Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It should be cost effective but if it is running at a deficit, I don't think it means the program is bad or should be discontinued. Like I said, government isn't a business. It is its own animal and has completely different goals from a business.
Governments like business have to have budgets in order to run effectively. Without them, we have unnecessary cost overruns. The problem with each and every one of those programs you mentioned and countless others is they are not held even remotely to a budget. This will hold true for the administration of the ACA and will hold true for the administration of single payer. You are opening the flood gates to drive the economy even further down. We are already circling the bowl with our debt. Our currency is in threat of no longer being the world benchmark due to QE and the games the banks are playing with the currency. Our government has to become accountable if we are to survive as a free nation. As in business, it's time to get lean and mean. You have to get the most bang for your buck and you have to cut the fat.
An anti-poverty program that consumes many billions of dollars is bad if we only end up with more poverty. When something doesn't work, we shouldn't keep doing it.
But these programs DO work. Are they fail proof? No. Yes, there are abuses and mismanagement but on the whole the programs DO work. Its like saying we should get rid of the stock market model because people take advantage of that.
Being a life saver, isnt the discussion, its how many are under budget and effective at providing hand ups.. not hand outs..
yes, you need to try again.
No, I don't.
You asked how many of those programs are doing what they were designed to do. I've already answered you several times. I'm not going to change my answer because you don't like it.
You asked how many of those programs are doing what they were designed to do. I've already answered you several times. I'm not going to change my answer because you don't like it.
You need to go back and re-read the original question..
Obviously not. Does it need to be spelled out? :sigh: I guess so.
Those without an income should not be taxed. This would include the nonworking poor, elderly, disabled and children.
Welfare, secton 8, and other various programs are sources of income.. and this is completely opposite of your previous statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
Everyone should be taxed and many of the loopholes in the system need to be sewn shut.
Those who are on welfare etc, dont have loopholes etc, so I guess your "everyone", which you were correct about, isnt really everyone, is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
That has not been my experience nor the experience of many people I know who have been able to survive, learn, eat and get to work because of these programs.
Is it or is it not? You start off saying the goal of government is to turn a profit and then you say it isn't. Which is it?
No one suggested governments goal is to turn a profit, I said its goal is to run as a business. Even non profits are busineses.. and they cant run deficits forever without ramifications, can they?
I am fine and dandy with paying taxes so everyone can have access to quality healthcare.
I think everyone who has a working income should pay taxes.
So lets translate this, you're all fine and dandy with not paying healthcare costs, and giving this money to the government instead, meaning you arent really paying more, are you? While youre also fine with others who have more money than you, PAYING MORE..
Yes you indeed have no problem giving away other peoples money, exactly what I said.
But these programs DO work. Are they fail proof? No. Yes, there are abuses and mismanagement but on the whole the programs DO work. Its like saying we should get rid of the stock market model because people take advantage of that.
If they work, then why do we have record numbers living on welfare? Is that what they are designed to do? Increase the welfare rolls? I thought they were designed to lift people up, not down..
No one suggested governments goal is to turn a profit, I said its goal is to run as a business. Even non profits are busineses.. and they cant run deficits forever without ramifications, can they?
And why not? The military has been doing just that since it's day of creation. It's about priorities and where you place them.
Everyone should be taxed and many of the loopholes in the system need to be sewn shut.
I think that in these grand ideas families like mine get lost in the shuffle. When you raise people's taxes who simply cannot afford higher taxes, you push them into poverty. Socialized care is a nice idea in theory but I'm afraid that the reality would not be so rosy for many
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
