc, only canada has a fully socialized system, and that isn't really even true because canadians can get as much private payer healthcare as they want by making a trip to that backward 3rd world country south of the border.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
if everything were privatized there wouldn't be any 'corporate welfare,' if you can even define such a term.
governments all over the country own utilities. just because your local utility isn't government owned doesn't mean others aren't. how you manage to log onto the computer i'll never know.
well, if you were paying for what you used, and mary had a much smaller house than bob, she probably wouldn't be paying out as much. of course, the only way his method would work is if there was competition, and so there would be little profit to be made. any profit made would be through competitive measures. assuming it doesn't become a race to the bottom and consumers are able to make rational choices (balancing reliability and quality of service with price, for instance), then it might be quite nice.7) Ummmmmmm, Uhhhhhhh, Whhhhaaaaaaaa? You want the government to start selling stuff? What? Electricity? Mmmkay. So instead of having them run it cheap and efficiently and have them charge us enough to cover costs, they are going to charge us more (i.e. profit) and that will replace all income taxes? That sounds like tax to me! Not only that, but it sounds like Mary, who is raising a family on $15k a year is paying the exact same in taxes as Bob who makes $25,000,000 a year. Nice tax scheme you worked out there
of course, assuming that consumers a) have the information necessary to make a rational decision, and b) are then able to make a rational decision; which are two giant assumptions. (for a giant failure of this, see the medical care industry)
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
i've been propounding the same thing for a while. of course, politicians would never go for it because none of them has the ability to explain the concept to joe sixpack. of course, even if someone did get the balls to do it you'd see people on the left (those that couldn't think their way out of a paper bag) rant that this is the biggest corporate welfare benefit of all.
my plan: get rid of all business taxes
implement a sales tax with a set rebate paid to everyone 16 and up (with some adjustment made for age, since people generally earn more/are employed at a higher rate with age)
then pick up with the AMT for a very small percentage of people. i have a couple of reasons for that. first, there is an initial windfall, since prices probably won't come down immediately, to ownership. second, it keeps the overall system progressive, which has benefits for the economic cycle.
sao123
Lifer
- May 27, 2002
- 12,656
- 207
- 106
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,545
- 20,241
- 146
The poll in this thread is very encouraging. AT is, and has been a majority liberal message board. Which makes sense when you realize it is dominated by the 15-25 year old age bracket.
That 64% in this crowd oppose socialized health care in the US gives me hope.
That 64% in this crowd oppose socialized health care in the US gives me hope.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter