• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wealth distribution

That's conservative economic theory - and it sounds really reasonable to you, doesn't it? It sounds really, really sensible, doesn't it?

Now, if that's how it really worked out in the REAL world, then shouldn't it be reflected in the economies of the world, all over the world? Yes, it should...but it doesn't.

Look at ALL the first-world democracies on the planet - every single one. What do they ALL share in common? "Big Government", high effective taxes, and strong regulation. EVERY first-world democracy has ALL of those traits. (and FYI, some try to argue "Singapore" as an instance of low taxes, but their taxes are even higher when the "mandatory savings account" is taken into account - it's a tax in all but name)

On the other hand, are there democracies that have the conservative trifecta of small government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation? Absolutely...and they're ALL third-world nations.

So this begs the question: WHY is it that ALL first-world democracies have the kind of economic policies that conservatives claim are a sure-fire recipe for economic doom, whereas when it comes to democracies that have the kind of economic policies that conservatives do support, ALL of them are third-world nations? WHY is that?

Why is it that in every single instance, the actual RESULTS of conservative economic theory are precisely the opposite of what conservative dogma requires? WHY is that?

Yet, despite its "third world" policies, you choose to live here. WHY is that?
 
Yet, despite its "third world" policies, you choose to live here. WHY is that?

LOL. If you refer to america, we have a safety net (although weak) we have liberal influence, hell, we always progress eventually. It's why conservatives are always wrong 20 years later.
 
but but but but but .... Einstein was born to a poor, single mother!!

That's an odd thing to enter into the discussion. His father died in 1902. What's the point?
 
At some point the nonsense that private organizations can do things better and more cheaply than government...has got to be put to bed.

It simply is not true.

As for healthcare...Medicare, Medicaid, and yes, even the Veteran's hospitals are as efficient or more efficient...and less costly that private organizations.

Get over that stuff.
Just say no.

Those government programs fail, and the worst one to fail is the Vets, as they've put their asses on the line for us.

Name me one area government is better, more efficient, gets better results than the private sector.

If government produced computers or cell phones, we would still have bricks with batteries the size of handbags. They'd cost 10,000 a piece. The Commodore 64 would still be state of the art.

Don't think so. Did you ever see government run car companies and what they produced? Lada (old fiats). Trabants... paper bodies. Skoda's. Yugo's.
The same models (badly) produced for years.

It's astounding someone can sit in a semi-free country, enjoy all the luxuries brought by private enterprise at low cost, and then look at bureaucratic, unhelpful, costly government and draw your conclusion. And these failures of socialism are not American... they are everywhere the HIV of socialism has been introduced.

Everywhere... without exception.
 
Just say no.

?????

Those government programs fail, and the worst one to fail is the Vets, as they've put their asses on the line for us.

I am a vet. I was treated for cancer at the VA hospital in East Orange NJ back in 1996. I had no private insurance. They saved my life...with Chemo and radiation.

I've been treated for other medical problems by them also.

Yeah...there are problems with the Vet hospitals and doctors...BUT THERE ARE PROBLEMS with private hospitals and doctors also.

I think the Vet medical system is not a failure at all...even though there are problems that have to be ironed out.

Name me one area government is better, more efficient, gets better results than the private sector.

Medicare runs their insurance program much, much more efficiently and more cheaply than private industry would.

If government produced computers or cell phones, we would still have bricks with batteries the size of handbags. They'd cost 10,000 a piece. The Commodore 64 would still be state of the art.

If it weren't for government...you wouldn't have half that stuff. NASA has been responsible for much of the progress we've made.

But, Ronald Reagan preached that government was the problem...and all the sycophants are required to agree.



It's astounding someone can sit in a semi-free country, enjoy all the luxuries brought by private enterprise at low cost, and then look at bureaucratic, unhelpful, costly government and draw your conclusion. And these failures of socialism are not American... they are everywhere the HIV of socialism has been introduced.

Oh, yeah...LOW COST. That is why the middle class has almost been wiped out...and the top 1% now just about owns the country.

Wake up.
 
?????



I am a vet. I was treated for cancer at the VA hospital in East Orange NJ back in 1996. I had no private insurance. They saved my life...with Chemo and radiation.

I've been treated for other medical problems by them also.

Nobody says the VA hospitals don't provide good health care. The point is that it is inefficient and expensive health care. If we were to get the government out of the health care business, we could provide vets with medicare and save a fortune.

Yeah...there are problems with the Vet hospitals and doctors...BUT THERE ARE PROBLEMS with private hospitals and doctors also.

There are problems with every organization in the country but none of them are as bad or inefficient or expensive as what the government does.

I think the Vet medical system is not a failure at all...even though there are problems that have to be ironed out.

The solution is simple as I mentioned above. Shut it down and sign the vets up for medicare.
 
So was Jesus, come to think of it.

Alright, Frank, we're now in the proper forum so I can ask you the question you avoided in the other forum:

What percentage of people's earnings do you want redistributed and given to the poor?
 
Wealth distribution is often frowned upon in America. I see no reason for this as it is for the greater good. "What enriches the part enriches the whole"(Karl Marx). I am for wealth distribution, most advanced countries have a form of it. Why are so many Americans against it and what do they perceive wrong with it?

Speaking from the philosophical, America was founded on the notion that the more freedom an individual has the more righteous the government is. To that end, we acknowledged individual rights and limited government's ability to intrude on those rights. We have two types of rights, enumerated and assumed. Enumerated rights are those established in the Constitution. Assumed are rights that exist but have not been listed. Many assumed rights have been enumerated in court rulings, but are not specifically listed in any one document. On assumed right is that the fruit of one's labor is their property. Granted, it is widely accepted and understood that some money is required to maintain the government's viability. Beyond the fiscal health of the government, however, our congress does not have an explicit power to redistribute wealth.

Speaking from the practical, wealth distribution creates anomalies in the market. These anomalies slow or prevent economic growth. For example, 36-52% of taxes collected for wealth redistribution are lost to Okun's bucket. That is, inefficiencies and costs are absorbed into the government.
 
If we were to get the government out of the health care business, we could provide vets with medicare and save a fortune.

:lamo

Thanks, i needed that!
 
Just say no.

Those government programs fail, and the worst one to fail is the Vets, as they've put their asses on the line for us.

Name me one area government is better, more efficient, gets better results than the private sector.

If government produced computers or cell phones, we would still have bricks with batteries the size of handbags. They'd cost 10,000 a piece. The Commodore 64 would still be state of the art.

Don't think so. Did you ever see government run car companies and what they produced? Lada (old fiats). Trabants... paper bodies. Skoda's. Yugo's.
The same models (badly) produced for years.

It's astounding someone can sit in a semi-free country, enjoy all the luxuries brought by private enterprise at low cost, and then look at bureaucratic, unhelpful, costly government and draw your conclusion. And these failures of socialism are not American... they are everywhere the HIV of socialism has been introduced.

Everywhere... without exception.

This is so much bull****.

Electricity. Water. Internet. I can get a thousand times more bandwidth than Comcast for $40/mo less through the City of Longmont LOL!!

But don't let me stop you from preaching your religion...
 
Nobody says the VA hospitals don't provide good health care. The point is that it is inefficient and expensive health care. If we were to get the government out of the health care business, we could provide vets with medicare and save a fortune.



There are problems with every organization in the country but none of them are as bad or inefficient or expensive as what the government does.



The solution is simple as I mentioned above. Shut it down and sign the vets up for medicare.

The unregulated private sector is to blame for inflated costs across the board.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1448826312.232569.jpg

We could already give every American free healthcare if our system was simply of average efficiency among 33 other OECD countries with only the money we spend via government. We spend 17% of GDP on healthcare but the OECD average is 8.9%.
 
Speaking from the philosophical, America was founded on the notion that the more freedom an individual has the more righteous the government is. To that end, we acknowledged individual rights and limited government's ability to intrude on those rights. We have two types of rights, enumerated and assumed. Enumerated rights are those established in the Constitution. Assumed are rights that exist but have not been listed. Many assumed rights have been enumerated in court rulings, but are not specifically listed in any one document. On assumed right is that the fruit of one's labor is their property. Granted, it is widely accepted and understood that some money is required to maintain the government's viability. Beyond the fiscal health of the government, however, our congress does not have an explicit power to redistribute wealth.

Speaking from the practical, wealth distribution creates anomalies in the market. These anomalies slow or prevent economic growth. For example, 36-52% of taxes collected for wealth redistribution are lost to Okun's bucket. That is, inefficiencies and costs are absorbed into the government.

The government redistributes wealth whether you acknowledge it or not. It generates the metrics by which society derives economic fairness.

Whining about government inefficiency is just posturing. The government is no less inefficient than the private sector. When Comcast gets >97% profit margin on high speed internet, that's inefficient, especially considering their customer satisfaction rates.

The idea that giving Bill Gates another billion dollars does **** for the economy is ****ing stupid. Sprinkling that billion dollars to a million Americans could change their lives forever.
 
The unregulated private sector is to blame for inflated costs across the board.

What unregulated private sector are you talking about. Sounds like you are still waiting for 1984.

We could already give every American free healthcare if our system was simply of average efficiency among 33 other OECD countries with only the money we spend via government. We spend 17% of GDP on healthcare but the OECD average is 8.9%.

I heard you before. Government spending as a % of GDP is meaningless to me. I judge the government by what it does, not by its financial ratios.
 
What unregulated private sector are you talking about. Sounds like you are still waiting for 1984.



I heard you before. Government spending as a % of GDP is meaningless to me. I judge the government by what it does, not by its financial ratios.

No.

Read this -

History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

The industry is effectively stealing money from its consumers.

In many facets of healthcare, competition actually brings prices up. Why? Because they have to spend more money on IP lawyers and litigation and they're just so generous that they pass those costs onto the consumer with a hefty markup.
 
No.

Read this -

History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

The industry is effectively stealing money from its consumers.

In many facets of healthcare, competition actually brings prices up. Why? Because they have to spend more money on IP lawyers and litigation and they're just so generous that they pass those costs onto the consumer with a hefty markup.

So you are suggesting that I should get into the anti venom business? It isn't competition that causes these kinds of price increases. It is the cost of law suits. Perhaps you should be angry at the lawyers rather than the hospital administrators.
 
Name me one area government is better, more efficient, gets better results than the private sector.

Many functions performed by government simply could not be performed by the private sector. You don't seem to comprehend that. That's why the public sector exists.

NASA was mentioned. What about the CDC, the NIH, the FDA, the NTSB, the NRC, the National Park Service, the EPA, the CPSC, etc, etc? You simply take all that for granted, or else foolishly assume that the private sector could do a better job. How would the private sector earn a profit protecting pubic safety?

You do realize that the military is part of the federal government, as is the court system, and police and fire departments. I'd say USPS does a pretty good job. And what about the role played by government in education and research? Interstate highway system? Public libraries and hospitals? Disaster recovery? Should the FBI and the CIA be privatized? The State Department?

The private sector does a good job providing employment income to more than 100 million Americans. What does it have to offer those who are disabled and can't work? If we ended SNAP and housing assistance programs, how would you feel about a sharp increase in malnutrition and homelessness?

"Five Things Government Does Better Than You Do," The American Prospect, Aug 21, 2012

Beyond the fiscal health of the government, however, our congress does not have an explicit power to redistribute wealth.

It's called promoting the general welfare. It's necessary and proper. Does the government redistribute wealth, say through the SSA? How does it do this if it's unconstitutional?

>>36-52% of taxes collected for wealth redistribution are lost to Okun's bucket.

Care to provide any details on that? Administrative costs for SS are less than one percent, while for Medicare it's about 2%. Okun's theory is focused mainly on problems with incentives. The marginal income tax rate for upper-income households is a lot less than it was forty years ago, and the requirements for participation in public assistance programs have changed as well.
 
Nobody says the VA hospitals don't provide good health care. The point is that it is inefficient and expensive health care. If we were to get the government out of the health care business, we could provide vets with medicare and save a fortune.

It is not inefficient...and to the best of my knowledge, it is less expensive to operate a VA hospital than a for-profit hospital.

I'm still undecided about the ramifications of changing to Medicare for vets...but it might be a reasonable idea.


There are problems with every organization in the country but none of them are as bad or inefficient or expensive as what the government does.

Absolute blather.



The solution is simple as I mentioned above. Shut it down and sign the vets up for medicare.

Lots of things to consider. Not nearly as simply a solution to the problem as you are suggesting it is.
 
Alright, Frank, we're now in the proper forum so I can ask you the question you avoided in the other forum:

What percentage of people's earnings do you want redistributed and given to the poor?

None.
 
It is not inefficient...and to the best of my knowledge, it is less expensive to operate a VA hospital than a for-profit hospital.

I'm still undecided about the ramifications of changing to Medicare for vets...but it might be a reasonable idea.

Simply take the VA's budget and divide it by the number of patients it handles in a year and you will have an idea of what it actually costs per patient. I think it will blow your mind.

Absolute blather.

Truthful blather that disagrees with your views.


Lots of things to consider. Not nearly as simply a solution to the problem as you are suggesting it is.

I disagree. I think it is that easy. It might be politically impossible but it certainly isn't complicated. If you want to leave it and try to fix it, you will have to make it easy for managers in government to fire people and reduce costs when money is short. Until that happens it will be same-o same-o.
 
Back
Top Bottom