'Illegal' is the Key Word | Page 18 | TigerFan.com

martin · Mar 23, 2006

marcmc99 said:

Those people are on a waiting list to even see a doctor. I can run in the store and have access to and afford all sorts of things at any time I want. Two totally unrelated subjects.
Click to expand...

both of you are arguing that the government control is better. not seeing how much better and cheaper and more efficient things can be.

simply because you can afford food does not mean the system is a success. you should be able to afford food without paying billions and billions of tax dollars for the right to buy food.

there are plenty of people who dont have as much money as you, and they are still paying taxes so you can pay off your farmer friends. you should feel pretty terrible about taking people's money instead of letting them choose what they want to buy.

at the end of the day, the story is this, politicians (like bush) need votes. and people are too dumb to see how a free market benefits them, plus they want free money, particularly the red state bush supporters. so they take as much money as they can get, and politicians do nothing. bush has to support farmers and agricultural regions, or he loses power.

the same thing goes for democrats and minimum wage. like cparso mentioned, they probably understand what is right, but politicians dont risk the political ramifications of disagreeing with their voters.

i know farmers want free money. so does everyone. the fair thing to do is to let everyone EARN their money.
Click to expand...

marcmc99 · Mar 23, 2006

martin said:

other countries have government-controlled health care. i am sure they make the same arguments you make, how they cant risk health care with a free market, because we die without it. and they probably get enough health care to get by, and they survive. meanwhile the more free system we have is far superior.
Click to expand...

I'd like to add, your comparison of farming to socialized medicine is way off. A more true comparison would be our own subsidized healthcare and our subsidized farming. Then again, that doesn't really help your argument any. In fact, it would hurt it, since your pharmaceutical companies are indirectly subsidized by the government, since it is the government who pays for all those old people and poor people's medicine.

And some interesting math....If you assume $80 billion annually for subsidies, consider a population of 300 million....365 days in a year.....3 meals per day....a whopping $.24 per meal per person.

Anyway, its been fun, but its almost gametime. Plus supper's on the table. Affordable, competetively priced chicken and dirt-cheap, subsidized pasta. MMMMMGOOD:thumb: :geauxtige

CParso · Mar 26, 2006

marcmc99 said:

I think your 60% tax rate is a little overstated, unless you're going to jump into Bill Gates' job straight out of college. I found this website you might like. Looks like for the nation as a whole, its about 29.1%. At least those were the 05 numbers. Pretty interesting to look at the historical table and see where the biggest jumps took place, centered around the Great Depression and the two World Wars.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/
Click to expand...

I just happened to run across this today, as I'm preparing a speech about the Libertarian Party...

"Taxes at all levels -- federal, state, and local; hidden and visible -- take about 50% of a family's income. We must work from January to June just to pay taxes."

http://www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml

martin · Mar 26, 2006

marcmc99 said:

And some interesting math....If you assume $80 billion annually for subsidies, consider a population of 300 million....365 days in a year.....3 meals per day....a whopping $.24 per meal per person.
Click to expand...

that is supposed to a be a small amount? that is about 90 dollars a month for a family of 4 (over 1000 a year!). you think we should take 90 dollars from every hardworking family in america every month to give away to businesses they do not own or profit from? dont you think they could find a use for that 90$ if you let them have it?

small goverment, it is a good idea. and it is still a good principle even when it means no free money for your pet industry.

marcmc99 · Mar 26, 2006

martin said:

that is supposed to a be a small amount? that is about 90 dollars a month for a family of 4 (over 1000 a year!).
Click to expand...

Yeah. that number is a little high for food products. I was in a hurry so I didn't figure in spreading subsidy costs across snacks and subsidy dollars that you'd have to divide among all the t-shirts, jeans, sweats, q-tips, tennis shoes (and any other leather product), many pharmaceuticals, martin's favorite--biodiesel (should see more of that coming soon), paper, lumber (for your house, apartment, office, desk) and so on and so forth.

you think we should take 90 dollars from every hardworking family in america every month to give away to businesses they do not own or profit from? dont you think they could find a use for that 90$ if you let them have it?
Click to expand...

Nah, I just think they would spend much more than a couple of days at Disney World's worth if agricluture wasn't subsidzed to some extent. No reason they have to pay $.24 per meal, since I've already said I agree there is waste in subsidies. Effectively managing subsidies could shave several cents off that number.

Kind of like with your pharmaceuticals. I don't hear you screaming so loud that the government picks up the tab for about 1/4 of Americans healthcare costs. If they didn't the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't have nearly as much profit to support their R & D efforts, I'd assume. They also might find themselves in a quandary, since they enjoy the benefit of being able to price their products at levels the average consumer really can't afford any way. But, we've worked around that, through a consumer subsidizing system known as health insurance. Maybe we could get food insurance too?

small goverment, it is a good idea. and it is still a good principle even when it means no free money for your pet industry.
Click to expand...

Small government is a great idea. So are economic principles. If the world operated in a vacuum where economic principles could operate absent of any other influences, I'd be right there with you. Too bad the real world is a far different place.
Click to expand...

marcmc99 · Mar 26, 2006

CParso said:

I just happened to run across this today, as I'm preparing a speech about the Libertarian Party...

"Taxes at all levels -- federal, state, and local; hidden and visible -- take about 50% of a family's income. We must work from January to June just to pay taxes."

http://www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml
Click to expand...

Any idea where they got those numbers? I'd like to see how they calculated it. Not that I'm saying I don't trust them, but the average family income in America is around $45K per year. Its kind of hard to judge by percentages sometimes.

martin · Mar 26, 2006

marcmc99 said:

I've already said I agree there is waste in subsidies.
Click to expand...

as will always be the case with all government programs of any kind.

Kind of like with your pharmaceuticals. I don't hear you screaming so loud that the government picks up the tab for about 1/4 of Americans healthcare costs.
Click to expand...

i hate that. how loud should i scream?
Click to expand...

marcmc99 · Mar 26, 2006

martin said:

as will always be the case with all government programs of any kind.
Click to expand...

Yep. A bunch of government employees are lazy, dumb, and inefficient. (At least most of the ones I deal with on a daily basis.) Clean house and be sure the job gets done right. Just because the execution and administration is pathetic doesn't mean the program is.

i hate that. how loud should i scream?
Click to expand...

Loud enough you explain how the healthcare industry can also thrive in a strictly free market economy. That way, I understand how this industry will be able to take up the slack in a purely free market economy with absolutely no government intervention in any business.
Click to expand...

martin · Mar 26, 2006

marcmc99 said:

Yep. A bunch of government employees are lazy, dumb, and inefficient. (At least most of the ones I deal with on a daily basis.) Clean house and be sure the job gets done right. Just because the execution and administration is pathetic doesn't mean the program is.
Click to expand...

you can clean house all you want, the government is inefficient by nature, they dont work for profits and compete. you cant make them efficient.

Loud enough you explain how the healthcare industry can also thrive in a strictly free market economy. That way, I understand how this industry will be able to take up the slack in a purely free market economy with absolutely no government intervention in any business.
Click to expand...

i dont understand the question. i oppose subsidies in both industries.

marcmc99 · Mar 26, 2006

martin said:

you can clean house all you want, the government is inefficient by nature, they dont work for profits and compete. you cant make them efficient.
Click to expand...

The government doesn't have to seek profit to be efficient, just hold goverment employees accountable for their actions and be sure they are working for the good of the American people. However, the government has become so politically correct they can't fire a complete idiot, they have to be promoted for someone to get them out of their department. I work in defense contracting, and if this is the case in the DoD, I can imagine how awful it is in other less scrutinized areas.

i dont understand the question. i oppose subsidies in both industries.
Click to expand...

My point, certain industries can't survive without government aid, protection etc. The drug industry wouldn't be nearly as profitable without government funded profits. This industry is protected by patent laws, certain FDA restrictions, and other trade laws as well.

I say the inefficiencies could be corrected, you think they can't, so we should more or less eliminate most of the government. We both want the same end result, what's best for America, we just disagree as to the best means to achieve that result.
Click to expand...