This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice

Spanish Election

Discussion in 'Open Discussion (Work-safe)' started by Oh8ch, Mar 14, 2004.

  1. ashlandbuck

    ashlandbuck Banned

    I think you guys are arguing about subsidies that are not the major problem when it comes to the role of goverment in our everyday lives.
    The problem is now and has been for some time, pork barrel spending.
    The goverment spends billions and billions of dollars on worthless acts that benefit only a chosen few.
    One of the big ones off the top of my head is the CARA act. Conservation and reinvestment act. I think this porker is costing the tax payers around 45 billion dollars and it benefits(?) two states. Alaska and Louisiana.
    The bill was co sponsored by to senators, one I believe is an Alaskan Rep. and the other is newly elected Mary L. (D-LA.)
    Congress is not interested in the over all well being of our country. They are interested in being re-elected and servicing the state or district they represent. Untill we change this mindset of our elected officials we can expect more and more waste of OUR dollars in Washington.
     
  2. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    Jeez, at least come up with something that passes the laugh test. Private Charities are soooo 19th Century.

    Also, a liberal is NOT someone who believes that Government is supposed to cure social problems. If that were the case, Your Namesake, Ronald Reagan and both Bushes would be considered flaming liberals.

    As for health care, the rational solution would not to nationalize the health care system, but, instead, the health insurance industry, thereby lowering the costs to doctors in the form of premiums, and thereafter to the consumers, without taking away the incentive for medical research.
     
  3. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    But that is precisely what they are supposed to do. That is why congress is designed the way it is. That's what the founders wanted. It is well explained by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers
     
  4. gbearbuck

    gbearbuck Herbie for President

    1968,

    We are on the same page as far as the insurance side... You are for nationalizing, I am for capping payments...either way it should lower the cost to all...
     
  5. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    gbearbuck:

    Most Doctors that I know agree that insurance companies are terrible. Most people who need medical attention are also likely to agree.
     
  6. ashlandbuck

    ashlandbuck Banned

    Woody

    Yeah,of course. It's called a representative republic. I'm not stupid and the forefathers would roll over in their graves if they knew to what extent the current congress has taken their roll of representing their constituency
     
  7. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    " As for health care, the rational solution would not to nationalize the health care system, but, instead, the health insurance industry, "

    Let me get this straight. You are a socialist and you want me to come up with something that "passes the laugh test"?

    Speaking of people's namesakes, your namesake was an arch-conservative who was friends with my namesake.
     
  8. ashlandbuck

    ashlandbuck Banned

    If we ever nationalized health care, would going to the doctor be comparable to going to the BMV today?
    Just a scarey thought. :biggrin:
     
  9. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    If I were a socialist, I would nationalize the Health Care industry. That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that Health Insurance is a scam, pure and simple. It would be more accurate to label me a utilitarian, because I believe that a society is only as strong as it's weakest link. I do not believe that basic health care should be a privledge.

    As for Woody Hayes' politics: I admire Woody as a football coach and a human being. I really don't take his political beliefs into account.
     
  10. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    Wanting to nationalize ANY industry is socialist. You can't pick and choose: oh, if I want to take over the shoe industry, I'm a socialist, but if I want to take over the computer industry, I'm not a socialist.

    Utilitarianism, huh? "Greatest good for the greatest number"? Well, this conversation isn't going to go anywhere, so I'm out.
     
  11. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    Socialism is an entire economic system. Just because the government controls the police force, or the issuence of drivers licenses, doesn't mean that the USA is "socialist." Yet that is exactly what you are saying.

    You get points for the Philosophy 101 definition of Utilitarianism, but you don't know what a liberal or a socialist is.
     
  12. ashlandbuck

    ashlandbuck Banned

    Basic health care isn't a natural right either, is it?
    Im a constitutionalist and I'm not sure there's an amendment.
     
  13. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    How many things are there out there that are "natural rights?"

    In all honesty, the free market approach that Nixon supports has created an artificial shortage of health care, and has been an utter failure.
     
  14. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    The US is most certainly "socialist", in some respects. The US is a mixed economy. It is a mix between socialism and capitalism.

    Only a socialist or a person with socialist leanings would suggest that the government take over even more industries than it already controls. I mean, if the government takes over everything other than making socks and hamburgers, we're still capitalist, right, because our entire economic system is not controlled by the government? :roll2:
     
  15. ashlandbuck

    ashlandbuck Banned

    Yeah, and Canada's national health care system is the ideal, right? shheezz
     

Share This Page