<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 04:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I'm just saying that it would be a really stupid idea to do away with welfare. If keeping welfare means you and I have to pay more in taxes, fine. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I choose not to pay taxes that have no real representation other then good intent, I become a criminal. Thats called extortion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, thats called "You're a citizen of this country and services can't exist for free". It'd be great if there was a system where you could only pay for what you wanted, don't have kids? Then you don't need to pay for public schools. Don't ever expect to lose your job? Then you don't have to pay for welfare. Don't need good roads? Don't support war? you get the point. The only way such a system would work is if by not paying for these things you were also not entitled to them. And that'd be great as far as I'm concerned, except for this one nagging detail: If those who don't need aren't paying for the services that others nedd, then those services don't get enough money to function and the whole system collapses.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Point being, we don't need government unless it's needed. There is no proof that social welfare can prevent "starvation" anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What are you smoking!? Lets try this again, from the begining: Joe loses his factory job because of a downturn in the economy, that same downturn makes it nigh impossible for joe to find work now. Joe will try hard to find a new job, but since he doesn't have any money (because he isn't working) he can't afford food or a place to live, so he has about a month until he starves to death to find a job. If the recession lasts longer then a month, Joe is dead and won't be there to work when the economy picks up again. How do we solve this dilema? Simple: give Joe some money for food and rent while hes unemployed, so he can continue to live while looking for work. Voila: welfare just prevented starvation and helped the economy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not only that, charity organizations will spring up in replacement of government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow,, you really are clueless aren't you? Tell me, do you honestly think that any charity can come up with the money nessesary to provide these kinds of services?
I lost my job due to corporate welfare a while back, I suppose I deserve to starve to death.
(No I don't receive welfare but I'd love to at this point, pray that my interview on friday goes well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Anyone else notice how its always the comfortable living people who knock on social welfares? I suppose I can't be bothered to think either when Im busy deciding which caviar to eat in my limo.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited March 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Mar 1 2005, 04:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Mar 1 2005, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I lost my job due to corporate welfare a while back, I suppose I deserve to starve to death.
(No I don't receive welfare but I'd love to at this point, pray that my interview on friday goes well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Anyone else notice how its always the comfortable living people who knock on social welfares? I suppose I can't be bothered to think either when Im busy deciding which caviar to eat in my limo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Notice rich people pay most of the money into the government...so they have every right to **** really. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited March 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 1 2005, 04:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 1 2005, 04:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 04:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I'm just saying that it would be a really stupid idea to do away with welfare. If keeping welfare means you and I have to pay more in taxes, fine. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I choose not to pay taxes that have no real representation other then good intent, I become a criminal. Thats called extortion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, thats called "You're a citizen of this country and services can't exist for free". It'd be great if there was a system where you could only pay for what you wanted, don't have kids? Then you don't need to pay for public schools. Don't ever expect to lose your job? Then you don't have to pay for welfare. Don't need good roads? Don't support war? you get the point. The only way such a system would work is if by not paying for these things you were also not entitled to them. And that'd be great as far as I'm concerned, except for this one nagging detail: If those who don't need aren't paying for the services that others nedd, then those services don't get enough money to function and the whole system collapses. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A small sturdy government won't collapse.
Large leviathan governments on the otherhand...
What right does the government to care about itself and the "common man" over the will of a individual? None, people who rely on this premise are generally weak individuals anyway. But to say that government is the only way of handling such affairs is utter nonsense.
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 04:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 04:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 1 2005, 04:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 1 2005, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 04:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> True education isn't free, but there must be some measure of accountablity when it comes so, social welfare does nothing to rehabilitate lower class citizens. So it's nothing more then a drain on resources. Theres no proof that social welfare will prevent people from "starving to death", if anything it's made countries in Europe poorer. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're a freaking psycho, you know that right? Social welfare gives people money, money they can spend on rent and food. Those things are what are known as "nessesity", you need them to keep living. You WILL starve to death if you can't buy food, unless you commit crime and steal it, that is fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Theres also the belief that as we make education more key that better bugeting and private investment will make it even more affordable then it is today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> "This lesson brought to you by Coke". No thanks. If education is privately funded then it can push a private agenda, like say, a religious one. Or even worse, a corporate one designed to make you believe that you need to buy the next N'Sync CD or whatever. DEAR GOD NO! Public education may be ineffecient, but contrary to popular conservative belief privatization isn't the answer. Hell, corporations aren't really any better then the government when it comes to efficiency, and then of course theres things like what happened at enron. BAD IDEAS ALL AROUND! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Schools are already being sponsored by Coke and Pepsi. As well as many other companies.
Point being, we don't need government unless it's needed. There is no proof that social welfare can prevent "starvation" anyway. Not only that, charity organizations will spring up in replacement of government. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Coke and Pepsi don't control the cirriculum, which is what could happen under privatization. Still, I support privatization of education, as long as there is a rigorous accrediation process.
Social welfare can prevent starvation because any citizen (and many non-citizens I presume) can go down to the welfare office and grab a check that they can spend on food. Many people depend on welfare.
Charity organizations operate on the whims of the people who fund them. If the economy is bad, and donations are down, they can't help some people. They don't have the duty (this is important) or the resources to help everyone. Unpopular causes will lack a charity. How many people want to help drug users or felons? Not very many, so charities in these areas will go underfunded, as opposed to charities helping out people with, say, breast cancer. Still, drug users and felons deserve to have basic food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education (if not for them, for their children).
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 04:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 04:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Mar 1 2005, 04:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Mar 1 2005, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I lost my job due to corporate welfare a while back, I suppose I deserve to starve to death.
(No I don't receive welfare but I'd love to at this point, pray that my interview on friday goes well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Anyone else notice how its always the comfortable living people who knock on social welfares? I suppose I can't be bothered to think either when Im busy deciding which caviar to eat in my limo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Notice rich people pay most of the money into the government...so they have every right to **** really. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, not really. Life has been good to you, and all the government asks is that you pay a very affordable (for you) tax to them so that they can provide services to the less fortunate. Of course, the government also takes money from the less fortunate for these services (and they can't really afford it as well as you can, can they?).
Oh, I've always wanted to say this, and now seems like a good time: IF YOU DON"T LIKE THE WAY AMERICA DOES THINGS, YOU CAN JUST GET OUT! Ah, felt good to turn that one around.
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 04:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 04:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Mar 1 2005, 04:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Mar 1 2005, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I lost my job due to corporate welfare a while back, I suppose I deserve to starve to death.
(No I don't receive welfare but I'd love to at this point, pray that my interview on friday goes well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Anyone else notice how its always the comfortable living people who knock on social welfares? I suppose I can't be bothered to think either when Im busy deciding which caviar to eat in my limo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Notice rich people pay most of the money into the government...so they have every right to **** really. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Rich people benefit from social welfare. Not as much as the poor, obviously, but they definately do. Poverty creates crime. Social welfare reduces poverty. Therefore, social welfare reduces crime. Rich people don't like to live in a society with lots of crime. Therefore social welfare benefits the rich.
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 05:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 05:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 1 2005, 04:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 1 2005, 04:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 04:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I'm just saying that it would be a really stupid idea to do away with welfare. If keeping welfare means you and I have to pay more in taxes, fine. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I choose not to pay taxes that have no real representation other then good intent, I become a criminal. Thats called extortion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, thats called "You're a citizen of this country and services can't exist for free". It'd be great if there was a system where you could only pay for what you wanted, don't have kids? Then you don't need to pay for public schools. Don't ever expect to lose your job? Then you don't have to pay for welfare. Don't need good roads? Don't support war? you get the point. The only way such a system would work is if by not paying for these things you were also not entitled to them. And that'd be great as far as I'm concerned, except for this one nagging detail: If those who don't need aren't paying for the services that others nedd, then those services don't get enough money to function and the whole system collapses. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A small sturdy government won't collapse.
Large leviathan governments on the otherhand...
What right does the government to care about itself and the "common man" over the will of a individual? None, people who rely on this premise are generally weak individuals anyway. But to say that government is the only way of handling such affairs is utter nonsense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wasn't saying that the entire government would collapse, just the service that need money. If there aren't any such services, then the government wouldn't collapse, but it also wouldn't be helping people who need it.
My argument is very simple, you should be able to understand it, but since you haven't yet I'll give it annother go in smaller, easier to understand words:
1. Without a welfare program, people will not be given the oportunity to work hard and succede because they will be dead. 2. No private organization or charity could ever come up with enough money to feed all the down on their luck unemployed mouths that need to be fed. Therefore, it must be a government responsibility. 3. Being a citizen of this country, you have access to all sorts of pulic institutions and services, wether you use them or not, so you have to help pay for them. Also scince those in need of these services obviously can't pay for them, you have to help.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited March 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 05:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 05:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 04:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 04:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 1 2005, 04:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 1 2005, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 04:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> True education isn't free, but there must be some measure of accountablity when it comes so, social welfare does nothing to rehabilitate lower class citizens. So it's nothing more then a drain on resources. Theres no proof that social welfare will prevent people from "starving to death", if anything it's made countries in Europe poorer. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're a freaking psycho, you know that right? Social welfare gives people money, money they can spend on rent and food. Those things are what are known as "nessesity", you need them to keep living. You WILL starve to death if you can't buy food, unless you commit crime and steal it, that is fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Theres also the belief that as we make education more key that better bugeting and private investment will make it even more affordable then it is today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> "This lesson brought to you by Coke". No thanks. If education is privately funded then it can push a private agenda, like say, a religious one. Or even worse, a corporate one designed to make you believe that you need to buy the next N'Sync CD or whatever. DEAR GOD NO! Public education may be ineffecient, but contrary to popular conservative belief privatization isn't the answer. Hell, corporations aren't really any better then the government when it comes to efficiency, and then of course theres things like what happened at enron. BAD IDEAS ALL AROUND! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Schools are already being sponsored by Coke and Pepsi. As well as many other companies.
Point being, we don't need government unless it's needed. There is no proof that social welfare can prevent "starvation" anyway. Not only that, charity organizations will spring up in replacement of government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Coke and Pepsi don't control the cirriculum, which is what could happen under privatization. Still, I support privatization of education, as long as there is a rigorous accrediation process.
Social welfare can prevent starvation because any citizen (and many non-citizens I presume) can go down to the welfare office and grab a check that they can spend on food. Many people depend on welfare.
Charity organizations operate on the whims of the people who fund them. If the economy is bad, and donations are down, they can't help some people. They don't have the duty (this is important) or the resources to help everyone. Unpopular causes will lack a charity. How many people want to help drug users or felons? Not very many, so charities in these areas will go underfunded, as opposed to charities helping out people with, say, breast cancer. Still, drug users and felons deserve to have basic food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education (if not for them, for their children). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What rights does a non-citizen have? NONE. They are visitors here, thus they aren't entitled to any benefit from our government whatsoever. But back on the subject, lets look at it another way, Families today use programs such as WIC and the like to support themselves, WIC is privately funded and does not require government to exist and in the long run it benefits the industry. So to say people are going to starve or go homeless is utter nonsense, if anything your more likely to be jobless and poor in a command economy like Germany's then you are in a freer economic system like the USA's. Why is this? It surely isn't the fact that private orgs do a better job at it then government can! Look at NASA. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Sidenote: When I hear German politicians campaign on "cutting waste" and "improving efficiency" in the public sector. When they are sworn to office, they find that none of that can be done without hurting the special interests which got them elected in the first place.
So why do you believe their ****?
Count the number of public enterprises which have closed up and failed. It can probably be done on one hand, and that's a flaw, not an asset. Cut the social programs and eliminate the welfare state, that's how germany can solve it's problems.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 05:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 04:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 04:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Mar 1 2005, 04:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Mar 1 2005, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I lost my job due to corporate welfare a while back, I suppose I deserve to starve to death.
(No I don't receive welfare but I'd love to at this point, pray that my interview on friday goes well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Anyone else notice how its always the comfortable living people who knock on social welfares? I suppose I can't be bothered to think either when Im busy deciding which caviar to eat in my limo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Notice rich people pay most of the money into the government...so they have every right to **** really. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Rich people benefit from social welfare. Not as much as the poor, obviously, but they definately do. Poverty creates crime. Social welfare reduces poverty. Therefore, social welfare reduces crime. Rich people don't like to live in a society with lots of crime. Therefore social welfare benefits the rich. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh so now social welfare is to fund criminals to keep them off the streets? That pointless. Why not just rob me, I like taking chances. Government is going to steal more from a individual then a theif.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why is this? It surely isn't the fact that private orgs do a better job at it then government can! Look at NASA.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nasa routinely sends vehicles to orbit the earth, deploys satellites there, lands probes on the other side of the solar system with great accuracy, and oh yeah, they landed on a the moon a few times a while back. Tell me, what private organization has managed that?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh so now social welfare is to fund criminals to keep them off the streets? That pointless. Why not just rob me, I like taking chances. Government is going to steal more from a individual then a theif.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No. Maybe you should pay attention next time? Hes saying that welfare helps keep people from turning to crime (a viable source of income when you can't get a job).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What rights does a non-citizen have? NONE. They are visitors here, thus they aren't entitled to any benefit from our government whatsoever. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wrong. They are entitled to basic human rights, just like you and me. We don't provide many rights to non-citizens for the basic reason that they would flood our country if we did, preventing us from providing basic rights to anybody, by killing the economy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But lets look at it another way, Families today use programs such as WIC and the like to support themselves, WIC is privately funded and does not require government to exist and in the long run it benefits the industry. So to say people are going to starve or go homeless is utter nonsense, if anything your more likely to be jobless and poor in a command economy like Germany's then you are in a freer economic system like the USA's. Why is this? It surely isn't the fact that private orgs do a better job at it then government can! Look at NASA. tounge.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say that charitible organizations couldn't support people. I said that they can't do a comprehensive job, like the government can. Without universal welfare coverage, people WILL fall through the cracks (even with it, people still will, but to a lesser extent).
Germany is capitalist, to a similiar extent as us. They have more socialistic elements than us, but we have socialistic elements, too (Social Security, Medicare, etc).
I'm not sure what you mean by your NASA comment. I don't think they did a great job, personally, but that's because they have to obey the whims of politicians and their constituents. Private institutions may do a better job in that field.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sidenote: When I hear German politicians campaign on "cutting waste" and "improving efficiency" in the public sector. When they are sworn to office, they find that none of that can be done without hurting the special interests which got them elected in the first place.
So why do you believe their ****?
Count the number of public enterprises which have closed up and failed. It can probably be done on one hand, and that's a flaw, not an asset. Cut the social programs and eliminate the welfare state, that's how germany can solve it's problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you know that the French government runs one of the most efficient power companies in the world? Public enterprises can be run just as well as private ones.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited March 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 1 2005, 05:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 1 2005, 05:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why is this? It surely isn't the fact that private orgs do a better job at it then government can! Look at NASA.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nasa routinely sends vehicles to orbit the earth, deploys satellites there, lands probes on the other side of the solar system with great accuracy, and oh yeah, they landed on a the moon a few times a while back. Tell me, what private organization has managed that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Private organizations can't it's a government monopoly. Japan already has companies eyeing a lunar base now.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited March 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 05:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 05:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What rights does a non-citizen have? NONE. They are visitors here, thus they aren't entitled to any benefit from our government whatsoever. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wrong. They are entitled to basic human rights, just like you and me. We don't provide many rights to non-citizens for the basic reason that they would flood our country if we did, preventing us from providing basic rights to anybody, by killing the economy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But lets look at it another way, Families today use programs such as WIC and the like to support themselves, WIC is privately funded and does not require government to exist and in the long run it benefits the industry. So to say people are going to starve or go homeless is utter nonsense, if anything your more likely to be jobless and poor in a command economy like Germany's then you are in a freer economic system like the USA's. Why is this? It surely isn't the fact that private orgs do a better job at it then government can! Look at NASA. tounge.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say that charitible organizations couldn't support people. I said that they can't do a comprehensive job, like the government can. Without universal welfare coverage, people WILL fall through the cracks (even with it, people still will, but to a lesser extent).
Germany is capitalist, to a similiar extent as us. They have more socialistic elements than us, but we have socialistic elements, too (Social Security, Medicare, etc).
I'm not sure what you mean by your NASA comment. I don't think they did a great job, personally, but that's because they have to obey the whims of politicians and their constituents. Private institutions may do a better job in that field.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sidenote: When I hear German politicians campaign on "cutting waste" and "improving efficiency" in the public sector. When they are sworn to office, they find that none of that can be done without hurting the special interests which got them elected in the first place.
So why do you believe their ****?
Count the number of public enterprises which have closed up and failed. It can probably be done on one hand, and that's a flaw, not an asset. Cut the social programs and eliminate the welfare state, that's how germany can solve it's problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you know that the French government runs one of the most efficient power companies in the world? Public enterprises can be run just as well as private ones. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> True they do have basic human rights, but we as a government have every right to expel the individual from the country should they be a drain on resources. Thats totally unfair to the taxpayer. Whats funny is when other nations complain when they do this exact process yet slander America whenever we attempt reform to restrict welfare for non-citizens.
The statement about NASA was exactly that, private organizations could do a much better job in the space industry. Why should government have the monopoly on space travel?
French power is also mostly ran by computers and since their entire power base is almost all nuclear it's going to be effective, America hasn't built a nuclear facility in a long long time. Deregulate it and watch the price for power tumble.
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 05:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 05:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 1 2005, 05:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 1 2005, 05:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why is this? It surely isn't the fact that private orgs do a better job at it then government can! Look at NASA.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nasa routinely sends vehicles to orbit the earth, deploys satellites there, lands probes on the other side of the solar system with great accuracy, and oh yeah, they landed on a the moon a few times a while back. Tell me, what private organization has managed that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Private organizations can't it's a government monopoly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's because it was a national security concern during the Cold War AND because only the government could afford it at the time. Now, neither of those things apply, so it should be privatized.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 1 2005, 05:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 1 2005, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nevermind, off topic anyways. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not like anything is on topic in this thread, with the crappy OP.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 05:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 05:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 05:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 05:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 1 2005, 05:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 1 2005, 05:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why is this? It surely isn't the fact that private orgs do a better job at it then government can! Look at NASA.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nasa routinely sends vehicles to orbit the earth, deploys satellites there, lands probes on the other side of the solar system with great accuracy, and oh yeah, they landed on a the moon a few times a while back. Tell me, what private organization has managed that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Private organizations can't it's a government monopoly. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's because it was a national security concern during the Cold War AND because only the government could afford it at the time. Now, neither of those things apply, so it should be privatized. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->French power is also mostly ran by computers<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't ours? <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and since their entire power base is almost all nuclear it's going to be effective<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would that matter? Why would the government be more efficent at running a nuclear power facility, but less efficient at running a coal power plant?
I thought that you think that private institutions are always more efficient than government institutions. Why would French nuclear power be any different than American coal power in that regard?
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited March 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 05:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->French power is also mostly ran by computers<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't ours? <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and since their entire power base is almost all nuclear it's going to be effective<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would that matter? Why would the government be more efficent at running a nuclear power facility, but less efficient at running a coal power plant?
I thought that you think that private institutions are always more efficient than government institutions. Why would French nuclear power be any different than American coal power in that regard? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mostpart our nuclear facilities are upgraded and are doing a very good job! But with China gaining speed we need to start expanding our use of nuclear power.
Nuclear power is possibly the best way to produce energy for a growing nation, if we tilted our power usage from Coal to Nuke we would also make it more affordable and efficency would increase. Infact I often use France's nuclear usage in speeches in class regarding support of nuclear power plants.
You start having companies build new nuclear facilities and see France left in the dust.
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 05:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 05:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->French power is also mostly ran by computers<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't ours? <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and since their entire power base is almost all nuclear it's going to be effective<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would that matter? Why would the government be more efficent at running a nuclear power facility, but less efficient at running a coal power plant?
I thought that you think that private institutions are always more efficient than government institutions. Why would French nuclear power be any different than American coal power in that regard? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mostpart our nuclear facilities are upgraded and are doing a very good job! But with China gaining speed we need to start expanding our use of nuclear power.
Nuclear power is possibly the best way to produce energy for a growing nation, if we tilted our power usage from Coal to Nuke we would also make it more affordable and efficency would increase. Infact I often use France's nuclear usage in speeches in class regarding support of nuclear power plants.
You start having companies build new nuclear facilities and see France left in the dust. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Nuclear power is good. However, power companies have been around for so long in the US, that they should already have found the most efficient method of power production, because that's supposedly the advantage of private enterprise. The French government seems to have found the most effecient way to produce electricity, even though inefficiency is supposedly the disadvantage of public enterprise.
Isn't the French power company an example showing that private enterprise isn't necessarily better than government owned operations? Doesn't that mean that we can have government owned industries/companies that still run at a high level of efficiency?
Therefore, your solution to the German problem wouldn't do anything. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sidenote: When I hear German politicians campaign on "cutting waste" and "improving efficiency" in the public sector. When they are sworn to office, they find that none of that can be done without hurting the special interests which got them elected in the first place.
So why do you believe their ****?
Count the number of public enterprises which have closed up and failed. It can probably be done on one hand, and that's a flaw, not an asset. Cut the social programs and eliminate the welfare state, that's how germany can solve it's problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 05:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 05:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 05:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 05:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->French power is also mostly ran by computers<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't ours? <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and since their entire power base is almost all nuclear it's going to be effective<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would that matter? Why would the government be more efficent at running a nuclear power facility, but less efficient at running a coal power plant?
I thought that you think that private institutions are always more efficient than government institutions. Why would French nuclear power be any different than American coal power in that regard? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mostpart our nuclear facilities are upgraded and are doing a very good job! But with China gaining speed we need to start expanding our use of nuclear power.
Nuclear power is possibly the best way to produce energy for a growing nation, if we tilted our power usage from Coal to Nuke we would also make it more affordable and efficency would increase. Infact I often use France's nuclear usage in speeches in class regarding support of nuclear power plants.
You start having companies build new nuclear facilities and see France left in the dust. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nuclear power is good. However, power companies have been around for so long in the US, that they should already have found the most efficient method of power production, because that's supposedly the advantage of private enterprise. The French government seems to have found the most effecient way to produce electricity, even though inefficiency is supposedly the disadvantage of public enterprise.
Isn't the French power company an example showing that private enterprise isn't necessarily better than government owned operations? Doesn't that mean that we can have government owned industries/companies that still run at a high level of efficiency?
Therefore, your solution to the German problem wouldn't do anything. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sidenote: When I hear German politicians campaign on "cutting waste" and "improving efficiency" in the public sector. When they are sworn to office, they find that none of that can be done without hurting the special interests which got them elected in the first place.
So why do you believe their ****?
Count the number of public enterprises which have closed up and failed. It can probably be done on one hand, and that's a flaw, not an asset. Cut the social programs and eliminate the welfare state, that's how germany can solve it's problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually the federal government has extensively kept new nuclear facilities from being created. Since the 3 Mile Island incident.
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 06:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 06:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually the federal government has extensively kept new nuclear facilities from being created. Since the 3 Mile Island incident. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But do you acknowledge the fact that public enterprises can function at the same level of efficiency as private enterprises?
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 06:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 06:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 06:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 06:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually the federal government has extensively kept new nuclear facilities from being created. Since the 3 Mile Island incident. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But do you acknowledge the fact that public enterprises can function at the same level of efficiency as private enterprises? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes it's possible, but I also have the belief that private systems are quicker to advance technologies and become better. Do you agree?
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 06:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 06:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 06:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 06:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 06:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 06:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually the federal government has extensively kept new nuclear facilities from being created. Since the 3 Mile Island incident. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But do you acknowledge the fact that public enterprises can function at the same level of efficiency as private enterprises? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes it's possible, but I also have the belief that private systems are quicker to advance technologies and become better. Do you agree? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If there's a demand for it. Private enterprises will only and can only engage in profitable business. It's difficult for them to invest heavily in a technology that could take 15 years to become profitable.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 06:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 06:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 06:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 06:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 06:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 06:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 06:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 06:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually the federal government has extensively kept new nuclear facilities from being created. Since the 3 Mile Island incident. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But do you acknowledge the fact that public enterprises can function at the same level of efficiency as private enterprises? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes it's possible, but I also have the belief that private systems are quicker to advance technologies and become better. Do you agree? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If there's a demand for it. Private enterprises will only and can only engage in profitable business. It's difficult for them to invest heavily in a technology that could take 15 years to become profitable. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats somewhat untrue. without private investment (lobbying) alot of today's technology might not be available.
Actually that's very untrue. Trevithick, Watt, Newcomen, Savery (scientists working on the steam engine) were working entirely within the realm of private enterprise. The steam engine is essentially the one crucial factor that cemented Western European civilization as the dominant power for centuries to come.
Here's the thing:
Privatization > Government in matters of fiscal prudence. That's all.
But you see, when the Government starts telling private enterprise what they can and cannot do (limiting nuclear power in the US, for example), private enterprise will find a way to still retain maximum profit <b><i><u>under the given circumstances</u></i></b>. That's it. If private enterprise can't build nuclear reactors, we'll use coal and oil. If they can, they'll charge us the same rate, build more efficient nuclear power reactors and make even more money.
Simply put, the greatest periods of economic growth is when the federal (national level government, for most of you) government doesn't give a damn. The Gilded Age of America proved this.
Sure, a bunch of people will get shafted for a while, but the end result is better for the future consumer. And that's why we call it progress.
I've always wanted to turn this idiotic remark around "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT LEAVE LOLOL"
Oh man skulk I think I need to change my pants after that. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+Mar 1 2005, 07:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7 @ Mar 1 2005, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually that's very untrue. Trevithick, Watt, Newcomen, Savery (scientists working on the steam engine) were working entirely within the realm of private enterprise. The steam engine is essentially the one crucial factor that cemented Western European civilization as the dominant power for centuries to come.
Here's the thing:
Privatization > Government in matters of fiscal prudence. That's all.
But you see, when the Government starts telling private enterprise what they can and cannot do (limiting nuclear power in the US, for example), private enterprise will find a way to still retain maximum profit <b><i><u>under the given circumstances</u></i></b>. That's it. If private enterprise can't build nuclear reactors, we'll use coal and oil. If they can, they'll charge us the same rate, build more efficient nuclear power reactors and make even more money.
Simply put, the greatest periods of economic growth is when the federal (national level government, for most of you) government doesn't give a damn. The Gilded Age of America proved this.
Sure, a bunch of people will get shafted for a while, but the end result is better for the future consumer. And that's why we call it progress. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Private industries will achieve maximum profit, you're right. However, that serves their shareholders, rather than the consumer. Walmart is a corporation that is extremely successful. They have the maximum amount of profit possible on low end merchandise. However, this has been a negative effect on many consumers. Walmart has singlehandedly destroyed the economy of a significant portion of rural America. Walmart moves in, undercuts all the local businesses, putting them out of business. That converts many good jobs (from local businesses) into crappy jobs (Walmart jobs). Money gets sent back to Walmart HQ rather than reinvested in the town. The town suffers.
Government serves the interest of its people. That's its sole purpose. It has no other. This is why I think that a drastic reduction in the size of government is a bad thing.
Personally, I don't think privatization is a bad thing. I don't care whether its the government that provides a service or a corporation. What I do care about is the quality and cost of the service. Private enterprise tends to be cheaper, with higher quality than public enterprise, because it has to be. Public enterprise will always be cheaper, if it is run better, however, because it doesn't have to run at a profit. Therefore, a perfect government will always be more efficient than a perfect corporation.
I believe that society is so rich that it has a duty to provide a minimum standard of living. Only the government can provide this standard of living universally. Therefore, I think that the government should pay for education and health care, among other things, although I don't really care who provides it.
This thread is silly. The OP was posted to mock German unemployment figures. It was said that this was because Germany had a "command economy" (not true, unless you think that the US has a command economy, too) and too much socialism. I'm sure socialists could point to our own recession after the tech bubble burst and say that capitalism is the cause for our bad economy.
First of all, if you think the US has a bad economy, your living in a pesimistic dream world. It took only 3 years to recover from what might have been a "bad economy" - and now it is most definatly a "good" economy.
Second of all, even the most perfect government will never be able to out-produce a private industry - there is no incentive. The government always gets it's money from the people it taxes, and it can raise taxes - the income is guarenteed (more or less) and there is no competition for "government". By those pillars, government will always be more wasteful than its private counterpart (even assuming a perfect government with perfect people running it - which will never happen anyway, so the point is moot).
@ the rest of you
This debate is rather useless on several points. We all agree that the government should provide certain things - Roads for example. However, the point of disagreement comes when we say that it is our "duty" to provide for each other in other ways - the two big ones being "welfare" and "education".
The best that the left can do to pursuade the right is say that it "benefits" us by decreasing the crime rate. Though I think the idea is good, I wager that crime rates have gone up since the inception of public schools - and without evidence to the contrary, that is a perfectly valid statement.
Other than that, all the left has to do is appeal to a "moral high ground" (unusual for them) and say that we "must" educate and we "must" provide for those who cant do it for themselves - we are duty bound to help our fellow man.
To that, I say "great - let me be duty bound - but let me be bound by my own terms. Let me give where I will give, and direct my own funds where I will, to support whomever I will. It is not the governments responsibilty to force charity out of me."
And for those of you who say otherwise - come back when you give up 10% of your meager income to a charity of your choice - and I'm talking post tax income. Once you do that, then come back and talk to me about my duty as an American. Until then, you know where to put it.
Comments
I choose not to pay taxes that have no real representation other then good intent, I become a criminal. Thats called extortion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, thats called "You're a citizen of this country and services can't exist for free". It'd be great if there was a system where you could only pay for what you wanted, don't have kids? Then you don't need to pay for public schools. Don't ever expect to lose your job? Then you don't have to pay for welfare. Don't need good roads? Don't support war? you get the point. The only way such a system would work is if by not paying for these things you were also not entitled to them. And that'd be great as far as I'm concerned, except for this one nagging detail: If those who don't need aren't paying for the services that others nedd, then those services don't get enough money to function and the whole system collapses.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Point being, we don't need government unless it's needed. There is no proof that social welfare can prevent "starvation" anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What are you smoking!? Lets try this again, from the begining: Joe loses his factory job because of a downturn in the economy, that same downturn makes it nigh impossible for joe to find work now. Joe will try hard to find a new job, but since he doesn't have any money (because he isn't working) he can't afford food or a place to live, so he has about a month until he starves to death to find a job. If the recession lasts longer then a month, Joe is dead and won't be there to work when the economy picks up again. How do we solve this dilema? Simple: give Joe some money for food and rent while hes unemployed, so he can continue to live while looking for work. Voila: welfare just prevented starvation and helped the economy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not only that, charity organizations will spring up in replacement of government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow,, you really are clueless aren't you? Tell me, do you honestly think that any charity can come up with the money nessesary to provide these kinds of services?
(No I don't receive welfare but I'd love to at this point, pray that my interview on friday goes well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Anyone else notice how its always the comfortable living people who knock on social welfares? I suppose I can't be bothered to think either when Im busy deciding which caviar to eat in my limo.
(No I don't receive welfare but I'd love to at this point, pray that my interview on friday goes well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Anyone else notice how its always the comfortable living people who knock on social welfares? I suppose I can't be bothered to think either when Im busy deciding which caviar to eat in my limo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice rich people pay most of the money into the government...so they have every right to **** really. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I choose not to pay taxes that have no real representation other then good intent, I become a criminal. Thats called extortion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, thats called "You're a citizen of this country and services can't exist for free". It'd be great if there was a system where you could only pay for what you wanted, don't have kids? Then you don't need to pay for public schools. Don't ever expect to lose your job? Then you don't have to pay for welfare. Don't need good roads? Don't support war? you get the point. The only way such a system would work is if by not paying for these things you were also not entitled to them. And that'd be great as far as I'm concerned, except for this one nagging detail: If those who don't need aren't paying for the services that others nedd, then those services don't get enough money to function and the whole system collapses. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A small sturdy government won't collapse.
Large leviathan governments on the otherhand...
What right does the government to care about itself and the "common man" over the will of a individual? None, people who rely on this premise are generally weak individuals anyway. But to say that government is the only way of handling such affairs is utter nonsense.
You're a freaking psycho, you know that right? Social welfare gives people money, money they can spend on rent and food. Those things are what are known as "nessesity", you need them to keep living. You WILL starve to death if you can't buy food, unless you commit crime and steal it, that is fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Theres also the belief that as we make education more key that better bugeting and private investment will make it even more affordable then it is today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"This lesson brought to you by Coke". No thanks. If education is privately funded then it can push a private agenda, like say, a religious one. Or even worse, a corporate one designed to make you believe that you need to buy the next N'Sync CD or whatever. DEAR GOD NO! Public education may be ineffecient, but contrary to popular conservative belief privatization isn't the answer. Hell, corporations aren't really any better then the government when it comes to efficiency, and then of course theres things like what happened at enron. BAD IDEAS ALL AROUND! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Schools are already being sponsored by Coke and Pepsi. As well as many other companies.
Point being, we don't need government unless it's needed. There is no proof that social welfare can prevent "starvation" anyway. Not only that, charity organizations will spring up in replacement of government. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Coke and Pepsi don't control the cirriculum, which is what could happen under privatization. Still, I support privatization of education, as long as there is a rigorous accrediation process.
Social welfare can prevent starvation because any citizen (and many non-citizens I presume) can go down to the welfare office and grab a check that they can spend on food. Many people depend on welfare.
Charity organizations operate on the whims of the people who fund them. If the economy is bad, and donations are down, they can't help some people. They don't have the duty (this is important) or the resources to help everyone. Unpopular causes will lack a charity. How many people want to help drug users or felons? Not very many, so charities in these areas will go underfunded, as opposed to charities helping out people with, say, breast cancer. Still, drug users and felons deserve to have basic food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education (if not for them, for their children).
(No I don't receive welfare but I'd love to at this point, pray that my interview on friday goes well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Anyone else notice how its always the comfortable living people who knock on social welfares? I suppose I can't be bothered to think either when Im busy deciding which caviar to eat in my limo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice rich people pay most of the money into the government...so they have every right to **** really. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, not really. Life has been good to you, and all the government asks is that you pay a very affordable (for you) tax to them so that they can provide services to the less fortunate. Of course, the government also takes money from the less fortunate for these services (and they can't really afford it as well as you can, can they?).
Oh, I've always wanted to say this, and now seems like a good time: IF YOU DON"T LIKE THE WAY AMERICA DOES THINGS, YOU CAN JUST GET OUT! Ah, felt good to turn that one around.
(No I don't receive welfare but I'd love to at this point, pray that my interview on friday goes well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Anyone else notice how its always the comfortable living people who knock on social welfares? I suppose I can't be bothered to think either when Im busy deciding which caviar to eat in my limo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice rich people pay most of the money into the government...so they have every right to **** really. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rich people benefit from social welfare. Not as much as the poor, obviously, but they definately do. Poverty creates crime. Social welfare reduces poverty. Therefore, social welfare reduces crime. Rich people don't like to live in a society with lots of crime. Therefore social welfare benefits the rich.
I choose not to pay taxes that have no real representation other then good intent, I become a criminal. Thats called extortion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, thats called "You're a citizen of this country and services can't exist for free". It'd be great if there was a system where you could only pay for what you wanted, don't have kids? Then you don't need to pay for public schools. Don't ever expect to lose your job? Then you don't have to pay for welfare. Don't need good roads? Don't support war? you get the point. The only way such a system would work is if by not paying for these things you were also not entitled to them. And that'd be great as far as I'm concerned, except for this one nagging detail: If those who don't need aren't paying for the services that others nedd, then those services don't get enough money to function and the whole system collapses. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A small sturdy government won't collapse.
Large leviathan governments on the otherhand...
What right does the government to care about itself and the "common man" over the will of a individual? None, people who rely on this premise are generally weak individuals anyway. But to say that government is the only way of handling such affairs is utter nonsense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't saying that the entire government would collapse, just the service that need money. If there aren't any such services, then the government wouldn't collapse, but it also wouldn't be helping people who need it.
My argument is very simple, you should be able to understand it, but since you haven't yet I'll give it annother go in smaller, easier to understand words:
1. Without a welfare program, people will not be given the oportunity to work hard and succede because they will be dead.
2. No private organization or charity could ever come up with enough money to feed all the down on their luck unemployed mouths that need to be fed. Therefore, it must be a government responsibility.
3. Being a citizen of this country, you have access to all sorts of pulic institutions and services, wether you use them or not, so you have to help pay for them. Also scince those in need of these services obviously can't pay for them, you have to help.
You're a freaking psycho, you know that right? Social welfare gives people money, money they can spend on rent and food. Those things are what are known as "nessesity", you need them to keep living. You WILL starve to death if you can't buy food, unless you commit crime and steal it, that is fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Theres also the belief that as we make education more key that better bugeting and private investment will make it even more affordable then it is today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"This lesson brought to you by Coke". No thanks. If education is privately funded then it can push a private agenda, like say, a religious one. Or even worse, a corporate one designed to make you believe that you need to buy the next N'Sync CD or whatever. DEAR GOD NO! Public education may be ineffecient, but contrary to popular conservative belief privatization isn't the answer. Hell, corporations aren't really any better then the government when it comes to efficiency, and then of course theres things like what happened at enron. BAD IDEAS ALL AROUND! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Schools are already being sponsored by Coke and Pepsi. As well as many other companies.
Point being, we don't need government unless it's needed. There is no proof that social welfare can prevent "starvation" anyway. Not only that, charity organizations will spring up in replacement of government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Coke and Pepsi don't control the cirriculum, which is what could happen under privatization. Still, I support privatization of education, as long as there is a rigorous accrediation process.
Social welfare can prevent starvation because any citizen (and many non-citizens I presume) can go down to the welfare office and grab a check that they can spend on food. Many people depend on welfare.
Charity organizations operate on the whims of the people who fund them. If the economy is bad, and donations are down, they can't help some people. They don't have the duty (this is important) or the resources to help everyone. Unpopular causes will lack a charity. How many people want to help drug users or felons? Not very many, so charities in these areas will go underfunded, as opposed to charities helping out people with, say, breast cancer. Still, drug users and felons deserve to have basic food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education (if not for them, for their children). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What rights does a non-citizen have? NONE. They are visitors here, thus they aren't entitled to any benefit from our government whatsoever. But back on the subject, lets look at it another way, Families today use programs such as WIC and the like to support themselves, WIC is privately funded and does not require government to exist and in the long run it benefits the industry. So to say people are going to starve or go homeless is utter nonsense, if anything your more likely to be jobless and poor in a command economy like Germany's then you are in a freer economic system like the USA's. Why is this? It surely isn't the fact that private orgs do a better job at it then government can! Look at NASA. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Sidenote: When I hear German politicians campaign on "cutting waste" and "improving efficiency" in the public sector. When they are sworn to office, they find that none of that can be done without hurting the special interests which got them elected in the first place.
So why do you believe their ****?
Count the number of public enterprises which have closed up and failed. It can probably be done on one hand, and that's a flaw, not an asset. Cut the social programs and eliminate the welfare state, that's how germany can solve it's problems.
(No I don't receive welfare but I'd love to at this point, pray that my interview on friday goes well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Anyone else notice how its always the comfortable living people who knock on social welfares? I suppose I can't be bothered to think either when Im busy deciding which caviar to eat in my limo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice rich people pay most of the money into the government...so they have every right to **** really. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rich people benefit from social welfare. Not as much as the poor, obviously, but they definately do. Poverty creates crime. Social welfare reduces poverty. Therefore, social welfare reduces crime. Rich people don't like to live in a society with lots of crime. Therefore social welfare benefits the rich. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh so now social welfare is to fund criminals to keep them off the streets? That pointless. Why not just rob me, I like taking chances. Government is going to steal more from a individual then a theif.
Nasa routinely sends vehicles to orbit the earth, deploys satellites there, lands probes on the other side of the solar system with great accuracy, and oh yeah, they landed on a the moon a few times a while back. Tell me, what private organization has managed that?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh so now social welfare is to fund criminals to keep them off the streets? That pointless. Why not just rob me, I like taking chances. Government is going to steal more from a individual then a theif.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Maybe you should pay attention next time? Hes saying that welfare helps keep people from turning to crime (a viable source of income when you can't get a job).
Wrong. They are entitled to basic human rights, just like you and me. We don't provide many rights to non-citizens for the basic reason that they would flood our country if we did, preventing us from providing basic rights to anybody, by killing the economy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But lets look at it another way, Families today use programs such as WIC and the like to support themselves, WIC is privately funded and does not require government to exist and in the long run it benefits the industry. So to say people are going to starve or go homeless is utter nonsense, if anything your more likely to be jobless and poor in a command economy like Germany's then you are in a freer economic system like the USA's. Why is this? It surely isn't the fact that private orgs do a better job at it then government can! Look at NASA. tounge.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say that charitible organizations couldn't support people. I said that they can't do a comprehensive job, like the government can. Without universal welfare coverage, people WILL fall through the cracks (even with it, people still will, but to a lesser extent).
Germany is capitalist, to a similiar extent as us. They have more socialistic elements than us, but we have socialistic elements, too (Social Security, Medicare, etc).
I'm not sure what you mean by your NASA comment. I don't think they did a great job, personally, but that's because they have to obey the whims of politicians and their constituents. Private institutions may do a better job in that field.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sidenote: When I hear German politicians campaign on "cutting waste" and "improving efficiency" in the public sector. When they are sworn to office, they find that none of that can be done without hurting the special interests which got them elected in the first place.
So why do you believe their ****?
Count the number of public enterprises which have closed up and failed. It can probably be done on one hand, and that's a flaw, not an asset. Cut the social programs and eliminate the welfare state, that's how germany can solve it's problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you know that the French government runs one of the most efficient power companies in the world? Public enterprises can be run just as well as private ones.
Nasa routinely sends vehicles to orbit the earth, deploys satellites there, lands probes on the other side of the solar system with great accuracy, and oh yeah, they landed on a the moon a few times a while back. Tell me, what private organization has managed that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Private organizations can't it's a government monopoly. Japan already has companies eyeing a lunar base now.
Wrong. They are entitled to basic human rights, just like you and me. We don't provide many rights to non-citizens for the basic reason that they would flood our country if we did, preventing us from providing basic rights to anybody, by killing the economy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But lets look at it another way, Families today use programs such as WIC and the like to support themselves, WIC is privately funded and does not require government to exist and in the long run it benefits the industry. So to say people are going to starve or go homeless is utter nonsense, if anything your more likely to be jobless and poor in a command economy like Germany's then you are in a freer economic system like the USA's. Why is this? It surely isn't the fact that private orgs do a better job at it then government can! Look at NASA. tounge.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say that charitible organizations couldn't support people. I said that they can't do a comprehensive job, like the government can. Without universal welfare coverage, people WILL fall through the cracks (even with it, people still will, but to a lesser extent).
Germany is capitalist, to a similiar extent as us. They have more socialistic elements than us, but we have socialistic elements, too (Social Security, Medicare, etc).
I'm not sure what you mean by your NASA comment. I don't think they did a great job, personally, but that's because they have to obey the whims of politicians and their constituents. Private institutions may do a better job in that field.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sidenote: When I hear German politicians campaign on "cutting waste" and "improving efficiency" in the public sector. When they are sworn to office, they find that none of that can be done without hurting the special interests which got them elected in the first place.
So why do you believe their ****?
Count the number of public enterprises which have closed up and failed. It can probably be done on one hand, and that's a flaw, not an asset. Cut the social programs and eliminate the welfare state, that's how germany can solve it's problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you know that the French government runs one of the most efficient power companies in the world? Public enterprises can be run just as well as private ones. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True they do have basic human rights, but we as a government have every right to expel the individual from the country should they be a drain on resources. Thats totally unfair to the taxpayer. Whats funny is when other nations complain when they do this exact process yet slander America whenever we attempt reform to restrict welfare for non-citizens.
The statement about NASA was exactly that, private organizations could do a much better job in the space industry. Why should government have the monopoly on space travel?
French power is also mostly ran by computers and since their entire power base is almost all nuclear it's going to be effective, America hasn't built a nuclear facility in a long long time. Deregulate it and watch the price for power tumble.
Nasa routinely sends vehicles to orbit the earth, deploys satellites there, lands probes on the other side of the solar system with great accuracy, and oh yeah, they landed on a the moon a few times a while back. Tell me, what private organization has managed that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Private organizations can't it's a government monopoly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because it was a national security concern during the Cold War AND because only the government could afford it at the time. Now, neither of those things apply, so it should be privatized.
Not like anything is on topic in this thread, with the crappy OP.
Nasa routinely sends vehicles to orbit the earth, deploys satellites there, lands probes on the other side of the solar system with great accuracy, and oh yeah, they landed on a the moon a few times a while back. Tell me, what private organization has managed that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Private organizations can't it's a government monopoly. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because it was a national security concern during the Cold War AND because only the government could afford it at the time. Now, neither of those things apply, so it should be privatized. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed.
Isn't ours?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and since their entire power base is almost all nuclear it's going to be effective<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would that matter? Why would the government be more efficent at running a nuclear power facility, but less efficient at running a coal power plant?
I thought that you think that private institutions are always more efficient than government institutions. Why would French nuclear power be any different than American coal power in that regard?
Isn't ours?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and since their entire power base is almost all nuclear it's going to be effective<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would that matter? Why would the government be more efficent at running a nuclear power facility, but less efficient at running a coal power plant?
I thought that you think that private institutions are always more efficient than government institutions. Why would French nuclear power be any different than American coal power in that regard? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mostpart our nuclear facilities are upgraded and are doing a very good job! But with China gaining speed we need to start expanding our use of nuclear power.
Nuclear power is possibly the best way to produce energy for a growing nation, if we tilted our power usage from Coal to Nuke we would also make it more affordable and efficency would increase. Infact I often use France's nuclear usage in speeches in class regarding support of nuclear power plants.
You start having companies build new nuclear facilities and see France left in the dust.
Isn't ours?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and since their entire power base is almost all nuclear it's going to be effective<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would that matter? Why would the government be more efficent at running a nuclear power facility, but less efficient at running a coal power plant?
I thought that you think that private institutions are always more efficient than government institutions. Why would French nuclear power be any different than American coal power in that regard? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mostpart our nuclear facilities are upgraded and are doing a very good job! But with China gaining speed we need to start expanding our use of nuclear power.
Nuclear power is possibly the best way to produce energy for a growing nation, if we tilted our power usage from Coal to Nuke we would also make it more affordable and efficency would increase. Infact I often use France's nuclear usage in speeches in class regarding support of nuclear power plants.
You start having companies build new nuclear facilities and see France left in the dust. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nuclear power is good. However, power companies have been around for so long in the US, that they should already have found the most efficient method of power production, because that's supposedly the advantage of private enterprise. The French government seems to have found the most effecient way to produce electricity, even though inefficiency is supposedly the disadvantage of public enterprise.
Isn't the French power company an example showing that private enterprise isn't necessarily better than government owned operations? Doesn't that mean that we can have government owned industries/companies that still run at a high level of efficiency?
Therefore, your solution to the German problem wouldn't do anything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sidenote: When I hear German politicians campaign on "cutting waste" and "improving efficiency" in the public sector. When they are sworn to office, they find that none of that can be done without hurting the special interests which got them elected in the first place.
So why do you believe their ****?
Count the number of public enterprises which have closed up and failed. It can probably be done on one hand, and that's a flaw, not an asset. Cut the social programs and eliminate the welfare state, that's how germany can solve it's problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't ours?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and since their entire power base is almost all nuclear it's going to be effective<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would that matter? Why would the government be more efficent at running a nuclear power facility, but less efficient at running a coal power plant?
I thought that you think that private institutions are always more efficient than government institutions. Why would French nuclear power be any different than American coal power in that regard? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mostpart our nuclear facilities are upgraded and are doing a very good job! But with China gaining speed we need to start expanding our use of nuclear power.
Nuclear power is possibly the best way to produce energy for a growing nation, if we tilted our power usage from Coal to Nuke we would also make it more affordable and efficency would increase. Infact I often use France's nuclear usage in speeches in class regarding support of nuclear power plants.
You start having companies build new nuclear facilities and see France left in the dust. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nuclear power is good. However, power companies have been around for so long in the US, that they should already have found the most efficient method of power production, because that's supposedly the advantage of private enterprise. The French government seems to have found the most effecient way to produce electricity, even though inefficiency is supposedly the disadvantage of public enterprise.
Isn't the French power company an example showing that private enterprise isn't necessarily better than government owned operations? Doesn't that mean that we can have government owned industries/companies that still run at a high level of efficiency?
Therefore, your solution to the German problem wouldn't do anything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sidenote: When I hear German politicians campaign on "cutting waste" and "improving efficiency" in the public sector. When they are sworn to office, they find that none of that can be done without hurting the special interests which got them elected in the first place.
So why do you believe their ****?
Count the number of public enterprises which have closed up and failed. It can probably be done on one hand, and that's a flaw, not an asset. Cut the social programs and eliminate the welfare state, that's how germany can solve it's problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually the federal government has extensively kept new nuclear facilities from being created. Since the 3 Mile Island incident.
But do you acknowledge the fact that public enterprises can function at the same level of efficiency as private enterprises?
But do you acknowledge the fact that public enterprises can function at the same level of efficiency as private enterprises? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it's possible, but I also have the belief that private systems are quicker to advance technologies and become better. Do you agree?
But do you acknowledge the fact that public enterprises can function at the same level of efficiency as private enterprises? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it's possible, but I also have the belief that private systems are quicker to advance technologies and become better. Do you agree? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there's a demand for it. Private enterprises will only and can only engage in profitable business. It's difficult for them to invest heavily in a technology that could take 15 years to become profitable.
But do you acknowledge the fact that public enterprises can function at the same level of efficiency as private enterprises? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it's possible, but I also have the belief that private systems are quicker to advance technologies and become better. Do you agree? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there's a demand for it. Private enterprises will only and can only engage in profitable business. It's difficult for them to invest heavily in a technology that could take 15 years to become profitable. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats somewhat untrue. without private investment (lobbying) alot of today's technology might not be available.
Here's the thing:
Privatization > Government in matters of fiscal prudence. That's all.
But you see, when the Government starts telling private enterprise what they can and cannot do (limiting nuclear power in the US, for example), private enterprise will find a way to still retain maximum profit <b><i><u>under the given circumstances</u></i></b>. That's it. If private enterprise can't build nuclear reactors, we'll use coal and oil. If they can, they'll charge us the same rate, build more efficient nuclear power reactors and make even more money.
Simply put, the greatest periods of economic growth is when the federal (national level government, for most of you) government doesn't give a damn. The Gilded Age of America proved this.
Sure, a bunch of people will get shafted for a while, but the end result is better for the future consumer. And that's why we call it progress.
Oh man skulk I think I need to change my pants after that. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Here's the thing:
Privatization > Government in matters of fiscal prudence. That's all.
But you see, when the Government starts telling private enterprise what they can and cannot do (limiting nuclear power in the US, for example), private enterprise will find a way to still retain maximum profit <b><i><u>under the given circumstances</u></i></b>. That's it. If private enterprise can't build nuclear reactors, we'll use coal and oil. If they can, they'll charge us the same rate, build more efficient nuclear power reactors and make even more money.
Simply put, the greatest periods of economic growth is when the federal (national level government, for most of you) government doesn't give a damn. The Gilded Age of America proved this.
Sure, a bunch of people will get shafted for a while, but the end result is better for the future consumer. And that's why we call it progress. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Private industries will achieve maximum profit, you're right. However, that serves their shareholders, rather than the consumer. Walmart is a corporation that is extremely successful. They have the maximum amount of profit possible on low end merchandise. However, this has been a negative effect on many consumers. Walmart has singlehandedly destroyed the economy of a significant portion of rural America. Walmart moves in, undercuts all the local businesses, putting them out of business. That converts many good jobs (from local businesses) into crappy jobs (Walmart jobs). Money gets sent back to Walmart HQ rather than reinvested in the town. The town suffers.
Government serves the interest of its people. That's its sole purpose. It has no other. This is why I think that a drastic reduction in the size of government is a bad thing.
Personally, I don't think privatization is a bad thing. I don't care whether its the government that provides a service or a corporation. What I do care about is the quality and cost of the service. Private enterprise tends to be cheaper, with higher quality than public enterprise, because it has to be. Public enterprise will always be cheaper, if it is run better, however, because it doesn't have to run at a profit. Therefore, a perfect government will always be more efficient than a perfect corporation.
I believe that society is so rich that it has a duty to provide a minimum standard of living. Only the government can provide this standard of living universally. Therefore, I think that the government should pay for education and health care, among other things, although I don't really care who provides it.
This thread is silly. The OP was posted to mock German unemployment figures. It was said that this was because Germany had a "command economy" (not true, unless you think that the US has a command economy, too) and too much socialism. I'm sure socialists could point to our own recession after the tech bubble burst and say that capitalism is the cause for our bad economy.
First of all, if you think the US has a bad economy, your living in a pesimistic dream world. It took only 3 years to recover from what might have been a "bad economy" - and now it is most definatly a "good" economy.
Second of all, even the most perfect government will never be able to out-produce a private industry - there is no incentive. The government always gets it's money from the people it taxes, and it can raise taxes - the income is guarenteed (more or less) and there is no competition for "government". By those pillars, government will always be more wasteful than its private counterpart (even assuming a perfect government with perfect people running it - which will never happen anyway, so the point is moot).
@ the rest of you
This debate is rather useless on several points. We all agree that the government should provide certain things - Roads for example. However, the point of disagreement comes when we say that it is our "duty" to provide for each other in other ways - the two big ones being "welfare" and "education".
The best that the left can do to pursuade the right is say that it "benefits" us by decreasing the crime rate. Though I think the idea is good, I wager that crime rates have gone up since the inception of public schools - and without evidence to the contrary, that is a perfectly valid statement.
Other than that, all the left has to do is appeal to a "moral high ground" (unusual for them) and say that we "must" educate and we "must" provide for those who cant do it for themselves - we are duty bound to help our fellow man.
To that, I say "great - let me be duty bound - but let me be bound by my own terms. Let me give where I will give, and direct my own funds where I will, to support whomever I will. It is not the governments responsibilty to force charity out of me."
And for those of you who say otherwise - come back when you give up 10% of your meager income to a charity of your choice - and I'm talking post tax income. Once you do that, then come back and talk to me about my duty as an American. Until then, you know where to put it.