navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Look out, Dr. Pepper!
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Look out, Dr. Pepper! Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2009-06-19 08:39 AM



House eyes new taxes as senators pare health bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_79

WASHINGTON – Early work on the ambitious health care overhaul the Obama administration is seeking has exposed the kinds of in-house fights that typify just how hard it will be to get meaningful legislation this year. Case in point: A proposal to help bankroll universal health coverage with a dime-a-can increase in the price of soft drinks.

House Democrats have lots of potential targets for higher taxes as they aim to expand health care coverage to reach the roughly 50 million that experts say are uninsured.

Also under consideration are higher alcohol taxes, increases to the Medicare payroll tax and a value-added tax, a sort of national sales tax, of up to 1.5 percent or more.



I was positive I heard Obama say no new taxes on the middle class. Chalk up another campaign lie to the growing list...


© Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved
SEA
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676
with you
1 posted 2009-06-19 10:48 AM


I think tax on soda isn't that bad. It's not like it's good for you.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
2 posted 2009-06-19 12:46 PM


Taxes on alcohol should be increased by a factor of at least ten. A hundred wouldn't be too much.

While we're at it, let's legalize a few other drugs and tax them, too.



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
3 posted 2009-06-19 03:43 PM


.

Why not a BMI tax?

.


Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
4 posted 2009-06-19 07:48 PM


quote:
While we're at it, let's legalize a few other drugs and tax them, too.

Will that stop the influx of illegal drugs, Ron? I hope so.

I really do.

But for some reason, I don't think it will.

I want it to. I really do.

I mean, aren't there tax stamps already for marijuana? Yep. Are they ignored? Double yep.

I remember my ex going to the next state to get cigs cheaper than he could get them in the state we lived in - because there were no [or less] taxes in that state at the time we lived in that area.

What prevents certain states from skirting the laws? New laws? Of course! That must be it. A law is in effect. We don't like it. Pass a new law.

What needs to be done if we are going to set a new law in place is that we need 80% out of 100% of legitimate voters to concur. If we have less than that, than the vote fails, but can be brought forward again. Some people are on vacation, and haven't read their paper, or haven't turned on the local news. We had a reform going in my home town not long ago that most were against, in the beginning. It was brought up for vote a 2nd, then a 3rd time. On the 4th try, it passed. In this case, it was folks simply being tired of the city pushing this down our throat. I voted all four times, and I voted against it.

What was it? A new water park. In the middle of the midwest. They [the City] are telling us to monitor our water accordingly in keeping our gardens nice and our lawns pretty. Ok. But they're going to tax us on a water system that will evaporate more water than the city can supplement on a daily basis to the whole of the community on a good old 110 degree day?

Again, I voted against it on all counts. Pull out the sprinkler, do your lawn good, and give the kids a chill down time.

No...we have to be taxed, and then pay for the "luxury".

Poop.


Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
5 posted 2009-06-19 07:56 PM


quote:
Why not a BMI tax?

I can barely afford the taxes I pay, now, and you wish to tax me ever expanding backside???
And I thought you were a nice guy!!!!



For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
6 posted 2009-06-19 08:13 PM


Gotta have a fat tax for sure....so much for each pound overweight. A Twinkie tax should be a given.

let's just have the government determine everything that's bad for us and tax us accordingly...that should solve everything.

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
7 posted 2009-06-19 08:27 PM


What, no SPAM tax?


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
8 posted 2009-06-20 01:33 AM


I think it makes sense.  Consider how many people buy soda.  A dime is not going to put out those people.  But a dime multiplied to the numbers and frequencies that so many people buy soda shall make a helpful heap of money for a good cause.


Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
9 posted 2009-06-20 01:54 AM


Well if it will slow down the Mountain Dew being consumed in the Appalachians by those folks I have to tell you I think I approve.  Then again, I don't drink pop.   

I am used to everything being taxed where I live so I guess that I just tend to shrug when a new one comes my way, as I figure there is a deficit in something I enjoy the use of, and sure enough, it usually is.  

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
10 posted 2009-06-20 01:44 PM


quote:
But a dime multiplied to the numbers and frequencies that so many people buy soda shall make a helpful heap of money for a good cause.

Unfortunately, the "good cause" is going to be the spending of more money than the government takes in... you know, as well as the rest of us, that the administration is not going to take all of that money and use it to pay down the added debt that they incurred... they are going to do what EVERY administration has done: "Look, Ma... we gots more cash to play with... what can we spend it on, now????"

For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
11 posted 2009-06-20 04:55 PM


No, a  dime won't hurt those people. Neither would 20 cents, probably. Why not make it 20 cents then? And 20 on potato chips, 20 on popcorn, 20 on anything that contains sugar, 20 on anything labeled snack food, 20 on hamburgers, 20 on fries, 20 on and on and on....

There is no way that you are so naiive to believe that a dime on sodas will be the end result. It's just a beginner, a feeler to see if the public will stand for it, something to expand on.

...and what about that 1.5% bump on the value added tax, whatever that is?

Ringo is right. That "march of dimes" will just be more money for this administration to go through. Just think of how many trips to New York and broadway shows it will pay for.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

12 posted 2009-06-20 06:28 PM


So much for not a single dime of a tax increase on those making less than $250,00 (or $200,000, or 150,000, depending on the particular pre-election speech).

"Let me make this perfectly CLEAR, those making less than ____ (whatever amount, fill in the blank) will not see ONE DIME in tax increases under my plan."

He put the lie to that less than 3 months after being sworn in with the tobacco and alcohol federal tax increase. And now he is looking for additional taxes on tobacco, alcohol, food and drink containing sugar and also salty foods. And now there's talk of taxing the health benefits of those who receive them from their employers, not to mention the Value Added Tax (a new Federal Sales Tax, estimates ranging from 1.5% to 3.5%) in addition to all the other taxes.

These poor excuses for human beings in Washington won't be happy until they have reduced us all to slaves of the government. But maybe that's a good thing. We might not mind so much when the bureaucrats deny us life saving care for one reason or another (age, weight, smoking history, etc.) under their nationalized health care plan (from which the elite in government will be exempt). Life won't seem much worth the living anyway when all we do is work and give the government most of our money, in exchange for a substandard quality of life.

And now Barney Frank is pushing to legalize marijuana. Maybe so that the government has something new to tax.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
13 posted 2009-06-20 06:56 PM



quote:
So much for not a single dime of a tax increase on those making less than $250,00


Obama said he wouldn’t increase income tax (hence the emphasis on the income amount).

Unless you get paid in soft drinks how exactly is putting a tax on a consumable an increase in income tax?

.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
14 posted 2009-06-20 06:57 PM


quote:
It's just a beginner, a feeler to see if the public will stand for it, something to expand on.

You talking about the Sixteenth Amendment of 1913, Mike?

quote:
He put the lie to that less than 3 months after being sworn in with the tobacco and alcohol federal tax increase.

One shouldn't confuse direct and indirect taxes, Denise. Direct taxes are limited to taxes on people and property. All other taxes are commonly referred to as indirect taxes, because they tax an event, rather than a person or property. You don't want to pay the tax? Avoid the event.

The best tax laws, I think, reward behaviors we want to encourage (giving to charity or trading in a gas guzzler) and punish behaviors we want to discourage (tobacco and drugs like alcohol).

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
15 posted 2009-06-20 08:07 PM


Well, there you have it. The government should dictate what is bad for us and tax us accordingly....long live Big Brother.

Grinch, it's all semantics and word play. No, I am not paid in soda but I use what I am paid to buy soda, as well as the other things that Obama will raise taxes on. My income will be used to buy gas, too, although I am not paid in gas. It's all Obama double-talk. Translated, it says, "I won't tax your income. I'll just tax what you buy with that income." Either way, the consumer is left with less money than before. You  want to point out that Obama only said "income tax" in an effort to support him? Go ahead. What is important to the taxpayers is how much they will be left with in their pay after Obama's tax increases over what they were left with before. You need to do better than that....

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

16 posted 2009-06-20 08:14 PM


Of course he was talking about income taxes, Grinch. That's all he talked about. He emphasized that as if that were the only thing that folks had to be concerned about. I knew what was coming, though (just as Mr. Transparency knew what he was planning), even if those with stars in their eyes didn't. If something exists, a Democrat will try to find a way to tax it, especially socialist, progressive Democrats, who think they know how to make better use of your money than you do.

True Ron, but there are only so many things that you can try to avoid purchasing in order to retain a little more of your money, especially if that cap and trade legislation gets passed, not to mention the coming inflation. Then everything we buy will cost more. And in any event, our quality of life goes down. If we don't buy something that we always did before we feel deprived, or if we continue to buy some thngs that we always did before, we have less money, can't buy other things that we always bought before and feel deprived. And all this angst so that corrupt politicians can have more money to throw away in a quest for redistribution of wealth.

No matter the form of tax, they are taking more of our money and diminishing our quality of life, to one degree or another.

During the primaries, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee were bashed for their Federal Sales Tax plans. Those in power seem to love the idea now. Only Paul and Huckabee wanted to repeal the income tax first and then institute a sales tax instead. The Democrats now want both. Imagine that.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
17 posted 2009-06-20 11:07 PM


The failure here is to do the math.

What is the cost of doing nothing?

How much is saved by doing something?

If doing something requires that I pay 10 cents more for a soda so that I can save a dollar in health care costs -- then I haven't seen a tax 'increase'.

The current health-care system -- the one that puts an insurance company accountant between me and my doctor -- costs premiums that are shared in most cases by employers and employees.  If those costs decrease then that is not a tax 'increase' -- it is a premium decrease.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
18 posted 2009-06-20 11:33 PM


quote:
Well, there you have it. The government should dictate what is bad for us and tax us accordingly....long live Big Brother.

Ain't what I said. Nor does it follow from what I said or the examples I gave.

Let's reword your statement slightly, Mike.

The government should dictate what is bad for society and tax us accordingly. Promoting the good of society, after all, is THE principle role of government, don't you think?



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

19 posted 2009-06-21 02:08 AM


I don't recall the government ever doing anything with the result being money saved, LR. They can hype that as their aim, and can even say that is the result, but it's just never realized. For every dollar they say they "save" us somewhere, they just turn around and spend ten somewhere else, and then say they have to raise taxes again.

Our government should not dictate anything, Ron. And I think that in promoting the general welfare, it must find a way to do so that doesn't negate its responsibility to protect our liberty. We are not slaves, subjects or children. We are sovereign citizens, capable of making our own decisions and living with the natural consequences, whatever they may be.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
20 posted 2009-06-21 03:03 AM


quote:
Our government should not dictate anything, Ron.

Right. You mean it shouldn't pass any laws?

Honestly, I personally wish it would dictate a lot less than it does, Denise. I'm not, however, quite ready for anarchy. I don't think you are, either.

quote:
We are sovereign citizens, capable of making our own decisions and living with the natural consequences, whatever they may be.

I absolutely agree, Denise.

The problem is that I often have to live with those consequences, too, because most of those sovereign citizens start yelling for lots of government assistance as soon as they screw up their lives badly enough. Worse than what I pay out of my pocket, though, is the physical danger to life and limb every time a drunk crawls behind the wheel of a car or a druggie takes a few drive-by shots at a neighbor.

People who want absolute liberty need to move out of MY society. 'Cause their liberty is infringing on mine.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
21 posted 2009-06-21 06:05 AM



quote:
Grinch, it's all semantics and word play.


I agree Mike but you still insist on doing it.



quote:
You  want to point out that Obama only said "income tax" in an effort to support him?


If you mean that I want to point out the truth in an effort to show that your allegation that he lied with regard to raising taxes holds no water then yes. He was talking about income tax, If he’d said “nobody will pay more tax of any kind” you’d have been right to call him a liar and he’d have been an ignoramus, he didn’t, you aren’t and he isn’t.

quote:
You need to do better than that


Why?

You and Denise have already admitted that Obama was talking about not raising income tax. If that’s the case he didn’t lie and your allegation that he did is obviously incorrect. That’s all I wanted to point out – job done as far as I’m concerned.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
22 posted 2009-06-21 08:49 AM


Sounds good to me, grinch. If you are content with your explanation, then so am I because you have shown how far one will go to excuse Obama's actions, whatever they may be. The readers of this thread, few as they may be, will judge whose assessment is more accurate in their view.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

23 posted 2009-06-21 09:13 AM


I'm not talking about anarchy, Ron. I'm talking about the liberty to make legal choices in our lives without interference and extortion by political hacks who want to fund their pet projects at our expense thereby diminishing our standard of living.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
24 posted 2009-06-21 10:05 AM



quote:
because you have shown how far one will go to excuse Obama's actions


What actions Mike? It can’t be his lying about tax increases – we’ve already established you made all that up.

Do you mean putting a dime a can tax on soft drinks? I think it’s a good idea, you have to raise tax from somewhere so taxing unhealthy consumables seems as good a way as any to me. Then again I haven’t heard any alternative suggestions, what do you suggest?


.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

25 posted 2009-06-21 10:53 AM


“You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet”

by Bob Pappas

As one who was exposed to totalitarian government at an early age, who observed up close and personal the ravages of Hitler’s socialism throughout Europe, who has both relatives and friends who escaped the clutches of the USSR’s Stalin and Romania’s Ceauºescu, I developed an early and abiding aversion, no, antipathy toward totalitarian socialism/communism. Incidentally, excessive government control in whatever its form, whether it is excessive taxes, which Obama is cooking up, or laws that restrict what one can do with one’s private property, which Obama is cooking up, is totalitarian socialism/communism.
http://gulf1.typepad.com/gulf1cpappas/2009/05/index.html


Here's a suggestion, Grinch: Have the government stop spending what it doesn't have and can't afford.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
26 posted 2009-06-21 10:56 AM


What actions? Causing people, even middle class, to wind up with less money under him by raising the prices on the products they buy, while claiming that he is not cutting their taxes because it is not an "income" tax raise. However the money goes out of my pocket, be it directly from my income or from tax increases on the products I buy, the bottom line is that I wind up with less, based on his decisions.

What should he do? Stop spending money he doesn't have and stop wasting money he does spend. Go after the government excesses instead of Coke. Stop his ridiculous pork projects instead of Sprite. Stop funneling millions to his pals at Acorn. There are billions being wasted by the government. Give some thought to eliminating that, instead. He would save a lot more money by doing that than by going after the pause that refreshes. Take some of that stimulus money - you know, that wonderful thing that had to be passed immediately to save the United States from disaster, that thing which Obama claimed would cut unemployment to no more than 8% by summer with it's shovel-ready jobs, that thing in which Obama has used only 5% of since it's passage? No, he prefers to just go after products use instead, while proclaiming (with your help) he is not raising their taxes.

What should he do? Stop acting like a kid in the candy store with unlimited pockets. Stop plunging deeper into the record deficit he has orchestrated. Stop being a community organizer and start being a president.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

27 posted 2009-06-21 11:07 AM


Now that would be refreshing!
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
28 posted 2009-06-21 11:52 AM


This looks like just another attempt to try to make Obama and his administration look harsh and unruly by trying to magnify something unextreme into looking as if it is extreme.  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

29 posted 2009-06-21 12:01 PM


According to this study, perhaps those in power should try to find a way to tax the skinny folks in our society.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c7aaeb7940626693fa418a1eab2291f6.81&show_article=1


There is nothing that this administration and Congress are currently doing that could be considered unextreme, at least by American standards, Ess. They are attempting to turn our country upside down.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
30 posted 2009-06-21 12:59 PM



quote:
Here's a suggestion, Grinch: Have the government stop spending what it doesn't have and can't afford.


The Government.

Thank you. For a minute there with Mike ranting on about Obama doing this and Obama doing that I got the distinct impression that everyone had forgotten that Obama can’t unilaterally do anything without the backing of the people via the elected government.



quote:
Have the government stop spending what it doesn't have and can't afford


That would have been a fine idea if it had been instigated before the recent financial collapse. Successive governments have ignored the fact that, on paper, your country has been bankrupt for years due to excessive spending. Unfortunately in the midst of a recession it’s not such a fine idea. Cutting government spending at a time when only the government is spending is a recipe for disaster. The downward spiral of mass unemployment leading to subsequent consumer spending reductions and company failures that would inevitably follow would cause the American economy to implode.

I’m all for reducing government spending but not at a time when it would be tantamount to economic suicide.

.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
31 posted 2009-06-21 01:02 PM


There's a lot I don't like about this administration. A whole lot. Taxing non-essential consumables probably isn't going to be anywhere near the top of the list, though.

At least we haven't started any new wars lately? Think how much money we're saving on that alone!

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
32 posted 2009-06-21 02:55 PM


.

Would diet soft drinks
with zero calories be included?
If yes, why?

.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

33 posted 2009-06-21 03:20 PM


By government I meant Obama and his majority in Congress who are running roughshod over our economy, exercising no restraint or common sense and only deepening our deficits, tripling in 4 months the deficit for which they are still bashing Bush. I think cutting off all funds to ACORN would be a start back toward fiscal sanity that shouldn't add much to the unemployment lines.

I think his policies will endanger more than enjoyment of some non-essentials, Ron. Some folks won't be able to afford home heating oil this coming winter, especially if cap and trade goes through, or if inflation is more severe than anticipated. Use of airconditioning may also have to be severely restricted if electicity prices go through the roof. They are both essentials for me. I still remember freezing and sweating and sitting in long rationed gas lines under Jimmy Carter. I can't do that again. I don't have the same stamina as I did when I was in my twenties.

Probably John, since artificial sweeteners aren't supposed to be good for you either.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
34 posted 2009-06-21 04:31 PM


.


"aren't supposed to be good for you either."


By that logic, what is not subject?
Breathing after all adds to global warming . . .

And an estate tax taxes you for being dead.

.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
35 posted 2009-06-21 05:00 PM


quote:

By that logic, what is not subject?
Breathing after all adds to global warming . . .

And an estate tax taxes you for being dead.



Breathing merely returns carbon-dioxide to the atmosphere that was there to begin with -- so, no -- it doesn't contribute to climate change... it is the dredging up of hydrocarbons in the form of petroleum and coal and the burning of same that increases the carbon-dioxide level of the air -- from sources of carbon that have long been sequestered.

And, estate taxes don't tax you for being dead -- they tax your heirs for (unearned)income.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
36 posted 2009-06-21 05:19 PM


.


"And, estate taxes don't tax you for being dead -- they tax your heirs for (unearned)income. "


Which would not happen if you weren't   . . .


.





Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
37 posted 2009-06-21 07:11 PM


taxing your heirs for unearned income....love it. I must suppose the government earned it more than the family who inherits. Makes me wonder how all those women get divorce settlements and alimony from all of that (unearned) money their ex-husbands made.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
38 posted 2009-06-21 08:37 PM


Mike, when you're in a hole -- stop digging.  

John, of course one's benefactor has to be dead in order to inherit -- but then of course the estate tax only kicks in at over 3 million dollars -- so it never really effects most people -- and the ones who were effected by it just put the money into trusts to keep from paying it.  So, it was mostly an irrelevant football that sounded real good during elections...

Death Tax --  no!  no!

The humanity.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
39 posted 2009-06-21 08:45 PM


But I have to keep digging because it can get really deep in here at times
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
40 posted 2009-06-21 10:54 PM


A death tax actually makes a lot of sense. Under a pure laissez faire system of capitalism, where assets pass through the generations unimpeded, sooner or later one man would end up owning everything there was to own.
sandgrain
Member Elite
since 1999-09-21
Posts 3662
Sycamore, IL, USA
41 posted 2009-06-21 11:38 PM


If government can tell big corporations their CEOs can no longer get mega millions, why can't they stop drug manufacturers from charging outrageous prices here, while charging other countries much less?

Very little is said about the horrendous amount of drugs sold to Mexico that come back here in illegal use.

Imagine how reformed healthcare would be if the drug company charges were curtailed and they had to quit advertising.

Rae

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
42 posted 2009-06-22 06:29 AM


quote:

I don't recall the government ever doing anything with the result being money saved, LR. They can hype that as their aim, and can even say that is the result, but it's just never realized. For every dollar they say they "save" us somewhere, they just turn around and spend ten somewhere else, and then say they have to raise taxes again.



Hmmm...

the Postal Service
Amtrak
TVA
oh..
And... of course
Medicare.

I could go on -- but it really wouldn't matter.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

43 posted 2009-06-22 07:42 AM


What's your point, L.R.? These things have saved us money?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
44 posted 2009-06-22 03:01 PM


Can you think of a cheaper way to send a letter Denise?

Do the commuters who rely on Amtrak every day have a better alternative?  Obviously not -- or else they would use it.

Would the South have been electrified without the TVA?  Nope.  It was too cost prohibitive for private enterprise due to the sparse population.  But -- it not only saved money but it opened the door to development.

Medicare delivers benefits to it's insured at far under the rate of private insurance cost structures --

So, yep.  That's what I'm saying.

And while we're talking about paving the way to progress -- let's not leave out the Federal Highway system -- you know -- that huge subsidy that enabled the automobile industry (and every other industry) to flourish int the 20th Century.

I have occasionally used the 80/90 toll road in Indiana -- the one that Republican Governor Mitch Daniels decided to privatize and lease out to a foreign concern for some quick cash -- since going private a few years ago the tolls have almost doubled.

Is there waste fraud and abuse in government? You bet -- but it's still one of the most cost-effective tools around.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

45 posted 2009-06-22 07:30 PM


None of it saves us money, L.R. It all comes out of our pockets.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
46 posted 2009-06-22 09:33 PM


By your standard then Denise -- we can phrase your premise a little differently --

Commerce doesn't save us any money -- it comes out of our pockets.

Mail doesn't save us any money -- it comes out of our pockets -- unless we need to send a letter or a parcel from point A to point B.  In which case we can either take it there ourselves at our own expense -- or we can buy a stamp -- it saves us money.

Highways don't save us money -- they come out of our pockets -- unless we need to move from point A to point B -- in which case we can walk at the expense of the time we could have been making money instead of walking -- or we can travel over paved roads -- they save us money.

Unless you plan on a subsistence living off of the land with no trade whatsoever -- then in order to get the things you need and want -- you're going to have to spend some money -- in which case there are some economies of scope and/or scale that are simply best suited to government and some services that simply don't work in private hands.  It not only saves us money -- it enriches us.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

47 posted 2009-06-22 10:45 PM


Of course we have to spend money to do what needs to be done. My point is that government takeovers and subsidizing doesn't save us money. It always costs us in the end, much more than they said it would in the beginning. Subsidizing Amtrak was supposed to be a temporary situation, for instance. We're still subsidizing it.  
rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
48 posted 2009-06-23 08:26 AM


I'm not surprised. We started out with Tea and now we're back 'round to it.

I still feel the parties are equally defunct when it comes to proper funding and spending.

The dems tax everything under the sun and will probably figure out a way to extra-tax the sunlight~

And the reps write blank checks in the dark without a clue who they hand them to.

We need a "Pale Rider."

or maybe Batman. lol


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

49 posted 2009-06-23 10:19 PM




     Which are the situations and conditions you think the government should get out of, specifically.  

     I think the words "all", 'every," "no," "none" and the like might be avoided if at all possible for the sake of clarity, though that's a suggestion.

     I find discussions of this sort get very general very quickly, as I'm afraid we may be seeing here.  This will still happen if we stay specific, I'm afraid, be we may be able to to continue longer and learn more from each other for a greater length of time before we all begin to look like cartoon images of Bill the Cat.  

     Maybe then we can press RESET and start again — a suggestion, at least.

     Also a proposition as a kick off place for discussion, should people find it interesting.


Pro and Con:
    [bold] The marketplace is a useful regulator, but should not be the sole regulator of an economy.  The marketplace as regulator may be nothing more than a way of talking about 19th Century Social Darwinism as though it weren't   a discredited way of looking at the world.
[/bold]

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Look out, Dr. Pepper!

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary