An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
socratesLaw wrote:Why are there no checks and balances on government spending?
whitetrshsoldier wrote:How do you balance your philosophy on less government spending with your support of public health care?
Scott wrote:With that said, I would rather some of us having some of our money be wasted and everyone having access to food, clothes, shelter, health care and education than us not having our money wastefully spent but people suffering in poverty.
Scott wrote:Also, I would support investments of government spending and legislation to fix problems that will cost more in the long-run if we spend less now. To reuse an analogy I have used on my poverty blog, I'd rather invest $100 today to fix a sinking boat then spend $10 a day to scoop water out of the sinking boat day after day.
Scott wrote:Regarding the specific issue of health care, it's a very complicated issue. Let me just say that the government already spends a lot supposedly on health care, but for the reasons explained in the OP it is unsurprisingly spent very wastefully and corruptly. And yet millions of people do not have health care coverage. There are many possible policy reforms that would be far from ideal that would still be much more preferable and less wasteful than the status quo. I'll create a new thread solely about health care policy soon.
Alun wrote:Taxes are not punishment. Granted, some rhetoric is pretty anti-wealth, but that's not what taxes are for. The government isn't playing Robin Hood, it's trying to maintain the system that allowed the rich to become rich. And if there's anything that can keep someone from being a productive citizen, it's sickness.
And don't think government programs helping lower classes don't also help the rest of us. It's called a consumer economy for a reason: it needs consumers. It also needs a constant supply of new blood--new healthy, safe, and educated blood.
Alun wrote:China is not a good example of anything in the US; they have much lower standards for working conditions and wages, not to mention a huge amount of natural resources to work with.
And it's better for the economy if people can get real jobs to be really productive. The economy has a lot of problems when people don't actually have the money to buy when they buy. Having the government make sure things are honest and that people have enough opportunities to keep from being exploited is part of what allows people to be successful in the first place. Obviously, having taxes too high is a problem too, but you still don't get to call taxes theft.
whitetrshsoldier wrote:I get to call taxes theft when they're being used to fund private companies like GM and Chrystler. There is, and was, absolutely no authority for the government to 'buy' those companies. Prove otherwise if you disagree.
whitetrshsoldier wrote:Does your Mom/Dad have to talk to your Employer every time you sign a job contract, or do you even work for a living?
Alun wrote:GM has a quarter million employees? Yes, letting it tank would be more economically natural, but it would also hurt millions of people.
Alun wrote:Do you even look at history before you make big proclamations like "GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO PROTECT WORKERS"?
Users browsing this forum: Rederic and 1 guest