People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Not my position at all. I continue to think that pointing out how those who espouse the merits of choice in one area of life do not do so in others are being inconsistent, proving that there are limits to their expression of freedom of choice.

---

One more time, then I won't comment on this matter again, as it relates to abortion.

I am for freedom of choice as long as one's choice does not infringe upon anothers rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happyness (or my prefered wording property). Abortion clearly deprives one's right to life.

As to Bob's point ... Since we do not know when a soul enters into a "chunk of tissue", I believe it prudent, and the only viable option, to treat that "chunk of tissue" as a life with a soul at all times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I might not take advantage of the street lighting on a particular road. Should I receive a small rebate on my tax bill? One could compartmentalise it endlessly. I simply don't care whether I might be paying a tiny amount for something I will never use.

---

What if those tiny amounts continue to add up until the whole governmental system is so massively in debt that it starts to collapse? See Greece. See the massive ratio of debt to GDP that the US currently has. Many, many rationalizations such as you just made went into adding up those crushing debts. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for street lights. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for welfare programs. Oh I don't ming paying a little bit for unemployment insurance. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for public transportation. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for this. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for that. Well those "little bits" have all added up to crush the economies of more than on nation. Do you mind now? Do the Greeks mind now? Will the OWS people mind if all their demands are met and the debt forces default of the US government, and then those demands can no longer be met?

I seem to have allowed myself to be backed into arguing against all forms of public services. I am not against them at all, and have tried to say that many times in the past. I do think there is a case to be made for things such as street lights, some public transportation, and other things. All I am saying is that there should be a concious decision made as to costs vs benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What if those tiny amounts continue to add up until the whole governmental system is so massively in debt that it starts to collapse? See Greece. See the massive ratio of debt to GDP that the US currently has. Many, many rationalizations such as you just made went into adding up those crushing debts. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for street lights. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for welfare programs. Oh I don't ming paying a little bit for unemployment insurance. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for public transportation. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for this. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for that. Well those "little bits" have all added up to crush the economies of more than on nation. Do you mind now? Do the Greeks mind now? Will the OWS people mind if all their demands are met and the debt forces default of the US government, and then those demands can no longer be met?

---

How come, then, the Scandinavian economies didn't collapse years ago under the weight of their expensive social programmes? How come Germany enjoyed years of economic growth while also providing high-quality public services? You are ignoring the underlying factors in favour of again stressing your own ideological bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Was it not always possible for this to happen, for example with privately-operated heritage trains doing so along British Rail lines? As far as I am aware, it was not illegal, let's put it that way.

---

Well in most countries direct competition on the railways was impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

Well in most countries direct competition on the railways was impossible.

---

The picture of numerous trains run by different companies turning up at my local station and waiting in line for comsumers to make their choice does rather make me chuckle :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What if those tiny amounts continue to add up until the whole governmental system is so massively in debt that it starts to collapse? See Greece. See the massive ratio of debt to GDP that the US currently has. Many, many rationalizations such as you just made went into adding up those crushing debts. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for street lights. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for welfare programs. Oh I don't ming paying a little bit for unemployment insurance. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for public transportation. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for this. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for that. Well those "little bits" have all added up to crush the economies of more than on nation. Do you mind now? Do the Greeks mind now? Will the OWS people mind if all their demands are met and the debt forces default of the US government, and then those demands can no longer be met?

I seem to have allowed myself to be backed into arguing against all forms of public services. I am not against them at all, and have tried to say that many times in the past. I do think there is a case to be made for things such as street lights, some public transportation, and other things. All I am saying is that there should be a concious decision made as to costs vs benefits.

---

If you paid for all that you wouldn't be in debt. The US and Greece have such massive debts because they want to receive all those things but at the same time not pay for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

The picture of numerous trains run by different companies turning up at my local station and waiting in line for comsumers to make their choice does rather make me chuckle :laugh:

---

Yet John Major's false sense of nostalgia involved virtually that picture in his mind. Had people known that it appeared there alongside one of a naked Edwina Currie, maybe there would have been more opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

How come, then, the Scandinavian economies didn't collapse years ago under the weight of their expensive social programmes? How come Germany enjoyed years of economic growth while also providing high-quality public services? You are ignoring the underlying factors in favour of again stressing your own ideological bias.

---

Did I ever say that having social programs would lead to zero economic growth? No. I would propose that growth can exist with massive tax burdens. But I would also propose that there is a greater potential for greater economic growth with less burdensom taxes (less government programs, more free-market principals).

Look at the US in the past. We had less economic programs, and our economy grew at a faster rate than it is now, or than it is currently in Scandinavian economies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Did I ever say that having social programs would lead to zero economic growth? No. I would propose that growth can exist with massive tax burdens. But I would also propose that there is a greater potential for greater economic growth with less burdensom taxes (less government programs, more free-market principals).

---

You clearly suggested that the underlying problem in Greece was with the government spending too much on the public services. How else is this statement to be taken: 'What if those tiny amounts continue to add up until the whole governmental system is so massively in debt that it starts to collapse? See Greece'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

If you paid for all that you wouldn't be in debt. The US and Greece have such massive debts because they want to receive all those things but at the same time not pay for them.

---

So your idea is that we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem?

In 1999 the US took in 1.827 Trillion dollars, and had a surplus (on paper at least). In 2010 the US took in 2.163 Trilion dollars, and has a deficit of ~1.293 Billion dollars (I've seen different numbers around there). We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Just tax those "millionaires and billionaires" you say.
There Aren

Quote:

---

Spread that deficit over all the households in Club 250K and you have to jack up their taxes by an average of $500,000.

---

Quote:

---

You want to tax Club 1 (Club 1: the million-dollar-a-year club. Not the millionaires’ club — lots of the people earning $1 million in any given year do not have $1 million in assets — but, still, a million a year, even in rapidly depreciating U.S. dollars, is not too shabby) to get rid of the deficit, you have to hit each of those 200,000 households with an average tax hike — not an average tax bill, but tax increase — of $6 million. And a lot of those Club 1 households don’t have $6 million in income to start with, much less $6 million left after the taxes they’re already paying.

---