Dirt poor?

[Elspode]

Originally posted by Radar
Before social security disability and medicare, an average family could afford to go to a doctor, doctors actually made housecalls, and doctors weren't paid with stolen money from resentful people. Government meddling has raised the cost of healthcare through the roof and made it unaffordable. Medical advances (which are due to private enterprise not because of government) have made healthcare superior now, but unaffordable for the elderly and disabled. If we take government out of the system the cost of healthcare for these people would be a fraction of what it currently costs. Here's a couple of articles for you.

Ah. Charity hospitals. Yeah, they're real plentiful around here. Oh, wait...no they aren't. In fact, there are exactly *none*. And no matter how cheap it gets, I seriously doubt that my son could afford it on $400 a month. Come to think of it, he wouldn't have his job at all, because the whole reason he works there in the first place is because of a tax credit program offered to the employer from the government.

I have reasonably extensive experience with both the health care system and the private agencies available to assist the disabled and indigent. Do you? So far the *only* services my son has been able to get were *all* paid for by State and Federal dollars. I have investigated other avenues, because his need for services is great. There simply are none available that meet his need for an income and for medical care. I have about 12 years of experience with this sort of thing at this point, so I know whereof I speak.

As for the supposed improvement in the current situation if taxation were removed, well, If there is no economic incentive to operate services for and provide financial support to the disabled and underemployed/unemployable, then those services will not increase, they will decrease. Since the unemployed and unemployable have no money, then where is the financial incentive for anyone to operate such a business? Oh, yes! Charity! Once taxation ceases, people will run willy nilly to their local church or relief organization, and make their coffers overflow with unprecedented bounty!

Let's look back about 100 years and see what charity institutions were like. They were dumping grounds, a place where people were parked to die. There were far fewer medical providers, psychiatric providers, physical therapists, etc, because, well...they couldn't make any money doing it for a charity institution. The facilities were overcrowded, and could not serve everyone who needed them. I noted an absence of such information in the articles you suggested, BTW. This is probably because the whole concept you are espousing is mostly concerned with people looking out for #1, and treating the unfortunate among us like #2.

As it is, my son lives a reasonably normal life (compared to what it *could* be), and it is *totally* due to the same programs that would cease to exist were it not for the Social Security and Medicare funds that support them. Even the meager busboy job he works for sixteen hours a week to earn the $400 per month was obtained through a program to employ the disabled.

Without taxation, we become a country where only the strong survive. Is that part of the "better" sociological picture that were supposed to ogling, here?

[wolf]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
We'd take it up the poop shoot as one of the sevices that, while they do suck, fills a necessary role is gone and then we end up with a generation of semi to non-literate, unskilled children to take up our banner into the next millenium.

We've already got that. We are screwed.

[warch]

Your quality and range of public services is directly related to your rate of taxes. You want to live in a nice place, it costs you money. Does it benefit you to "pay" to assist your neighbor in a time of need? yes. Pay now or pay later. The key is to invest well. I guess I am a socialist..or Norwegian wannabe. enjoy.

Bah! Home schoolin' aint always the best. It depends on the kid and the instruction. Wasnt that Mom that killed her sons with a rock to the head, homeschoolin?
Hey, Public school has its serious problems, look at the volume, but there are kids learning too. There are some damn good teachers and students in public schools, they dont get the press though. I have seen the bad and the great.

And, like 1910 was a golden year? Lots of muckraking going on for such a "happy" time. come on.

And for your taxes..The Institute of Museum and Library Services , a federal agency, funds (through grants) libraries and yes...museums. Lots and lots for digitization/preservation projects. go surf some now. Thats good news for public and home schools and all youse too.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by wolf


We've already got that. We are screwed.

I know, I know, but public school does turn out kids who can read and want to learn. Just not as many as I would like and far more than would be cranked out by the non-tax version Radar is espousing.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


I know, I know, but public school does turn out kids who can read and want to learn. Just not as many as I would like and far more than would be cranked out by the non-tax version Radar is espousing.

Of course we are led by example. I can't wait until some teacher tells her children about the importance of reading and being curious about things and have some kid come back about how the President doesn't read the newspaper.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by warch
Your quality and range of public services is directly related to your rate of taxes. SNIP

AND involvement. If your services aren't serving, find out why. Be proactive in demanding the public be served as well as they are paying for.

[Beestie]

Your quality and range of public services is directly related to your rate of taxes.

If only.

For example, the District of Columbia spends more (and obviously taxes more) to educate a student than any state in the union. And, in a revelation sure to surprise absolutely no one, DC students are easily the least educated students in the country.

[Radar]

I love the way Radar is so sure he's right he's willing to go against the will of the people (and cause many deaths) to impose his ridiculous 'state' on them. Maybe your government should stop spending money to fingerprint Swiss tourists and spend a little more keeping an eye on their home-grown nutters.

I love the way you attempt to justify robbery because it is teh "will of the people". If one person robs you with a gun, it's robbery. If a gang of 10 people rob you it's still robbery. And if 250 million people rob you at the point of a gun and call themselves "government" it is STILL robbery and claiming that it's "the will of the people" doesn't change shit.

I'm not debating what Friedman thinks, I'm merely stating monearism is dead, a failure and disowned by Friedman himself.

That's an absolute lie. Milton Friedman has never "disowned" the idea of going back to a gold or other fiat-based standard of money; not ever and you're a liar if you claim he did. The gold standard never failed. Not once. If you claim it did, you are once again a liar.

Your quality and range of public services is directly related to your rate of taxes.

What are you smoking and where can I get it?

The while the range of services (not that they provide actual service) is related to how much stolen money the government can get its hands on, the quality is not. Private schools cost on average half of what the government spends per student per year and they have a far superior education. In fact you can not name a single government run social service that can't be run cheaper, provide superior service, and use less overhead than a similar privately funded non-profit charity.

I know, I know, but public school does turn out kids who can read and want to learn. Just not as many as I would like and far more than would be cranked out by the non-tax version Radar is espousing.

The number is students is debatable. But the quality of education is not. Under the theft-funded system you promote, there are childen moved up and who graduate who are illiterate or very near to it. They can't name the vice-president, state capitals, etc. In a word they, like those who support the current public school system, are morons. Under the privately funded, more efficient, and superior school system I propose, the students who graduate will be able to compete globally with those anywhere else on earth. In my system education isn't taken down to the lowest common denominator.

So the question is do we want an entire nation of people educated at the level of a burger flipper as your system produces, or do we want the best engineers, doctors, and scientists on earth as my system would produce?

If only.

You got that right.

[jinx]

Some Numbers


0
Number of New York City 8th graders deemed "proficient" on last year's end-of-summer-school reading exam.

78
Percent of those who took the test who were promoted to the 9th grade.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Elspode
I have reasonably extensive experience with both the health care system and the private agencies available to assist the disabled and indigent. Do you? So far the *only* services my son has been able to get were *all* paid for by State and Federal dollars. I have investigated other avenues, because his need for services is great. There simply are none available that meet his need for an income and for medical care. I have about 12 years of experience with this sort of thing at this point, so I know whereof I speak.

It'll be three years for me in June. Once I got a basic understanding about the "system", things were a bit better, but it's still no picnic. Plus, with some programs, you have to fit an income requirement...basically, have one foot in the poverty gutter, which (thankfully!) I am not, but damn, some type of assistance is still needed!

As for the supposed improvement in the current situation if taxation were removed, well, If there is no economic incentive to operate services for and provide financial support to the disabled and underemployed/unemployable, then those services will not increase, they will decrease. Since the unemployed and unemployable have no money, then where is the financial incentive for anyone to operate such a business? Oh, yes! Charity! Once taxation ceases, people will run willy nilly to their local church or relief organization, and make their coffers overflow with unprecedented bounty!

Maybe he can empty HIS wallet into the pot and support everyone. Pssftttt!

Let's look back about 100 years and see what charity institutions were like. They were dumping grounds, a place where people were parked to die. There were far fewer medical providers, psychiatric providers, physical therapists, etc, because, well...they couldn't make any money doing it for a charity institution. The facilities were overcrowded, and could not serve everyone who needed them. I noted an absence of such information in the articles you suggested, BTW. This is probably because the whole concept you are espousing is mostly concerned with people looking out for #1, and treating the unfortunate among us like #2.

*applause* A-fucking-men!

As it is, my son lives a reasonably normal life (compared to what it *could* be), and it is *totally* due to the same programs that would cease to exist were it not for the Social Security and Medicare funds that support them. Even the meager busboy job he works for sixteen hours a week to earn the $400 per month was obtained through a program to employ the disabled.

That's good that your son has his job and is able to take advantage of the programs. I'll be looking into one pretty soon myself (Office of Vocational Rehab). Seems as though this will be my last chance to get any type of work. We'll see.

[jaguar]

That's an absolute lie. Milton Friedman has never "disowned" the idea of going back to a gold or other fiat-based standard of money; not ever and you're a liar if you claim he did. The gold standard never failed. Not once. If you claim it did, you are once again a liar.

I'm sorry you can't get your head around basic ecoomic terms Radar. I said Friedman disowned monetarism, which I defined above, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote that. I did not for example, say "Friedman thinks the gold standard sucks" or "The Gold Standard Failed". Thus your origional statement, implying that if we stopped, or limited printing of money, inflation would go away and the economy would be perfectly stable, which is a narrow at best understanding of monetarism in the first place is itself invalid. I don't understand how the gold standard came into that.

As for whether Friedman did in fact disown monetarism, see my attached quote, from the Financial Times. That dodgy little newspaper.

[Radar]

Printing more money without anything to back it is THE ONLY CAUSE OF INFLATION. Nothing else causes inflation other than increasing the amount of money in circulation. That's an indisputable fact and every Nobel Prize winning economist I mentioned including Milton Friedman agrees with that statement.

And I don't promote mercantilism. I obviously promote free market capitalism.

[Undertoad]

No question Friedman would agree that oversupply causes inflation no matter what the money is backed by.

[jaguar]

Keynesian economists believe inflation can occur independently of monetary conditions.

If though, for a minute I follow the monetarists line, it has been well proven that targetting that relationship has been a failure and as I said, Milton Friedman himself agreed only last year.

Do too keep in mind there is a good reason central banks set specific inflation goals rather than zero, offical price indicies have a long history of overstating inflation and everyone prefers a touch of inflation to deflation.

[jaguar]

I love the way you attempt to justify robbery because it is teh "will of the people". If one person robs you with a gun, it's robbery. If a gang of 10 people rob you it's still robbery. And if 250 million people rob you at the point of a gun and call themselves "government" it is STILL robbery and claiming that it's "the will of the people" doesn't change shit.

Bullshit. You've chosen to live in a democratic state where clearly the majority support income tax, if they didn't they'd vote in someone who didn't. By making that choice (and noone's putting a gun to your head are they), you choose to accept that nation's laws. Whether or not the constitution allows it or not is utterly irrelevant. It's called realpolitik, something all your ideas lack sorely. Don't like it move somewhere that suits you, don't try and claim it's moral to overthrow a democratically elected state because YOU don't like the laws.

I've made active choices not to live in countries for reasons of law before, you don't see me say, advocating armed overthrow of France for not allowing public photography.

It's called the tyranny of the majority, if you don't like it, move somewhere where you are the majority or a dictatorship where you won't have the choice anyway.