Perhaps a convincing cite would get you back in the game. Not only does government grow, it has been growing in a distressingly linear fashion for the last 110 years, with no end in sight.
I believe that guns are central to the ability of the authorities to arrest and imprison you, which is exactly what happens if a citizen refuses to pay the taxes used to finance the government’s programs and allows them to “win the war of the market.”
And Stan Shmenge, there’s something you need to know about eludidator’s posts. Oftentimes he’s not really posting in order to make a case for what he’s saying so much as he is trying to deflect the argument away from the more substantive points his opponents have made. It’s a rather lazy and disingenuous approach, but then he does tend to spread himself rather thinly around here and so to give him the benefit of the doubt I’ll just assume he doesn’t have the time to debate more honestly.
Cheers, luce! 
A summons? Perhaps his hat if he’s polite?
And here I thought all starving artists were lefties! I agree with you, help the indigent, and leave the rest well enough alone. Oh, wait, we already DO help the indigent. Here in Los Angeles County, we just built a new ONE BILLION dollar hospital to cater to them. It hasn’t been open a year and it is already tagged with gang graffiti all over. Pearls before swine.
You should write for Leno. :rolleyes: Or maybe you are British. Here, cops carry guns, and they are willing to use them.
They carry them here, too. The cop who came to dust my car for prints had one. He was not forcing me to let him dust my car at gunpoint.
Yeah, when I discovered this place I was doing some painting and thought Cafe Society would be a treasure trove of interesting art-related conversation. However, it proved to be mostly about TV and movies. Then, inexorably, I became drawn to the political threads. Had I known the nature of what would turn out to be my participation when I joined here, I would have picked a more ideologically accurate name – something like Ted Nugent’s a Pinko! perhaps. I think from time to time about changing my name to something that causes less cognative dissonance, but then I feel everyone’s so used to my user name by now that there wouldn’t be much point.
Its like being savaged by Mallard Fillmore.
You’ve said that before.
Still, at your stage in life I would think you’d be happy to be savaged by anybody.
If I told you, you’d kill yourself. Can’t have that on my conscience.
By the way, going to answer the question, or are you about to get really, really busy?
Somehow I think I could still soldier on.
(Uh…got any photos?)
Am I going to answer the question as to whether government continues to grow and grow? Nah, I think I’ll let your suggestion that there’s even a question about it serve as its own condemnation.
Well, now that you mention it, I do have a couple of errands to run. I should be back later though. If you’d care to give me your phone number (assuming you can afford a phone, that is) I’d be happy to call and let you know when I’m on the way back.
He wasn’t arresting you. And one doesn’t have to point a gun for it to have it’s effect. The fact that the guy is armed, and ready to use his weapon to dispense lethal force, if necessary, is enough. Pay your taxes, and if you don’t, then come along quietly, or we will use force, up to and including lethal force to compel you.
Anyway, this is all nonsense. The simple fact is, that the government has access to unlimited amounts of money based on coercion, that private businesses do not. This makes competing with them unfair. End of story.
Or to take another example, Amtrak. Little known fact: it is ILLEGAL to operate passenger trains that compete with Amtrak, or even ones on routes that don’t compete with Amtrak. Someone wanted to operate private passneger service, down in Florida, I believe, on a route Amtrak doesn’t even service, and the feds told them no, you can not do that. We might want to operate trains there someday, so you cannot compete with us, even if we don’t currently serve that market. This is how the government acts, like a bully, that wants everything for itself, and beyond that, it wants nobody to have things it doesn’t even want! Why should we believe they won’t tend to act that way in the realm of health care?
Yes, even conservatives think Mallard Fillmore is lame. Thanks for the hot news flash, Cronkite.
I find it amazing that anyone could even continue to argue the point after viewing the graph I linked in my upthread cite. And Obama certainly isn’t going to be The One to turn that curve around.
Interesting that Firefox spellchecker is still flagging Obama. Way to go, guys. :rolleyes:
Yep. It’s also illegal to try to run a mail delivery service. Even courier services like UPS (IIRC) have been the subject of government lawsuits claiming they were actually delivering mail.
And look at the way the federal government has used the threat of withholding federal highway matching funds – funds paid into by the citizens of every state – in order to force states to comply with a plethora of federal directives.
The federal government is not benevolent. It will always act in its own best intersest, and when its best interest collides with yours, guess who wins?
No way do I want the federal government of the United States to get its hands on or be making decisions about my medical care.
And no one arresting you will point a gun at you. Please stop pretending that you’re forced to pay your taxes at gunpoint. You are not.
But you said they were. “at the point of a gun” you said. I checked.
I would assume they always are. Now we’ve gone from being forced to do something at the point of a gun to being served a summons from someone who carries a gun as a matter of course. (Maybe. I assume a cop would deliver a summons, but maybe you’d get it in the mail or be served by a suit with no gun).
Oh, I see. You’re a libertarian, with your special libertarian definitions. How terrible that you be held accountable should you commit a crime.
I couldn’t agree more.
Odd. I keep hearing that private enterprise is intrinsically superior and thus will win the hearts and wallets of the market. But since when was being fair to usurius industries important. If they have sub-par business models, boo hoo.
Nah. You said the safe word: coercion. That’s where I point out that your government is not expected to and does not claim to adhere to libertarian theory and then make a quick exit.
Odd that Communists don’t come here and make similar arguments from the other direction. Perhaps it’s because they understand that their government isn’t Communist.
Yes, but it gave us the wonderful 55 mph speed limit! Enacted the year they finished the last mile of interstate, a highway system that was engineered for the 70 mph speed limit! It’s in your best interest, citizen, now shut up and take off your shoes or you can’t get on the airplane!
If government health care was paid for voluntarily, and the government had to compete for hearts and wallets, your argument might make a lick of sense!
This is typical of the way liberals argue. When they know they are wrong, they resort to red herrings, ad-hominem, and anything else they think can distract from the colossal failure of their reasoning.
Want a public option? Statutorially require that it be funded entirely out of proceeds that it collects from customers, and cannot be subsidized out of the general fund. Then we’ll see who competes and who doesn’t. But you and I know this isn’t how it will go. Or at least I know it.
Why do conservatives keep yammering about a government takeover of healthcare? There’s no way single-payer would pass anything, let alone Congress as a whole, and the public option isn’t a government takeover.
Here’s an idea: argue from what can actually be proven, instead of things that you “know”.
Nope, it’s pretty much a universal truth. If you lower prices while expand your customer base, quality suffers. If you expand your customer base while vowing to maintain high quality standards, you need to raise your prices. If your driving focus is on good quality at an affordable price, you won’t be able to accommodate a massive increase in demand.
I always get suspicious when politicians talk about raising cash by eliminating waste. You can’t just eliminate waste. Waste is a natural and unavoidable byproduct of big organisations. Saying you’re going to pay for improvements in any big organisation by eliminating waste is a bit like saying you’ll be able to afford to refurbish a bar because, once you’re in charge, nobody will spill a drop or break any glasses.
That’s not to say waste can’t be trimmed, but you can’t talk about eliminating waste as though it’s a silver bullet. I suspect that Obama is massively overestimating the amount he will be able to save by improving efficiency within the health care system. As someone intent on imposing health care reform on millions of people who don’t want it, it is incumbent upon him to (a) precisely define “slop”, (b) explain how he is going to trim it, and (c) explain how the savings will be redirected. Then, when his critics have had their say, he needs to step up again with focussed, fact-filled rebuttals.
Some people are. Not everyone who is worried about health care reform is a mouthbreathing, townhall crashing, Beckbot. Some people, I would go so far as to say the majority of people, are worried about health care reform because they’re happy with what they’ve got and don’t understand how the President’s plans will affect their coverage or their taxes. That’s Obama’s fault.
I’ll give you that, but he has promised that care won’t suffer. This also contravenes the “Two out of three” rule.
Those issues you mention get the most press because they’re the most emotive and covering them makes for easy press copy. Those people who are wary of health care reform yet don’t buy into the obvious bullshit spouted by the Palinites are generally smart, reasonably well informed people who just don’t understand the mechanics of the proposed reform. There are a lot of angry carnival barkers out there spreading nonsense and there are plenty of people willing to listen to them uncritically. But there are also plenty of people who are hungry for details because they’re worried about the deficit and common sense tells them that the President’s health care goals are mutually exclusive.
I get FOX on my cable package and I’ve been following the right wing spin on this fairly closely. I’ve seen a lot of coverage of the death panels but, aside from the occasional nutcase talking head on Beck or Hannity, I’ve seen very few people actually come out and argue that they are a legitimate threat. I’ve seen a great many more people, people like Krauthammer, Kristol, Barnes, Hume, and others asking over and over again “Just how in the world does he intend to pay for all of this?” This is a question which demands a precise answer, replete with cost estimates, long and short term projections, fundraising plans, proposed cuts and further details on the ramifications of those cuts. In light of the supernatural message discipline they displayed on the campaign trail, it baffles me that Team Obama has yet to provide the facts and figures reasonable working Americans are demanding. Yesterday’s speech still leaves a ton of unanswered questions and frankly, it just leads me to suspect they’re hiding something.
Conceded. I’m glad Obama didn’t just thrust a completed bill onto the House floor and say “Take it or leave it”. At the same time, he made what I consider to be very little effort to influence the House bill or clearly communicate its contents to the American people, and that is his job.
I was exaggerating to make a point, but I still stand by what I said in principle. Obama has a deserved reputation for being a great communicator, but still the most basic questions about his plan remain unanswered. Here’s one I’ll ask you now. Bear in mind, the President has been asked this on numerous occasions and has thus far failed to give what I believe to be anything like a coherent answer.
Obama has said, forcefully and repeatedly, “If you like your plan, you can keep it!”. What if you prefer the private plan provided by your employer to the public option, but your employer switches to Obamacare to save money for himself? Voila! Your plan has been swapped for an inferior (for you) alternative and, unless you’re prepared to quit your job, there’s nothing you can do about it. What, if any, mechanisms has President Obama proposed to stop this from happening? How much will they cost and what effect will they have on private insurers?
This is a pretty basic question and, to the best of my knowledge, it has gone unanswered for the last few months. These are the kind of details that a lot of people want to learn about. It’s not rocket science, it’s simple stuff, yet Obama isn’t playing ball.
Well, absent reliable numbers on this we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m of the opinion that the nutcases at townhalls have overshadowed the majority of people who have more legitimate concerns, as nutcases always do. You’re right that it’s silly to expect Obama to break out Powerpoint during a congressional address, but maybe he wouldn’t have needed to give one if he’d broken it out a little earlier.