Internet Tax Again

Well until then the fact will remain that millions of people in the US cannot afford private health insurance, and that reflects poorly on the whole country.

People were poorer at the last turn of the century than they are now mostly because there was less wealth to go around... but your point stands about the inability of private enterprise to accomplish everything. Roads and street lights are the classic examples of necessary things that can\'t be easily provided by private industry. I think our difference of opinion is in whether health care and education fit into the \'can\'t be provided for profit\' category. Private health care works fairly well here in America (that is, until Billary and the HMO came along...); I think much of the problems with it (outside of \'not everyone gets all they want\') can be attributed by the mass of the FDA...it takes so long and so much money nowadays to get a medicine approved, that only a few large companies can afford to innovate, and even then it isn\'t as profitable. Education _may_ be something that can\'t work as a business. I don\'t know. Vouchers would be a way to find out.

#215: Your points make sense, unfortunately they\'ve been proven to not work so well in the real world. The situations you describe were reality at the turn of the century, and I for one don\'t want to go back. The fact is, industry is profit-driven and usually very short-sighted, so if we privatize everything we will loose everything that doesn\'t make money. Do you really want that to happen? Not me, that\'s why I think SOME government regulation is required, to keep the corporations from running the show. I have no doubts that if some regulations were repelled, a lot of corporations would go back to polluting and loosening safety standards that cost too much.

In a perfect capitalist world your idea would work well, but then in a perfect communist world we would all be pretty happy too. Reality forces us to compromise.

#202:
Just for fun, I\'LL take my reasoning to the extreme.

Arguing against public education is a hard thing to do, because private education hasn\'t been tried since education became really necessary. Even harder since I\'m going to have to do it on the spot. But I\'ll give it a shot. First of all, keep in mind that if public education were abolished, there goes a great deal of the tax burden, not just from the private citizens, but from the businesses that pay wages. So people have more money to pay for private schools.

Not a whole lot of people can afford $20,000 a year for private school, it\'s true. But why is that the price? Because only really rich people really want to pay anything to send their kids to school; for most people, public education is good enough, at least through high school, considering that they HAVE to pay for it anyway.

But if (this is only hypothetical, none of this can apply to the present real world, and I\'ll explain why later) education were a totally private industry, like any good or service there would be a supply to meet the demand. Just as there are community colleges for people who can\'t afford to go to Harvard, there would be less expensive schools for the same demographic. Not only that, but there\'d be schools to seupply other educational demands; trade schools, for example. Or businesses that train in exchange for labor (OOH! Child Labor! Guess what, that\'s another rant. Parental permission should be all it takes, people. What\'s wrong with being an apprentice?). It might not be what _I_ want to do, but some people would much rather learn how to be an auto mechanic than spend 12 years in public school.

Incidentally, there would be a whole lot of student loans going on, since people will want to get the best education they can, so people would continue to pay for education after they\'re educated. Their own education. Sounds like the present method of payment, only 1)people have a choice and 2)it runs with the efficiency of business, rather than the efficiency of government.

Now before you rip me to shreds (if you\'re even still around), lemme make clear that this isn\'t something that\'s immediately implementable. The hypothetical private education industry is just that; it doesn\'t exist. How could it, with \"free\" education to compete with? (or rather, education that people have to pay for and attend whether they like it or not, which has the same effect). And plus, it\'s not exactly popular for our \"do it for the children\" politicians to say, \"Nah, let\'s not put more money into education. Let\'s eliminate public schools!\"

The fact is, I don\'t know for a fact if a totally privatized educational system would work, because I\'ve never truly seen it in action. But if there\'s anything on the platform of a major party that I support more than anything else they have, it\'s school vouchers. They can get private education\'s foot in the door by allowing the non-rich to choose from competing private schools, paying for them with the money taxes would give them for education anyway. Maybe we\'ll see them work better than government schools, and people will flock to turn in their vouchers and pull their kids out of public schools. In that case, market forces will ensure that public schools aren\'t needed in the first place.

Or maybe we\'ll see it work in reverse. I\'m no economist; I can\'t shake the suspicion that maybe education doesn\'t function too well in a market environment, since it in many ways is different from normal market goods. Maybe privatized schools won\'t work so well -- but if they don\'t, no one will go to them, and public schools will go on existing just as they would have had vouchers never existed.

Sounds like a win-win situation to me. And then the Republicans could put all the Commandments up they want, and I wouldn\'t care (as much), because the government would no longer have a virtual monopoly over my children\'s education.

Speaking of infrastructure being changed around, I\'m curious. What was it like in Canada when the free health care system was implemented?

As far as social legislation making working conditions better over the 20th century, you see causality where I only see correlation. Businesses pay what they pay today because they can afford to, because one person\'s labor is worth more, because capital (which businesses used their profits to buy) allows people to produce more and faster. If a business was making enough money to pay me $8 where I only currently get $7, it has to give me a raise, because someone else who is doing the same thing can pay me $8.

Suppose I\'m a factory owner. I pay people $8 and hour to help me make widgets. Suddenly the government comes a-knockin on the door, gun in hand, and tells me I have to pay each person $9 an hour. What do I do? I can\'t afford to give everyone a raise, I don\'t have the money. So what do I do now? I either lay people off, or I raise prices. Stretch this across an entire country, and you have unemployment (bad) and inflation (bad, and ironically so in that it cancels out the pay raise for the minimum wage workers).

It is my opinion that the economy improves, and quality of life improves IN SPITE OF government intervention, not because of it. But I\'m just a libertarian nutball; what do I know?

Yay! The govt is raping more businesses!
Free-market, shmree market. Gimme my sitcoms and a sixpak, and ill be O.K.


Bread and Circuses

#210: If the dog or the horse decided to have an abortion I doubt these \"liberals\" would be upset. Pro-life people aren\'t forcing anyone to have abortions, they just want people to have that option. Some people feel it\'s murder, but today most people don\'t. Someone accused Gore or McCain of not being \"firm\" on that issue, on one side or the other. I don\'t know how anyone can see it in black and white, I mean, both sides have good points. Personally I think it should be legal but I can see how some people can consider it murder.

Abortion?

Democrat, Republican, Libertarian?

bah.

GUINNESS

The majority of Americans would disagree with you, saying that it\'s the woman\'s right to do with her body as she pleases. I\'m not saying I disagree with you, just that most people probably do, and that they probably would feel that pro-life people try to impose their morals on them by banning abortion.

I\'m not pro-choice...i\'m pro abortion

\"Canada was voted the #1 country to live in by the UN for a few years in a row now, that says something.\"

Is this a joke? The UN is a big pile of shit. NOONE gives a shit about em...

Vote libraterian ppl. They are the best of the democrats and republicans. Low low taxes, and no intrusion into our moral lives.

Get a clue ppl

socialist, get out.

Somebody down here said that he hates Democrats because they try to impose their values on us. Well, what about all Republicans who want to ban abortion and make prayer mandatory? Fuck that.

#188: If we take your reasoning to the extreme, I could refuse to pay for education because I don\'t have kids that go to school, and I just finished college so why should I care about those poor suckers who are still there.

The reason you need *everyone* to pay for certain things is because certain things will only work if everyone pitches in. Insurance. Schools. And in Canada, health-care.

There\'s a name for a government that mandates that the people who produce more give their production to those who produce less, in the name of high moral ideals. Do I even need to say it?

Sure, mandating EVERYTHING isn\'t the right thing, but I\'m just saying that SOME things should be done this way. I think everyone should be able to get basic things like education and healthcare. In the US, you only get one of them. If you\'re against government taking care of everything for you, do you also refuse to pay taxes for education and instead plan on sending your kids to private school for $20,000/year? AHA! You can\'t afford to send your kids to private school do you? Well, some people can and they probably argue against higher education taxes, but other people need what these taxes give them.

In the early 1900s there was little government did to meddle with rich people\'s taxes, and common people had 60 day work weeks, made no money and lived in poor housing. It\'s partly because of goverment intervention that today you enjoy a higher standard of living.

I used to live in an easter-europen country before the wall came down so I know that socialism is not the way to go. But you need to have a balance, and I believe Canada has the right balance. As long as we can save our health care while trimming the fat off our lazy government, but as far as social security we\'re better off than the US already.

Canada was voted the #1 country to live in by the UN for a few years in a row now, that says something.

Vote please.

#190, he only divides the party because the republicans would rather elect someone who bows fervently to the religious right and the big money lobbyists than who actually has a broad appeal to voters.

How can you trust a man who is beholding to the special interests for over $70 million?

If it is a choice between Bush and Gore, I\'ll take Gore. At least I know what kind of a person he is. I have NO trust for Dubya, his empty promises, empty appologies, empty head, heart full of lust for power.

Geoff,
i\'m Qu4kinG in PH34R!

Sen. McCain is a mean spirited campainer who would rather
divide the party than be a good candidate. I liked him before the
campain, but now I think he\'s an asshole.

#183:

\"Hmm... because it\'s the right thing to do?\"

The right thing to do? Says who? If someone thinks it\'s the right thing to do, why doesn\'t he just donate to private charity? Why does he instead vote to make other people do what he thinks is the right thing, whether they like it or not? Since when is it the government\'s right, the majority\'s right, to dictate what is morally right?

There\'s a name for a government that mandates that the people who produce more give their production to those who produce less, in the name of high moral ideals. Do I even need to say it?

Oh and #184: You don\'t have control over your intake of substances. You can\'t smoke dope.

#185, he also wants to wage war on pr0n. Hmm... The lessor of two EVILS? ... decisions decisions. :)

\"Sorry, the best I can say is that you should think of your country as a big familiy\"


That\'s the exact socialist kind of thinking that makes true americans want to puke. Take that crap to europe or china where it will be appreciated. yuck

ATTENTION VOTERS-

Senator John McCain is strongly against any and all internet sales taxes. Please vote McCain for President...

But yeah, he\'s against them.

True, true...

All I can say about legalizing weed is that I don\'t give a fuck as long as I\'m not exposed to it against my will, because I like to have control over my intake of substances.

#173: So I ask again, why should I?

Hmm... because it\'s the right thing to do? Sorry, the best I can say is that you should think of your country as a big familiy. If your uncle Charlie is a big lazy drunken slob who lives in a dump, it reflects badly on your WHOLE family, not just him. Sure you could just forget about him, let him live in his filth and just take care of yourself, but you could also help him out and try to get him straight. It would take effort and it might or might not work but at least you\'d try.

So you could just not do anything about Uncle Charlie, but you wouldn\'t be a very nice family. I hope you get the metaphor here.

Once again, Bill Clinton is ignoring the US constitution. Under the
US constitution, States have no right to regulate or tax interstate
commerce. I got your sales tax right here......
8=========D

Bill Clinton is an asshole.

it makes some people lazy imo.