Why do Democrats want more government?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

You might have a point if increased military spending was the only spending that has been increased under Bush, but that's just not the case.

I'm not speaking about specifics, I'm speaking in general...increased spending does not always equate to bigger government.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That doesn't make sense. They do it now and get away with it, because you let them, and you can't change it.

Are they not accountable to a watchful public? Again, government is more accountable than corporations. Just because you think they're getting away with something doesn't mean that the public won't have their jobs if they decide.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

The DMV?

Why single them out?

Because those are the people you must interact with? If you had the slightest clue about the waste and stupidity of those you don't see I think you would think better of the DMV. It is no fabrication. I know very well what I talk about. Even the FBI can't pay a phone bill. Do you know what it takes just to get into the FBI? It turns good people to shit. That is what government does.
Lesser people would be fired on the spot in any private enterprise. In government you get promoted based on your ability to come up with excuses for waste and fraud. If the media would bother to expose the truth you would have a taxpayer rebellion that would make the Boston Tea Party look like a Sunday picnic!

That is what I don't get about liberals. Explain to me why people in the private sector are such crooks, cheats, and liars out to poison and kill people for a buck, but somehow the government is full of our better angels? If that is the miracle to make human beings better people then scrap the whole private sector and let big government roll! But I get the impression that it does not work that way? In fact I am inclined to think miserable selfish people are more inclined to seek the shelter of government protected jobs. Is that such a far out observation on human nature?

I was simply making a point about who we interact with on a daily basis. Your theory is implausible at best.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by bheld

Are they not accountable to a watchful public?

Theoretically, yes. In reality, money speaks louder than public perception.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Theoretically, yes. In reality, money speaks louder than public perception.

Correct, which is why we need serious electoral reform.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by bheld

Correct, which is why we need serious electoral reform.

So your arguments are based on something that's not even currently in practice.

[Boerg]

Originally Posted by bheld

Exactly, and that is why I say that government is more accountable to the people than private corporations.

I'd say it's less accountable. Enron has closed shop. That's in comparison to one example I can think of: FEMA. They've mismanaged Billions and are still (dys)functioning today.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Boerg

I'd say it's less accountable. Enron has closed shop. That's in comparison to one example I can think of: FEMA. They've mismanaged Billions and are still (dys)functioning today.

FEMA is a great example actually, because it's really only been under Bush's poor leadership that it's done so horribly.. and it's a prime example of incompetence in his Administration (one of many) that has hurt the Republican party in terms of the confidence voters have in their ability to govern successfully.. and will hopefully lead to their defeat in the election later this year.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

So your arguments are based on something that's not even currently in practice.

Whaaat? Am I really hearing this coming from a dyed-in-the-wool absolute free market extremist?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by bheld

Whaaat? Am I really hearing this coming from a dyed-in-the-wool absolute free market extremist?

No.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

FEMA is a great example actually, because it's really only been under Bush's poor leadership that it's done so horribly.. and it's a prime example of incompetence in his Administration (one of many) that has hurt the Republican party in terms of the confidence voters have in their ability to govern successfully.. and will hopefully lead to their defeat in the election later this year.

Then I am sure you can tell us what they did not do, or did do wrong in a flooded city? What miracles were not performed? I never seem to get a answer everytime I ask the question and obviously you have it since you can claim they are so horrible and Bush is all at fault?

[RMNIXON]

The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) News Release

WASHINGTON , DC

Congress is considering sweeping legislation which will provide
new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities
Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by
advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills
or ambition.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence
and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves
in society," said California Senator Barbara Boxer. "We can no
longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and
passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be
able to grant special favors to a small group of workers simply
because they have some idea of what they are doing."

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the
success of the U. S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing
policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance.
Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills,
making this agency the single largest U. S. employer of Persons
of Inability.

Private-sector industries with good records of nondiscrimination
against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the fast food
industry (68%), and home improvement "warehouse" stores (65%). At
the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also
has a great record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%).

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million
"middle man" positions will be created, with important-sounding
titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory
sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance based raises and promotions will be
given, to guarantee upward mobility for even the most
unremarkable employees.

The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations
that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into
middle management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and
medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker
for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNA Act contains tough new measures to make it more
difficult to discriminate against the Non-Abled -- banning, for
example, discriminatory interview questions such as "Do you have
any skills or experience which relate to this job?"

"As a Non-Abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with
people who actually have something going for them," said Mary Lou
Gertz, who lost her position as a lugnut twister at a GM plant in
Flint, Michigan , due to her lack of any other discernible job
skills. "This new law should really help people like me."

With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other
untalented citizens will finally see some light at the end of
the tunnel. Said Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy: "As a Senator
With No Abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected
officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with No
Abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every
American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some
sort of space to take up in this great nation."

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

National security IS...Controlling how we live....

Just wanted to fix this part of your post...

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

What benefit does the consumer see through competition between insurance companies?

Lower insurance costs.

Originally Posted by bheld

What reasons does the government have to assume control of funding health care?

No good ones.

Originally Posted by bheld

The government removes the problem of death by spreadsheet and allows more of our health care dollars to go to health care instead of profit, administrative costs, etc.

No, more of our money goes to bureaucrats, who are completely unaccountable to the public.

Originally Posted by bheld

What benefit does the consumer see through competition between service providers?

Lower costs and/or improved efficiency.

Originally Posted by bheld

What reasons does the government have to assume control of providing health care?

Not one good one. But it has already assumed the task of regulating it.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

No, more of our money goes to bureaucrats, who are completely unaccountable to the public.

It's health insurance companies that are completely unaccountable to the public. "Competition" is not a silver bullet argument for lower costs. A properly run government program will outperform a properly run private sector organization every day of the week in the insurance sector. There simply isn't a need for a company that profits from denying us healthcare.

I appreciate your opinion but you're simply arguing from a theoretical standpoint while I'm looking at what works in the real world.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by bheld

It's health insurance companies that are completely unaccountable to the public. "Competition" is not a silver bullet argument for lower costs. A properly run government program will outperform a properly run private sector organization every day of the week in the insurance sector. There simply isn't a need for a company that profits from denying us healthcare.

I appreciate your opinion but you're simply arguing from a theoretical standpoint while I'm looking at what works in the real world.

I guess this post is quite relevant

Originally Posted by hsmith

I love how "the free market makes everything expensive"

What kind of backwards economic books are you reading?

[David Octavius]

You can never win with Free market advocates or conservatives -

Conservatives want big government too and have no issue with it intruding in on our personal lives especially on moral grounds. They just want to take the high road in calling out liberals for it and championing themselves as the protectors of liberty

Free market advocates argue on theory not actual facts though they pass their theory off as such. So too argue with them is futile even though the burden is on them to prove their ideals - their is no reason we should radically change our economic arrangements because they THINK or BELIEVE it will work. There is a reason why there ought to be and always have been some regulation on the market (at least since industrialization) - a purely free market does not work in the real world.

Let them continue bashing liberals - it is the in thing to do these days

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

It's health insurance companies that are completely unaccountable to the public. "Competition" is not a silver bullet argument for lower costs. A properly run government program will outperform a properly run private sector organization every day of the week in the insurance sector. There simply isn't a need for a company that profits from denying us healthcare.

I appreciate your opinion but you're simply arguing from a theoretical standpoint while I'm looking at what works in the real world.

Hmm, obviously someone has not checked into the astronomical costs of government run medicare/medicaid.

I love the liberal utopian answer for everything, the idea that government could ever run anything more efficiently than the market.

There is a need for a company that makes money off of denying us healthcare. Someone has to ration healthcare. I guarantee you the market will do it ten times better than the government can.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

You can never win with Free market advocates or conservatives -

Free market advocates argue on theory not actual facts though they pass their theory off as such. So too argue with them is futile even though the burden is on them to prove their ideals - their is no reason we should radically change our economic arrangements because they THINK or BELIEVE it will work. There is a reason why there ought to be and always have been some regulation on the market (at least since industrialization) - a purely free market does not work in the real world.

You think that "some regulation" proves your point that we nee