I am sick of hearing the argument of “Why should taxpayers spend money on that, when you can work hard and pay for it yourself” about healthcare and education reform from people who want our government to spend even more money invading third world countries. Follow your own advice. If you would like to see us invade someone, you can work overtime and donate your money to the military, so the rest of us don’t have to pay for it.
What third world countries are on the hit list?
If you’re sick of hearing that argument, why did you just make the same argument for your political position?
No matter how hard I work, they won’t let me buy an A-10 Warthog.
Honestly, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone say that. I’ve heard people express philosophical opposition to a government-run healthcare system, but relating healthcare coverage to hard work doesn’t ring a bell at all.
On very rare occasions I’ve seen people post here saying that public schools should go away, but not on the basis of people ought to work harder.
Overall, I think there’s two possibilities: 1) I’ve just missed these arguments entirely; or 2) you’re misrepresenting people’s positions. I’m betting the latter.
Let’s take a look at a discussion of the concept public goods in economics with a couple quotes:
There’s plenty of ignorance of basic economics on both sides of the aisle. (Ahhhh if only everyone had to take just a 100 level microeconmics class… ) Healthcare and education don’t suffer from being non-excludable goods like defense though. They both have rivalrous consumption. There’s a fundamental difference. There’s arguments to be made in support of government involvement in health care and education in terms of externalities associated with an unfettered market and free riding. Efficient solutions to those problems don’t necessarily look like the solutions to provide public goods though.
Not all conservatives favor military invasions. There are small government/libertarian conservatives who want to see military spending cut alongside other government spending and favor an isolationist foreign policy.
Weak OP handled well by others.
Let me shift the subject. I say that Congress should pass a law mandating an automatic 2 percentage increase in top personal and corporate tax rates for any military campaign involving the loss of over 100 US lives per year. It would persist until the end of hostilities, defined earlier.
Good points. It gives the elite skin in the game. This is especially important as the views of the elite matter disproportionately. Cite.
Unintended consequence: it encourages terrorist enemies of the US to trigger the application of this law. So let’s modify it. The law should activate according to dollar expenditure, rather than lives lost. But I have in mind the sorts of dollar expenditures that accompany military campaigns where over 100 lives are lost.
The tax hike won’t come close to covering the cost of the war-- the Iraq War cost $3 trillion for example. It’s just intended to focus minds.
The OP is all about starting a bunch of threads and never returning. We’ll probably never see his sorry ass in this thread again.
Ok drive by posters, you can have this thread to yourself!
MfM’s personal blog
Woke up this morning desperation a.m. What I’ve been saying won’t say them again. My head’s not empty, it’s full with my brain. The thoughts I’m thinking like piss down a drain.
“The tax hike won’t come close to covering the cost of the war-- the Iraq War cost $3 trillion for example. It’s just intended to focus minds.”
Minds need focus. Think tanks haven’t thought especially hard about military intervention in a cost/benefit or probabilistic context. Maybe if the elite have money on the table in an obvious way, they will start thinking in these terms. I’m not against all wars. I’m against dumb wars.
Tell me about it! When I worked for GE I could use my employee discount on GE refrigerators, but try using it on one of their miniguns and the looks you get…