Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

King in KC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • King in KC

    While I agree with you in theory about what these wasteful social programs seem to imply, the truth is, it's more like "a little bit for a whole lot". By that, I mean the people who're supposed to be the benifactors of the program, actually see what's left after the layers of red tape and bureaucratic fingers have dimished the intended proceded. The "whole lot" is our tax monies going to feed this overweight structure.
    Make America Great For Once.

  • #2
    Originally posted by The Kev@Mar 1 2004, 07:10 PM
    While I agree with you in theory about what these wasteful social programs seem to imply, the truth is, it's more like "a little bit for a whole lot". By that, I mean the people who're supposed to be the benifactors of the program, actually see what's left after the layers of red tape and bureaucratic fingers have dimished the intended proceded. The "whole lot" is our tax monies going to feed this overweight structure.
    No doubt, Kev. But the key is that scam artists are always out for themselves, they just need to win over their victims with the appearance of good intentions.

    The Public Choice school summarizes this with the simple statement that government employees are just like everyone else - they act in their own self interest.

    A friend of mine recently went to a county water district meeting to explain how the people were getting fleeced by scam artists running the water district. He had evidence in his hand, it only took common sense to draw obvious conclusions. He was shouted down by old women saying: "You just get out of here, these good people are bringing us good water."

    The scam is set.

    (By the way, Kev, your thread the other night inspired my avatar - thanks!)

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the premise that government is inherently bad or inefficient is a bad rap.

      Our health care system costs us much more per capita than our first world peers, uniquely leaves tens of millions uninsured, and gives us no higher performance by any metric - life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. Yet, when universal care, administered by the government, is proposed, the cries against socialized medicine ring out. Seems to me the current system is pretty inefficient.

      It's also a misnomer that the free market is wonderous. It is more like the Discovery Channel. The weak get killed and eaten. Most businesses fail, just as people get sick and die. Many are so poorly run they never gain traction. Fraud occurs every day, given the humans that populate businesses.

      Moe
      The Dude abides.

      Comment


      • #4
        King...

        Sorry about not responding to your China questions...if you re-post them...I can answer...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Moe_Szyslak@Mar 1 2004, 07:30 PM
          I think the premise that government is inherently bad or inefficient is a bad rap.

          Our health care system costs us much more per capita than our first world peers, uniquely leaves tens of millions uninsured, and gives us no higher performance by any metric - life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. Yet, when universal care, administered by the government, is proposed, the cries against socialized medicine ring out. Seems to me the current system is pretty inefficient.

          It's also a misnomer that the free market is wonderous. It is more like the Discovery Channel. The weak get killed and eaten. Most businesses fail, just as people get sick and die. Many are so poorly run they never gain traction. Fraud occurs every day, given the humans that populate businesses.

          Moe
          Good point about fraud occuring every day, Moe.

          But who is saying the free market is wonderous? What it is, is free.

          And how can you say that government is not inherently bad or inefficient, and later say most businesses fail because they are so poorly run. Who runs government? People perhaps?

          And the difference between the people running failed businesses and the people running government?

          Force, perhaps?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Indu WangZi@Mar 1 2004, 07:31 PM
            King...

            Sorry about not responding to your China questions...if you re-post them...I can answer...
            No problem, Wang. Funny (this is no lie), I was typing you a follow-up when the old system crashed. I finished and clicked "Add Reply" and the screen went white.

            We'll get back together on that soon.

            Thanks

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by King in KC+Mar 1 2004, 07:40 PM-->
              QUOTE(King in KC @ Mar 1 2004, 07:40 PM)

            • #8
              Originally posted by King in KC+Mar 1 2004, 07:39 PM-->
              QUOTE(King in KC @ Mar 1 2004, 07:39 PM)

            • #9
              What a see is an awful lot of waste.

              I'd be happier if the government focused on infrastructure and the military/security and tried to less instead of more...at least enough less to balance the damn books.
              Go Cards ...12 in 13.


              Comment


              • #10
                Government is NOT us.

                Government is us WITHOUT the urgency to excel.

                Moe, you know better.

                Yet, you choose anesthesia.

                Sad.
                And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

                -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

                Comment


                • #11
                  Originally posted by Damtoft@Mar 2 2004, 01:28 AM
                  Government is NOT us.

                  Government is us WITHOUT the urgency to excel.

                  Moe, you know better.

                  Yet, you choose anesthesia.

                  Sad.
                  Imperfect does not mean worthless. If it did, there'd be no reason to go on.

                  Question: how do you propose we (as a community) address universal health care, baseline food and shelter, regulation of industries (food, water, drugs mentioned in my post other than via government?

                  Moe
                  The Dude abides.

                  Comment


                  • #12
                    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

                    I'm with Moe!
                    Norman Chad, syndicated columnist: “Sports radio, reflecting our sinking culture, spends entire days advising managers and coaches, berating managers and coaches, firing managers and coaches and searching the countryside for better middle relievers. If they just redirected their energy toward, say, crosswalk-signal maintenance, America would be 2 percent more livable.”

                    "The best argument against democracy," someone (Churchill?) said, "is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

                    Comment


                    • #13
                      Originally posted by Moe_Szyslak@Mar 2 2004, 09:21 AM
                      Question: how do you propose we (as a community) address universal health care, baseline food and shelter, regulation of industries (food, water, drugs mentioned in my post other than via government?

                      Moe
                      Moe:

                      First, it might help if you give us an example of a government program you would use as a model for a universal health care system.

                      Pentagon purchasing?
                      War on Drugs?
                      Public Education?
                      Social Security?
                      Medicare?
                      Road maintenance?

                      And second, we need to establish a benchmark: when would you be willing to say scrap the entire program?

                      When $0.50 on every dollar taken from the public actually paid for benefits?
                      Maybe $0.25 on every dollar?
                      Perhaps you would be willing to wait until only $.10 of every dollar collected actually went toward benefits?
                      Is there a point where too much waste would be enough?


                      And thirdly, since you possess good economic sense: One of the iron laws of economics deals with a subsidy. Once you subsidize something, you get more of it.

                      Thus, if we subsidize bad health, will we get more of it?

                      And then, what do we do?

                      Comment


                      • #14
                        Originally posted by nick2@Mar 2 2004, 10:00 AM
                        We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

                        I'm with Moe!
                        Keep reading, nick. Why did you stop after the first sentence?

                        Don't you like the rest of it?

                        Comment


                        • #15
                          Keep reading, nick. Why did you stop after the first sentence?

                          Don't you like the rest of it?
                          You make no sense!

                          The stated purpose should be quite sufficient!
                          Norman Chad, syndicated columnist: “Sports radio, reflecting our sinking culture, spends entire days advising managers and coaches, berating managers and coaches, firing managers and coaches and searching the countryside for better middle relievers. If they just redirected their energy toward, say, crosswalk-signal maintenance, America would be 2 percent more livable.”

                          "The best argument against democracy," someone (Churchill?) said, "is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X