+1Originally Posted by jpx7
Best way to handle the tension between economic growth and massive inequality.
+1
Best way to handle the tension between economic growth and massive inequality.
The issue with this logic is that the only people impacted by these policies are the middle class. The weathy are still going to make their money.
Reporter from IJR who wrote a "story" about this now has an email circulating wherein he apologizes to his colleagues for embellishing an "already dubious" story that was "not based on fact."
I mean, good for him, and that's more than infowars or Breitbart would do, but I think it kinda settles the "if true" part of your post.
If you're intent on changing the subject - that is fine.
I'm much more OK with LSC as I believe it's very important to protect people's individual liberty and that should be guaranteed by our government.
Changing the subject from what?
Yes - and you are consistent generally across the board.
I don't agree. I don't think a bureaucrat has the right to determine that more of my money should be confiscated in order to fund a program that is not specifically constitutional.
Rather than address my point - you tried to say "but what about this!"
That's fine. I'm used to it. My favorite is the one about who would build the roads
Yeah - I don't support using tax payer money to fly the President and his family around the globe. I didn't support sending Obama's family to Hawaii either but was mocked for that one.
The rest of your post is your usual incoherence. I'm still waiting on you to answer my very direct question from the other thread. Goldy too.
No, I was just curious to know what you thought about LSC. I wasn't engaged in a general conversation with you about the budget that I was aware of.
As for emotion vis a vis the budgetary process, since you asked, I think that a lot of the programs that are on the block have demonstrable benefits that can be objectively proven. In many cases, you may say it's an emotional appeal, and I say it's a rational appeal for public investment.
From a purely moral standpoint, how is it justified to forcefully take someone's money to benefit someone else?
But since you mentioned unaddressed questions, I was wondering if you'd come up with a health care system without public subsidies yet.
I absolutely addressed your question. I said I didn't know of any.
If you want my idea of a good system, I'd have a completely private, pay-as-you-go system, with only catastrophic health insurance.
Social contract. Utility. What are we, 2500 years and counting on that? With some tweaks and fiddles, those concepts have served western society reasonably well for a few centuries.
Honestly, a state whose worst problem is a limited redistribution of wealth is probably pretty....pretty....prett-ay ok, all things considered.
As far as I know the US pre-1965 was healthcare without subsidies - but I could be wrong of course. Dr. Paul referenced it frequently
Yeah - but I said morally.
You wouldn't approve me robbing a rich bank in order to feed the poor. But we do approve of the government doing precisely the same thing - via a legal avenue.
The government does have some functions and can be useful. But ours has become an albatross that has its hand in everything. And the minute you suggest scaling back - the 57's of the world copy/paste a tweet saying you are heartless bastard who hates poor people
acesfull86 (03-16-2017), Jaw (03-17-2017)
Um, I'm perfectly comfortable with the moral ramifications of taxation in service of a social safety net. In fact, I think it's way more morally defensible than the days of less burdensome regulations when robber barons stacked money while kids worked in the mines and their parents died of silicosis.
Is there no limit to your comfort? If we get a Venezuelan style government who decides that taxing everything for the greater good, are you comfortable with that?
Is there no limit to the amount you're OK with the feds confiscating? Or is there a line?
I'm very curious. Because your argument can absolutely be applied to the well-intentioned actions of the Venezuelan government
acesfull86 (03-16-2017)
Pass the popcorn. Looking forward to how they root their moral imperatives. :-)
There's a lawmaker in Texas who wants to fine people for masturbating.
I'm certain julio would object to this - because it's a dumb lawmaker trying to dictate a citizen's life in order to improve the overall good (in his opinion).
But when it comes to taxes and what they're used for - by all means, let the lawmakers run wild. You know - for the overall good.
Jaw (03-17-2017)
Hmm. Those sound like the kind of questions best answered by free people voting in free and fair elections!
Not exactly something Venezuela is known for, FWIW.
You act like this is either a hard question or some kind of steel trap gotcha. It's neither. It's the opposite. Seems to me there is always tension around taxation and social services, economic freedom vs. freedom from want, etc. I expect, in America, there always will be.
So how much? Unlike you, I'm not comforted by assuming I have the answers. Probably more than you'd be happy with, and probably less than your bolshier Scandinavians.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote