As an observer from across the pond, and someone who has the great pleasure of working in the finance sector you take on things make very interesting reading. Jamie, i don't think i've seen a better summary events from the past 2 years at the bottom of your last post. keep it coming :lol:
The thing I dont understand with all this is if it's not OK for your taxes to be spent on other people that are sick why is it OK for your taxes to be spent on: - Schools and education, when you dont have children - Social security pensions, when you're not old - Police service, when you've never been a victim of crime - Fire service, when you've never had a fire - Street lights, when you dont go out after dark - Welfare, when you have a job I could go on, but it seems what many people want is a Mad Max scenario where it's everyone for himself and f*ck the consequences for others.
See Steve you miss the point. By trying to simplfly it you leave out a very important distiction. I do have a problem paying ever increasing taxes for schools that put out ever decreasing capable student. If they improved their scores everytime they increased taxes I'd be happy to pay, kids or no. There are things that a resonable society should provide to everyone. Providing collective security is cheaper and more secure than everyone providing their own. So each LOCAL government provides for fire and police to the needs they have. We have a volunteer department where NYC has a paid department. Providing NYC coverage at my house would be way too much and providing our coverage for NYC would never be enough. So LOCAL solutions are developed. Where a lot of us draw the line/distiction is we all moved out of our parents house. So we have a problem when someone comes along and says "We know better what you need so give us your money and we'll take care of you." They collect taxes and pay allowances to people, they provide housing, they provide food, they provide medical care, they provide.. they provide... Given all that why should I work? Why should I bust my butt to pay someone else's way. I should just sit back and let someone pay my way. You want to start sending me a check Steve? We can cut out the middle man and make you donation go farther. And Steve, you know I'm not a heartless bastard. Every year we did the collections for Cancun I was right there with money and time. I just have a problem donating to a charity that would give every child in Cancun the same level of support, those in Casa to those who's parents own Tour companies. If there is a need by all means help to the level needed and only until those in need can get back on their feet. If there is an expectation that I owe someone part of my income because somone said a bad word to them and they are now so broken up they can't function anymore, or someone threated their great-great-grandparents badly so now we owe them to make up for it, or they don't think they can ever make it so why try... then no. it's YOYO time - You On Your Own. I'm all for helping those who are trying to help themselves. I have no time for those that knew what they were doing was something they couldn't afford but did it anyway, and are now in trouble. Governments should be there to provide the environment where everyone has the chance to succeed. That means mutual security, standard laws, free trade, and a saftey net for those who need a hand now and then. They should not be there to make sure that everyone suceeds. Face it, we all will not suceed to the same level. It's a fact. I will never be as rich as Bill Gates. But I have worked hard, put in the hours, attended night school while working, and have a comfortable life to show for it. I worked hard to get it. I help those that are working hard to succeed too. I don't for those that say gimmie. So back to the orginal issue... we're not saying we "want is a Mad Max scenario where it's everyone for himself and f*ck the consequences for others." We are saying that if everyone is going to have the same thing that I'm busting my ass for, why should I bust my ass anymore? And if everyone says that, who's going to pay for all of us? Jamie
good point steve i for one am very proud of our national health service and wouldnt swap it for the world ... i've only had to use it for minor ailments but i know its there when i want it, and i know i dont have to have the right insurance or the money to pay for it. i'm happy to be taxed for it, because at the end of the day, the chances of having to use it for something more serious are quite high. Granted it has its problems; its a hugely top heavy beaureacratic machine that has far to much government intervention, but i'm sure the insurance based medical care system too has its problems.
Every solution has it's problems. That's why we are saying let's improve what we have, not just throw it out and inplement andother solution that has it's on problems. For that we get labeled as wanting nothing but to maintain the status quo... Jamie
The US Constitution guarantees Americans the basics – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well as the Government to provide for the common defense (Army, Navy, etc). However, in American society we also agree that Government needs to provide some practical basic services for which we all pay through taxes: Police, Fire, Schools and education, street lighting, parks, and some social services like Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, & Welfare benefits. The question is: Where does one’s personal responsibility begin and end? People always like entitlements; it means that the government will take care of you instead of you taking care of yourself. Brookings Institution’s Henry Aaron writes. “The challenge is to design ways to pay for and produce health care services, private and public, so that spending goes for services expected to produce benefits worth what they cost, are produced as efficiently as possible, and are available equitably to all Americans. Then, the nation must decide how best to pay for that care through premiums, out-of-pocket charges, and taxes.” Aside from those countries that are clearly based on Socialism; the problem in America is that there is a growing class of people that want to hand over their personal responsibility to the government and see no limits to their entitlements. This is often called the “Nanny State” syndrome where government provides massive benefits for the individual and therefore creates abuses to the system. Polls show more than 50% of Americans believe healthcare is an area of personal responsibility, and not to be a burden on your neighbor. Liberals would disagree, they believe it is compassionate to provide “Free” healthcare to everyone. Of course, the problem is always how do you pay for “Free” healthcare for 40 million Americans? If interested, I recommend reading this opinion article titled: “How 'entitlement attitudes' harm America” http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92966
I don't want too get far off the topic, but first lets define what Socialism is since you asked. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines Socialism as: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2 : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property 3 : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Additionally, some political commentators term "socialist states" those European countries under the government of parties which have in the past been considered socialist, or which at least retain the word "Socialist" in their name, even though the countries remained capitalist economies. For instance, when the Labour Party is in power in the UK, some commentators assert that Britain is run by a socialist government and argue that Britain is a socialist state while under that government. Cuba, North Korea, China, etc., would fit one of Webster's definitions and are clearly socialist states. Some European & Scandinavian countries might fit the latter political definition...
