Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

TrentS

macrumors 6502
Sep 24, 2011
491
238
Overland Park, Kansas
Huh??

"School" is a rather 'broad' term used here, ( pun intended ). Does he mean colleges or does he mean grade schools, middle schools, jr. highs, and high school, etc....??

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,307
9,132
Toronto, Ontario
I would imagine that future education (K-12) will be internet based from the home not the current school based system. So faster internet is needed. Rural areas still don't have real internet. In the past subsidies were used to provide internet in small out lying towns but providing no internet between those towns.

For example my phone company still only provides dial up or the option of satellite internet. Both are a joke. Needless to say dial up is too slow and satellite internet has low data caps, latency and is way to expensive.

This is not going to be the case for two reasons. 1) most parents treat schooling like daycare and 2) online learning is hard enough to implement correctly for adult learners, its not going to work for 1st graders.
 

3282868

macrumors 603
Jan 8, 2009
5,281
0
From some of the comments, there seems to exist an opinion that the government isn't responsible for educating its citizens or improving their health.

I'm not even addressing the fact that my teacher friends who work their butts off in high school are facing state and federal cuts so massive they have to work on their own time in such things as "book fairs" on weekends in order for surrounding schools in their area to simply have textbooks let alone the fact most textbooks are dated back to the late 90's (I was floored when a friend who teaches AP Chemistry showed the textbook for the class with a last revision from 1998, and so much has changed since). Let's forget all that, and blame the parents, who are working two jobs just to make ends meet in an economy that has shifted to higher home values, goods, and other necessary expenses such as power utilities, mortgages (and no, they did not buy into a mortgage above their means, and most of my late 30-something friends who have masters degrees and full time employment cannot afford a home in medium sized cities let alone children), and have been earning increasingly less over the past 30 years while the cost of living rises.

Born in '76, I grew up in a different time and with a "country club" mother in a single income family. I am from an affluent family, I am extremely thankful for what I have been given but do not take it for granted nor am I out of touch with the plight of the middle class that this - and many other first world nations - are struggling with today. Yet home values have become exorbitant, average family income is dismal, many aren't receiving enough education to become part of a skilled and proper global work force (we're 27 among other first world nations in quality of life, etc with basic skills far below average - that's pathetic), and insurance costs are astronomical. Having dual citizenship from being raised in London, I can go back to the U.K. and receive top medical care - no premiums, co-pays, network approvals. My friend Daphna married and she and her husband, being British, live in London, earn British Sterling Pounds, she earned a masters at the University of Bristol (or Brighton, I forget) after a BA from Syracuse University (only cost her £3000, nothing compared to the tens or hundreds of thousands for a BA), was able to get her ACL and knees fixed since she couldn't afford it in the U.S. and is running again (surgery, medications, therapy - even cab fare was covered), no insurance companies or third party administration costs (which are roughly 70% of our health insurance costs), and is loving life. She was in such disbelief being from the states, she ran the math, comparing healthcare costs and taxes in the U.S. versus those in the U.K., and was amazed she was paying more in sate and federal taxes in NY along with health insurance that covered basic care than what she is paying in the U.K.

My point in all this, if we do not have a healthy, well educated population, that effects ALL of us, collectively. As a nation, we are as strong as our weakest link. If we are ill equipped to compete in the global market, we will never improve as a nation. I find it amusing that people are forced to have car insurance, yet when health insurance comes up everyone loses their freaking minds. We have become a selfish nation, focusing on short term goals and missing the big picture. Couple this with our out of control military spending (we outspend China and N. Korea by 75:1 or great, that's insane) and privatization of homeland security, military and prisons (one of the reason California prisons are over crowded), we won't improve any time soon.

We need to realize both parties are in this mess together. Stop fighting each other, stop being selfish and assuming people are lazy or acting entitled because they want to work hard, educate themselves but can't afford it or public schools are severely underfunded. We have become a nation divided through political rhetoric and corporate owned "news" media that we're too busy believing the rhetoric and fighting each other instead of working through matters in a reasoned, educated and compassionate methodology. We're reactionaries, and most aren't educated enough to understand the system, thus creating an emotionally charged, ignorant, under paid and over worked nation with its finger on the trigger (how many shootings this year already? lost count).

So keep believing that education and health are a luxury and not a right. This will definitely produce a globally prepared work force and improve our economy. ;)
 

LagunaSol

macrumors 601
Apr 3, 2003
4,798
0
From some of the comments, there seems to exist an opinion that the government isn't responsible for educating its citizens or improving their health.

Some of us believe that these responsibilities should be handled at the state or local level, not by the federal government, which should be primarily responsible for our defense.

So keep believing that education and health are a luxury and not a right.

Neither a luxury nor a right, but a privilege.

When we start thinking of things as "rights," we forget the fact they actually have a high cost that someone (us) must pay for. Take a look at our federal deficit sometime for proof. :eek:
 

G4er?

macrumors 6502a
Jan 6, 2009
634
29
Temple, TX
Just as long as Obama's plans don't include BPL (Broadband over Power Lines). Does nothing but fills the airwaves (both ham radio and military) with noise and interference.
 

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,099
930
In my imagination
And what do you know, Obama was just another president in a long line of presidents that ended up being a disappointment for all of us.

I'm not one of those people who thinks he's this big black Kenyan socialist boogman. He's not. What he is...is an American president. Only slightly different than the other democrat presidents who came before him.

And that's really more our fault than his. He's the end result of a process we've allowed to continue because we've all started thinking of our political allegiances as a favorite sports team that has to be backed in good times or bad, rather than one of the guys we hire to get a job done.

The biggest problem with America is you and me, because we've let rhetoric, party lines, and scapegoating take the place of critical thinking. OH, I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M FOR A PRO BUSINESS SMALL GOVERNMENT, I JUST KNOW THAT I AM.

Speak truth brother!

american-flag.jpg
 

phrehdd

macrumors 601
Oct 25, 2008
4,321
1,314
One would think that Apple would request to not be mentioned again ever by this President in any speech or reference.

The entire speech was so full of beyond suspect statements, borrowed rhetoric from other Presidents' addresses and more. I am glad I don't belong to either party.

Apple like any other company dealing with mass amounts of people's personal information will be added to the list that must comply and make our information available to a gov't that already has abused the power. Uh no thanks.


-----------------------------------------------------------
Free Israel of Islamic historic revisionism
 

Ingot

macrumors 6502
Mar 24, 2010
266
23
I'm not sure I understand why this is so important.

I'm an engineering grad student, and the only thing I've ever used high speed internet for (that's school related) is downloading 300 MB video lectures. Instead of having to wait an hour or so for it to download, I waited for a minute. But I could have easily filled that hour with other activities.

I'm all for bettering internet infrastructure and getting higher speeds to everyone, but let's be honest, this isn't really doing that much to better education for students.

That is not entirely true. You are thinking first person with your postulation. In a school division where there are thousands of devices reaching into the internet for information at the same time, which includes simple text web pages to full web 2.0 media rich sites that involve video, a smaller connection can wreak havoc on the regular classroom with a teacher trying to watch a youtube Khan Academy video on non euclidean geometry with the students. With a smaller bandwidth connection these examples would be next to impossible to use in a regular classroom in a time restricted environment.

The faster the connection, the bigger the pipe so to speak, will enable better download and upload speeds for the students. With distance education, e-learning and now ubiquitous learning becoming the norm in most school divisions, that bigger pipe is needed now more than ever.
 

cocky jeremy

macrumors 603
Jul 12, 2008
6,187
6,515
Good luck trying to get that.
We will be dead sadly before that happens, if it ever will.

People despise the Tea Party but that's exactly what the Tea Party wants, a minimal federal government.

Believe me, I don't expect it. People in this country are either too stupid, or too lazy to make anything happen. Too busy crying about Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus to worry about anything that actually matters.
 

Ingot

macrumors 6502
Mar 24, 2010
266
23
Concerning education, maybe the problem is not the education system, maybe it is the educators.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=9409301

Concerning poor jobs, maybe it is not as simple as raising pay.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HrEJtn9LKRo&desktop_uri=/watch?v=HrEJtn9LKRo

Maybe capitalism does lower crime and help people and is better than just throwing money at a problem.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyol...-realizations-about-aid-capitalism-and-nerds/

Concerning Jobs, maybe stop paying attention to Unemployment (U3 reports) and start looking at U6. The US is not doing better with unemployment as stated last night (SOTU).
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

These aren't just words from a republican play book, in fact I believe even a liberal once said "So my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy-Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

Very interesting that you infer that it isn't the system of education, but that the fault lies with the educators. The article you cited is a good one about protecting unmotivated people in their job, but the following quote from same article goes contrary to what the article is trying to state. "There are questions about what yardstick would measure a poor teacher. One of the student plaintiffs complained about one teacher in Pasadena. The defense showed a video of other students praising that same instructor, who became "Teacher of the Year" in Pasadena". I think the black and white issue that you may be trying to infer is more a grey issue. The perception of one group of people seem to be contrary to another group. Who is right?
 

chirpie

macrumors 6502a
Jul 23, 2010
646
183
Who is right?

Mordcha: Why should I break my head about the outside world. Let the outside world break it’s own head!

Tevye: He’s right, as the good book says: ‘If you spit in the air it lands in your face.’

Perchik: Nonsense you can’t close your eyes to what’s happening in the world

Tevye: He’s Right

Avram: He’s right, and he’s right? They can’t both be right.

Tevye: You know… you are also right
 

jamesnajera

macrumors 6502
Oct 5, 2003
465
179
Very interesting that you infer that it isn't the system of education, but that the fault lies with the educators. The article you cited is a good one about protecting unmotivated people in their job, but the following quote from same article goes contrary to what the article is trying to state. "There are questions about what yardstick would measure a poor teacher. One of the student plaintiffs complained about one teacher in Pasadena. The defense showed a video of other students praising that same instructor, who became "Teacher of the Year" in Pasadena". I think the black and white issue that you may be trying to infer is more a grey issue. The perception of one group of people seem to be contrary to another group. Who is right?

It is never simple. That was the best example I could find at the time. Overall the point was that it can be hard to fire a bad teacher (even one that has committed a crime against a student), and the unions need to figure out a way to deal with those situations better. Otherwise people will grow to hate the unions.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
Neither a luxury nor a right, but a privilege.

When we start thinking of things as "rights," we forget the fact they actually have a high cost that someone (us) must pay for. Take a look at our federal deficit sometime for proof. :eek:

To a degree. But a basic education - perhaps not IVY LEAGUE education is or should be considered a right. And there should be proper budgeting to make that happen. Why? Because it's for the good of the country. If there are more educated people in the country/world - it becomes a better place for everyone.

I pay taxes - and those taxes are used for a lot of things that will never benefit me. But it's for the greater "good."

Those that live in suburbs without kids still pay taxes that go towards education. Perhaps you think that they should be credited? I'm curious where you draw the line in the sand on that.

Ultimately - the problem I have with the government overall - which is pretty broken - is that those we vote into office (most) are not adhering to the basic reason they are there. To serve the people. ALL of the people. Not SIGS, Corporations, etc. But everyone. Now you're never going to please everyone (clearly). But far too often, there are agendas. When either the democratic or republican party vote against something or stall a bill just because it wasn't their party's idea or they want to remain "aligned" with their party - that's a failing in the system to, once again, put the citizens of this country first.
 

217833

Guest
Aug 19, 2008
162
0
Quit depending on the government to do everything for you. That's how we got in this mess to begin with.

Indeed, and we should start by stoping allocating any budget to the Department of Defense (Army, Navy, Air Force, etc...), as well as all of the CIA, NSA, ICE, DEA, ATF, etc. Including Police and Fire Departments, etc...

I could clearly and easily live without and it would save a lot of money, for sure!
 

cocky jeremy

macrumors 603
Jul 12, 2008
6,187
6,515
Indeed, and we should start by stoping allocating any budget to the Department of Defense (Army, Navy, Air Force, etc...), as well as all of the CIA, NSA, ICE, DEA, ATF, etc. Including Police and Fire Departments, etc...

I could clearly and easily live without and it would save a lot of money, for sure!

CIA is nothing but corrupt BS. Same for NSA. Get rid of them. Legalize all drugs, and then the DEA is useless.. so you're on the way to making sense.
 

wiz329

macrumors 6502a
Apr 19, 2010
509
96
Agreed. Start with a flat tax and small government and then we'll take it from there.

Oh, boy, where to begin. Thank heavens you're not in charge of US tax policy.

Give me 3 economically sound reasons for why the income tax should be abolished and replaced with a single flat tax, and we'll take it from there.

----------

I see the concept of small government tossed around as if it's an answer in and of itself. But tell me, what does it solve? Do you expect everything that's normally covered by government to be picked up by the free market? Like social safety nets? Education initiatives? Can they nationalized on the same level by a private enterprise? Can they be trusted to always work in our best interest? What if they don't? Who's there to regulate them? Should we allow businesses to do as the will, and hope any problems that arise eventually work themselves out?

I guess if you want a return to the environment of the late 19th, early 20th century, and another eventual stock market crash like we saw in the 30's, that would be the way to go. Completely unregulated capitalism. Where you have a ton of industries who's sole purposes are to make as much money as possible for themselves, and damn the consequences. That's a system that only benefits a select few, and chances are good that most of the people preaching for such a system wouldn't be one of them.

We need a system that take everything and everyone into account. From the richest of the rich, to the poorest of the poor. A system that benefits from everyone succeeding because its in its own best interest to make sure everyone does so. Right now, there's no other large entity in place that can better do that job than a national government. It wants to make sure its poorest citizens becomes productive and educated, that it's richest corporations can continue running smoothly, but regulating them so that one particularly large corporation doesn't harm the smaller, but equally successful corporations and small businesses that work below it. A system that makes sure every single bit and piece in a much larger system turns well to its own benefit, which in turn benefits every bit and piece in the whole.

You shouldn't be asking for a smaller government. That might sound nice, but it's not really what you want. What you really want is a more transparent, efficient government. Which, right now, we don't have.

While we probably don't necessarily agree completely politically or economically speaking, THANK YOU for talking sense here.

----------

That is not entirely true. You are thinking first person with your postulation. In a school division where there are thousands of devices reaching into the internet for information at the same time, which includes simple text web pages to full web 2.0 media rich sites that involve video, a smaller connection can wreak havoc on the regular classroom with a teacher trying to watch a youtube Khan Academy video on non euclidean geometry with the students. With a smaller bandwidth connection these examples would be next to impossible to use in a regular classroom in a time restricted environment.

The faster the connection, the bigger the pipe so to speak, will enable better download and upload speeds for the students. With distance education, e-learning and now ubiquitous learning becoming the norm in most school divisions, that bigger pipe is needed now more than ever.

Good point. I was definitely thinking on the individual level.

Although all of the schools I have attended have had more than adequate internet connections (speed tests on a single computer are >>50Mb). Not really sure about the story with high schools.
 

Aeolius

macrumors 6502a
Jul 25, 2002
932
70
Give me 3 economically sound reasons for why the income tax should be abolished and replaced with a single flat tax, and we'll take it from there.

I'll give you one. Because it is fair. Why should those who are wealthy and/or successful be penalized and punished for being so? If Joe Blow makes $30K a year, he should pay the same % of his income in taxes as someone who makes $30,000,000 a year.

Assume for a minute that I don't want my paycheck to pay for someone else's unemployment. Assume that I assume most will game the system and freeload. I am a firm believer in "Get Off My Lawn" as is my right.
 
Last edited:

wiz329

macrumors 6502a
Apr 19, 2010
509
96
I'll give you one. Because it is fair. Why should those who are wealthy and/or successful be penalized and punished for being so? If Joe Blow makes $30K a year, he should pay the same % of his income in taxes as someone who makes $30,000,000 a year.

Assume for a minute that I don't want my paycheck to pay for someone else's unemployment. Assume that I assume most will game the system and freeload. I am a firm believer in "Get Off My Lawn" as is my right.

First, that's not an economic reason, that's an ethical reason, but we'll run with it for the time being.

First, "fair" according to whose definition? Why is a flat percentage even fair to begin with? Why shouldn't it be simply a flat amount, for example? What, mathematically, makes an equal percentage fair? We could just as easily use a different scale, a logarithmic one for example, and call that fair. Maybe the services you "use" (or were instrumental in the the procurement of your income and/or wealth) that the government provides are actually a higher percentage of your income than are the services a poorer (or richer) person uses.

Second, that's not an argument against income tax in itself, only a, so-called progressive income tax.

Third, the fact is, you weren't the "sole" one responsible for "your lawn" in the first place, and therefore, you don't have the "sole" rights to it. You can't deny or escape the fact that you live in a society, which has accorded you various benefits, which you had no say in, and which requires certain responsibilities, which you also don't really have a say in.

I'm all for capitalism and free markets -- as an economist, I recognize that they are remarkably efficient at resource allocation in the absence of any externalities. But let's not pretend that market failures don't exists, or that we are all individuals in a complete vacuum. That's just nonsense.

Additionally, even from a wholly selfish point of view, you might stop to consider that your paycheck "paying for someone else's unemployment" is actually a good investment, because it helps to keep the economy from nosediving during recessionary cycles.

Would I be right in assuming you also think all medicare and medicaid should be cut as well? After all, it's just robbery, isn't it? The elderly who can't afford healthcare shouldn't obviously left to die, shouldn't they? And if someone stumbles into the emergency room without health insurance, well, screw them because they can't pay.
 
Last edited:

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,099
930
In my imagination
I'll give you one. Because it is fair. Why should those who are wealthy and/or successful be penalized and punished for being so? If Joe Blow makes $30K a year, he should pay the same % of his income in taxes as someone who makes $30,000,000 a year.

Assume for a minute that I don't want my paycheck to pay for someone else's unemployment. Assume that I assume most will game the system and freeload. I am a firm believer in "Get Off My Lawn" as is my right.

The biggest problem I find with this statement, one that's not nailed in the quoted post below me, is that only a certain close-minded type of person would ever think that they are working hard and paying someone else's paycheck.

Not to be verbose, but I am sure most that hold that notion think they are paying for some welfare recipient's food and shelter, failing to forget that taxes pay for teacher's salaries, and other services provided at no major cost to citizens of the city/state/nation.

Your taxes pay the salaries of those that help keep your roads clear during snow, or help fix it during construction. Your taxes help pay for just about EVERYTHING the government does from putting out fires to making sure the volume on your TV doesn't jump from 3db to 50db just so someone can get you to watch a TV ad.

This b*********** about paying someone else's salary really only comes from the mind of an adult that has failed to see the world they live in.

First, that's not an economic reason, that's an ethical reason, but we'll run with it for the time being.

All very well said, and truth be told much of the discussion about big or small government really boils down to ethics.

I am not even remotely well versed in the subject, but from what I read on these forums alone I know that the supporters of a small government really only have twisted ethical reasons for it. When confronted with the facts, they usually shrivel up, or spout non-sense.
 

zync

macrumors 68000
Sep 8, 2003
1,804
24
Tampa, FL
The biggest problem I find with this statement, one that's not nailed in the quoted post below me, is that only a certain close-minded type of person would ever think that they are working hard and paying someone else's paycheck.

Not to be verbose, but I am sure most that hold that notion think they are paying for some welfare recipient's food and shelter, failing to forget that taxes pay for teacher's salaries, and other services provided at no major cost to citizens of the city/state/nation.

Your taxes pay the salaries of those that help keep your roads clear during snow, or help fix it during construction. Your taxes help pay for just about EVERYTHING the government does from putting out fires to making sure the volume on your TV doesn't jump from 3db to 50db just so someone can get you to watch a TV ad.

This b*********** about paying someone else's salary really only comes from the mind of an adult that has failed to see the world they live in.



All very well said, and truth be told much of the discussion about big or small government really boils down to ethics.

I am not even remotely well versed in the subject, but from what I read on these forums alone I know that the supporters of a small government really only have twisted ethical reasons for it. When confronted with the facts, they usually shrivel up, or spout non-sense.

That much is obvious (relevant part in bold above).

Millions of our tax dollars are also spent on hundreds of useless studies (like how long it takes husbands and wives to calm down after an argument). Billions were spent destroying military equipment that could have been sold or shipped back here. That's a pretty good start at an argument against large government. Want more facts?

We spend billions of dollars a year on a failed drug war that has had no net positive effect. We lock up thousands of people for smoking marijuana, even though the actual health effects are less damaging than alcohol. And that's not even mentioning that we actually have nannies legislating what we can put into our own bodies—which means we don't own our own bodies.

I run a business, and because of that I have to pay all sorts of money to various government entities, including filing an annual report which consists of paying $150 to an entity that does nothing but take $150 from me each year.

We often pass feel good legislation (or do it by executive order in the case of our current president) like minimum wage laws even though only 5.2% of hourly workers have wages at or below minimum wage. 5.2%! There are 73.9 million workers being paid hourly (source:US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011). That represents 1.2% of the entire population (including children). There are about 142 million workers, so about 2% of all workers are actually paid at or below minimum wage.

Now when we increase it artificially—tampering with the market—we lose entry level jobs because people who were $7.25/hr workers don't suddenly become $10/hr workers. These things affect the people who need those jobs the most—those who need to learn skills like students. And $7.25 is better than $0.

The small government argument is very ethical. I don't want to raise minimum wage because it hurts people who need money and skills most. And it also causes rampant inflation, which hurts everyone else too. I want to see drugs legalized because then people who don't deserve to be in jail could be as free as I am. I want there to be less regulation so that I can employ people while still making a living myself. There are many people who only like a free market when it's convenient. Some would rather take a shortcut than learn skills that will get them better pay. Hint, I did it. And I most certainly don't make anything close to minimum wage now. And I haven't since I was 16 because I worked.

If you look at nearly every Libertarian argument, it's based on helping people and it's based on what can give you the most freedom. I don't see how that is even remotely unethical. I think it's unethical to trap people in cycles of poverty because you *think* you're helping them. If you're helping the poor, why do they stay poor? It's not because we don't give them enough money. The average poor person has many of the luxuries I do—flat screen TVs, a cell phone, a roof over their heads, and food on their tables. And that money DOES come from somewhere to pay for the things you think come at "no major cost to citizens". I paid a third of my money—after deductions—to the IRS because I'm self-employed and must pay for all sorts of things I'll never receive. The people of the United States fed a bloated government (local, state, and federal) another $5.4 TRILLION last year, which is more than many countries' GDP. If you don't find that absolutely ridiculous when they blow a lot of it on ridiculous things ($200K Congressional portraits for example) I don't know how to explain to you that a smaller, more efficient government would benefit everyone.

I could have farmed more of my work out to to others and helped them instead of keeping it to myself if the IRS didn't take a third of my income last year, or a third this year. And if you think that I'll shrivel up to your "facts" perhaps you should go and research mine and see for yourself.

Perhaps it's just my opinion that what we get for $5.4 Trillion isn't worth it. But I think that if we're spending more than another country makes (Germany is the fourth largest in the world, and largest GDP in Europe at $3.4 trillion) we're doing something wrong. But I guess what really boils down to American Exceptionalism is that we have the luxury of paying agencies like the Department of Education to take 75% of our education dollars and return 25% to the states while letting us slide with respect to the world, or we can pay the NSA to spy on all of us, or we can pay farmers to not grow crops.

Please get a clue. There are many to chose from.
 
Last edited:

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,099
930
In my imagination
If an opposition to socialism is twisted, then so be it. It's a pipe dream to think everyone will get along in a utopian society.

Except no one mentioned either socialism or a utopian society.

Proving everyone's simple points yet again.

Please get a clue. There are many to chose from.

I have no clue, yet I still understand the simple solutions that poke holes through much of your flawed logic

Everything you say is wonderful, and I agree with, but 1) wasn't relevant to what I was saying, and 2) wasn't relevant to what I was saying.

How is what you mentioned relevant with taxation and government supported services?

Or again, were you just cherry picking and getting emotional because I happened to mention small government?

Just to help move the discussion along in a positive way, I'll recap my point in much more detail.

Supporters of small government, one in which many of the government services that are paid out of tax payer money aren't, and are left up to the free market to create, don't see how that really would be an epic disaster.
 
Last edited:

zync

macrumors 68000
Sep 8, 2003
1,804
24
Tampa, FL
I have no clue, yet I still understand the simple solutions that poke holes through much of your flawed logic

Everything you say is wonderful, and I agree with, but 1) wasn't relevant to what I was saying, and 2) wasn't relevant to what I was saying.

How is what you mentioned relevant with taxation and government supported services?

Or again, were you just cherry picking and getting emotional because I happened to mention small government?

Just to help move the discussion along in a positive way, I'll recap my point in much more detail.

Supporters of small government, one in which many of the government services that are paid out of tax payer money aren't, and are left up to the free market to create, don't see how that really would be an epic disaster.

You don't understand and you never will. And my response included facts, not feelings.

How is it relevant? We are taxed to the tune of $5.4 trillion dollars and are spending even more, and we don't receive $5.4 trillion dollars worth because the people writing checks are using money that isn't theirs. There wasn't any cherry-picking other than I simply can't provide you with all the ways that you are wrong because it would take me weeks if not months. But this does apply specifically.

And how will it work? It already has. The freer we were, the more we grew, the less free we were the more we didn't. That has been the same in any other country that had a free market. That's why Hong Kong grew into a huge metropolis within about 50 years while China stagnated.

And most of the things you probably hold dear already existed in the private sector (including transportation, and social safety nets) and were taken over by the government in the 20th century. And what we've been able to get back, including things as "crazy" as private firefighters—which are actually way more efficient and respond quicker—have gone well. There are even private run public parks and private run public libraries. And guess what, they're better than their public run counterparts too.

So as I said, do some research. If you think taxing $5.4 trillion and spending even more is sound policy, I don't know how to explain it to you. I'm just trying to illustrate that the small amount of services that we get because of taxation are not worth what we pay and the reason is precisely because the government is a behemoth.

I'll leave you to your research. Have a good weekend. I've said my piece, so I'll see you guys around the forums.
 

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,099
930
In my imagination
You don't understand and you never will. And my response included facts, not feelings.

How is it relevant? We are taxed to the tune of $5.4 trillion dollars and are spending even more, and we don't receive $5.4 trillion dollars worth because the people writing checks are using money that isn't theirs. There wasn't any cherry-picking other than I simply can't provide you with all the ways that you are wrong because it would take me weeks if not months. But this does apply specifically.

And how will it work? It already has. The freer we were, the more we grew, the less free we were the more we didn't. That has been the same in any other country that had a free market. That's why Hong Kong grew into a huge metropolis within about 50 years while China stagnated.

And most of the things you probably hold dear already existed in the private sector (including transportation, and social safety nets) and were taken over by the government in the 20th century. And what we've been able to get back, including things as "crazy" as private firefighters—which are actually way more efficient and respond quicker—have gone well. There are even private run public parks and private run public libraries. And guess what, they're better than their public run counterparts too.

So as I said, do some research. If you think taxing $5.4 trillion and spending even more is sound policy, I don't know how to explain it to you. I'm just trying to illustrate that the small amount of services that we get because of taxation are not worth what we pay and the reason is precisely because the government is a behemoth.

I'll leave you to your research. Have a good weekend. I've said my piece, so I'll see you guys around the forums.

Your statement had nothing to do with my original comment.

You arguing points I never made.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.