Liberals Should be Loving George W....

[valvano]

Liberals love govt spending....they should be in love with the man:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

yet another example as to why all of DC needs to be thrown to the gutter

[Schmeltz]

Sorry but liberals, like the rest of us, only love public spending if it actually increases the quality and availability of public services. Not when it just wastes money needlessly. Try again.

[valvano]

[QUOTE=Schmeltz]Sorry but liberals, like the rest of us, only love public spending if it actually increases the quality and availability of public services. /QUOTE]

have any examples of public services that has increased the quality of life?

Amtrak (how much does GOVT subsidize each passenger?)
Welfare (yep, poverty has been eradicated!)
Social Security (I feel secure about it!)
Medicare ?


How about this, stop the spending, cut taxes, and let us take care of ourselves and cut back govt involvement in everyday life.. (y)

[King PSYZ]

you're not really known as a bright one are you?

Saying being a Liberal means you like to have the government spend money wastefully is like saying being a Conservitive means you like snorting coke off strippers asses, as long as nobody finds out except your congressional buddies...

[valvano]

you're not really known as a bright one are you?

Saying being a Liberal means you like to have the government spend money wastefully is like saying being a Conservitive means you like snorting coke off strippers asses, as long as nobody finds out except your congressional buddies...


the only way govt knows how to spend money is wastefully,
name me 3 govt programs which have
1. operated under the original proposed budget
2. did not increase the level of bureaucracy
3. solved the problem the program was designed to fix

I'll await your reply

[STANKY808]

Amtrak (how much does GOVT subsidize each passenger?)



I wonder how that would compare to the money that is
thrown at the interstate highway system?

[King PSYZ]

the only way govt knows how to spend money is wastefully,
name me 3 govt programs which have
1. operated under the original proposed budget
2. did not increase the level of bureaucracy
3. solved the problem the program was designed to fix

I'll await your reply
What does that have to do with anything?

I await your reply...

[SobaViolence]

This message is hidden because that bitch valvano is on your ignore list. good job.

[valvano]

What does that have to do with anything?

I await your reply...


its directed at those who defend the massive govt spending on numerous govt programs....

[King PSYZ]

and that doesn't appy to all "Liberals" which was the entire point behind my post you quoted with your pithy quip.

the point is, Bush is a wastefull bastard on several levels. But using that as some sort of anti Liberal bashing is flawed when it's the conservitive president doing it.

[Ace42X]

have any examples of public services that has increased the quality of life?

Shitloads. The NHS for starters, saved millions of lives and elleviated more human suffering in the UK than anything since Cromwell.

[Schmeltz]

valvano, have you ever driven or walked on a road? Have you ever dealt with the police? Have you ever seen a house fire put out by professionals? You're an idiot if you think public services don't increase the quality of life. If everybody was simply left to take care of themselves there would be total anarchy in short order - either that or we'd all be slaves for the rich, even more so than we already are. I will grant you that government is frequently inefficient and incompetent, and that social spending can on occasion be frivolous and wasteful, but you take the bad with the very obvious and beneficial good. Your ideological claptrap is a poor replacement.

[Ali]

Shitloads. The NHS for starters, saved millions of lives and elleviated more human suffering in the UK than anything since Cromwell.Fuck the fucking NHS. You have to wait, like YEARS for non-essential operations and end up going private anyway.

French healthcare is a zillion billion time better, state pays half, you (and your health insurance) pay the rest.

[ChrisLove]

I dont think it is so bad that there is a basic and free level of healthcare but ou can get better if you are prepared to pay.

The mixed subsidy/private spending model that Ali mentions seems pretty good to me.

I think the basic problem is that if people are allowed to select their own level of health care (as in the US model), then they tend to make poor choices ie they underinvest in it. This is particuarly the case if you are on a low income where the benefits of 'gambling on good health' are higher. Its a market failure that requires government intervention (which in the UK takes the form of the gov setting the amount of individual investment in healthcare through taxes).

I think that individuals should be liable for a fraction (with a maximum limit on cost to the individual) of their healthcare costs - the size of the fraction and the upper limit of liability could be based on income. So you can get insurance if you want but if you dont you will not be ruined by the cost if you choose not to purchase it.

The idea being that the government still contributes to most of the cost of healthcare - thus reducing the misallocation problem but ensuring that private healthcare institutions must still compete for the custom of patients on 'added value' grounds. This seems closish to what goes on in France.

Of course this would be pretty unfair on the wealthy who would pay more than the poor but get less subsidy - oh well