Hey Americans! and for the rest too I guess
- Thread starter dougaderly
- Start date
You are absolutely right... all taxes are collected at gunpoint, but the response was directly in regard to Hillary Clinton\'s task force to discuss (read: nationalize) health care in the mid-90\'s. There was a huge wave of indignation here in the states over the President\'s wife (an unelected person) being the head of a group responsible for shaping public policy. \"Giving away health care\" (as funnymouth put it) could be low-income health care assistance, a far cry from socializing the whole system. I see the value of collectivism in this matter (all insurance is collectivism) but I suspect there are better solutions than making the state the single supplier.
@funnymouth: I don\'t have the experience you do with low income. I have been an uninsured student, and I suspect that things will get better for you once you get into full time employment (especially with an advanced degree.) If you don\'t mind me asking, how did you end up homeless as you graduated high school?
You said it. Living in civilization can be so annoying sometimes! Not once have I ever had a house fire or had someone break into my home. Why should I have to pay taxes for Fire and Police departments! :cussing:
This rant was brought to you by exhaustion and a lack of coffee lol
As mentioned elsewhere (at least I think it was, did I mention the lack of coffee?) most of Europe has a combination of privatized and socialized health coverage. The result is a two-tiered system, which isn’t ideal, but good coverage for those who can afford the private plans and mediocre coverage for those who can’t is better than no coverage at all for those who can’t afford it.
Edit: Oh yeah and Massachusetts has adopted a similar system. We’ll see how that goes. I think the tricky bit will be making sure people don’t fall somewhere in between where they make too much money to qualify for the gov plan but not enough to afford a decent private plan.
lahatiel
New member
Actually, no.
When I first skimmed by your post, I assumed it was a reference to the USA -- in which case the answer is, \"No, it\'s a constitutional republic.\" Then I noticed your location and realized you were probably referring to Australia... in which case the answer is, \"No, it\'s a constitutional monarchy.\" I\'m certainly no expert on matters Australian, having never even been to either the southern or eastern hemispheres, but took the following from Australia\'s own government website:
So, similarly to us here in the States: no democracy. Subtle wording difference, perhaps, but an important practical distinction nonetheless.
Some of these categories are less than mutually exclusive.
If democracy is rule by the people and republicanism is rule by representatives, then what we have could be fairly described as both democratic and republican.
I used to use a textbook which described government by elected representatives as \"indirect democracy,\" which always seemed fair enough to me.
To say that a Monarchy can also be a democracy seems less plausible, and yet there are certainly governments which combine them.
If democracy is rule by the people and republicanism is rule by representatives, then what we have could be fairly described as both democratic and republican.
I used to use a textbook which described government by elected representatives as \"indirect democracy,\" which always seemed fair enough to me.
To say that a Monarchy can also be a democracy seems less plausible, and yet there are certainly governments which combine them.
sigh...It would be so much easier if you would all just elect me as Supreme Leader of the World.
Cheesy poofs and minis for all.
Cloning will be legalised with 4 million copies of Angelina Jolie being made, (So more guys would have a chance) and 4 million copies of Johnny Depp (for the women)
The Olympics would have a Mini painting competition added, a wargames competition, and a Video Game competition.
Socialized medicine depending on how much you\'ve actually put into society, with children being taken care of until 18
Games Workshop would be disbanded and the sculpters sent to work in a new federal gameing company dedicated to push gaming and painting on to the masses.
Cheesy poofs and minis for all.
Cloning will be legalised with 4 million copies of Angelina Jolie being made, (So more guys would have a chance) and 4 million copies of Johnny Depp (for the women)
The Olympics would have a Mini painting competition added, a wargames competition, and a Video Game competition.
Socialized medicine depending on how much you\'ve actually put into society, with children being taken care of until 18
Games Workshop would be disbanded and the sculpters sent to work in a new federal gameing company dedicated to push gaming and painting on to the masses.
vincegamer
Active member
A phrase that is often used to describe the American system is \"Democratic republic\" which implies that the government is a republic - rulership through proxy - in which the rulers are selected by direct vote of the people.
*N.B. - some would say there is no true democracy because \"the people\" never includes everyone.
vincegamer
Active member
well, I\'m not sure exactly what it means.
Sounds to me like you are saying government mandated charity is subject to abuse, where as individual charity is not.
Perhaps I should say \"organized\" charity is subject to abuse and individual direct charity is not.
Problem is, individual direct charity is terribly inefficient.
Now, if instead what you were saying was that charity would be more effective if left to the individual choice, then I would utterly disagree. Most people left to their own devices will watch out only for themselves (or their direct relations/cohorts).
Social security exists because without it lots more people die hungry and miserable.
Sounds to me like you are saying government mandated charity is subject to abuse, where as individual charity is not.
Perhaps I should say \"organized\" charity is subject to abuse and individual direct charity is not.
Problem is, individual direct charity is terribly inefficient.
Now, if instead what you were saying was that charity would be more effective if left to the individual choice, then I would utterly disagree. Most people left to their own devices will watch out only for themselves (or their direct relations/cohorts).
Social security exists because without it lots more people die hungry and miserable.
Oh please, vince lollollol And government \"charity\" isn\'t ???lol???
Yeah! Look how handily and effeciently the whole hurricane cleanup was handled by FEMA. WHo do you think is more effecient: FEMA or the Red Cross? Government has to be the LEAST effecient way to handle almost anything!
And that\'s not even taking into account the absolute misuse of the word \"charity\" when it comes to government. If you forcably take money away from me to give to someone else, it\'s hardly \"charity\".
And I always thought that liberals were supposed to believe that man was basically good and that it was conservatives who believed that man is basically evil ???
funnymouth
Active member
our society was built (well, i might add) on the backs of taxpayers. virtually every plesantry you enjoy was the result of taxation, funding research, construction and security.to think youve gained equal value to what youve been given via taxation (by your ancestors, mind you) is foolish.
aside from that, by your own assertation, giving money to such causes from you paycheck is tantamount to robbery - your not giving me the impression that your a charitable person. i seriously doubt youd volunteer to give money to an orphanege filled with kids you dont know, while you bitching about paying for paving the road to your house with your own cash. youd like to pick and choose what you pay for? thats silly. no one would want to pay for some essential sevice, and wed all be screwed (including you). dont want to pay for tha grant that funds a scientests shooling (say....me)? dont bitch when an infectious disease kills everyone, or your kid gets aids because he couldnt get free condoms.
your arguement sir - is an arguement for anarchy - i dont mean chaos, i mean a society with no governmental system, based on individual acts. i think we all know aow anarcy would end in our already distrustful, egotistical society.
@hm: it came down to: \"leave\" from my mom, and my dad was bankrupt and living in a different state. i lived with friends until i graduated, but then had no where to go until college. thanks for picking up the tab (taxpayers) for the first few years (if it bothers you, take comfort in knowing that im very good at what i do).
i know things will get easier...in 8 years when i finish my PHD. gee, i sure hope that i dont need to go to the dr. between now and then.
WeR138
New member
I\'m saying that government \"charity\" or social programs are extremely inefficient because the only requirement of the donor is that the money be given away. Follow up on what actually happens to the donations is poor at best.
Now most people on the other hand, when they give away their hard earned money directly, and skip the government middle man, are alot more concerned about the use of that money( no alcohol, prostitutes or gambling, please).
I may be in the minority here, but thats the way I feel.
Now most people on the other hand, when they give away their hard earned money directly, and skip the government middle man, are alot more concerned about the use of that money( no alcohol, prostitutes or gambling, please).
I may be in the minority here, but thats the way I feel.
WeR138
New member
Let me start that again.
To funnymouth,
You sir, do not know the first thing and could not know the first thing about my charitable contribution habits based upon the the contents of my previous posts.
Unless however, you give away over 10% of each and every paycheck you bring home you would be well advised to keep the personsal attacks to a minimum.
I\'ve tried to keep this civil and I will thank you to do the same.
To funnymouth,
You sir, do not know the first thing and could not know the first thing about my charitable contribution habits based upon the the contents of my previous posts.
Unless however, you give away over 10% of each and every paycheck you bring home you would be well advised to keep the personsal attacks to a minimum.
I\'ve tried to keep this civil and I will thank you to do the same.
Speaking of Govenment \"Charity\" and follow up, we got a good look at that with Katrina.
There were huge amounts of abuse that was caught and huge amounts that never will (Such as pulling cash directly out of the ATM, then paying with said cash.)
Government \"charity\" also tends to become a crutch, an idea that seems to be supported by Katrina, when you consider that over 80% of those relocated to Texas still do not have jobs.
With an unemployment rate at the lowest it\'s been in decades, help wanted signs pretty much anywhere you go, it seems not so much as helping, but supporting.
There were huge amounts of abuse that was caught and huge amounts that never will (Such as pulling cash directly out of the ATM, then paying with said cash.)
Government \"charity\" also tends to become a crutch, an idea that seems to be supported by Katrina, when you consider that over 80% of those relocated to Texas still do not have jobs.
With an unemployment rate at the lowest it\'s been in decades, help wanted signs pretty much anywhere you go, it seems not so much as helping, but supporting.
...and of course if corruption is a sufficient argument against government aid to the poor, then it is also an argument against everything that governments to. If the possibility of abuse of welfare is an argument against aid to the poor, then surely we have enough arguments to close down the stock market as well, and the military, and both major parties, and...
It is strange that cynicism about government corruption seems most effective when it is directed against programs benefitting the weak and the poor. It\'s almost as if we expect corruption at the high levels, so much so that it goes without comment. We accept that profiteering will happen, that big business will bribe politicians, etc. We might try to stop individual corruption at high levels, but we don\'t shut down major institutions or stop programs because of it. But the prospect that some mother with perhaps more kids than sense might somehow get a check she didn\'t deserve, that is too much to allow.
I don\'t think this is an issue that really should be resolved by \"feelings.\" What you have said raises a lot of factual questions. Do people really check more when they give to private charity? If the actual implimentation is ready at hand, I suppose, but that would seem to apply only to local matters. It may also be that you personally have shown more dilligence in your own givings than normal. But lots of people give their money to a charity and never think about it again. There have been enough corrupt private charities to call your position into question.
I actually don\'t know whether or not private or public sources are more prone to corruption. But your own argument is a bit to speculative to settle the matter. Frankly, I think it\'s a reflex judgement. Lots of people assume government agencies are more susceptible to corruption. Government is big and it\'s a popular target. Who could feel sorry for government unfairly criticized. And after priming the pump on government corruption it takes little (or no) evidence to convince people that private sources are better.
