We shouldn’t spend on those things either, but healthcare is not a government need.
Ideally, but when a nation isn’t paid liveable wages and healthcare costs are only affordable to millionaires…
I don’t understand this.
What governmental need could be more important than the wellbeing of its citizens?
Personally, I think housing, healthcare, education, and food should all be basic rights. If our government takes trillions from us a year, why is it crazy for us to expect something out of it?
Government should be limited to protecting legal rights to private priperty and ensurinng that contracts are obeyed. It exercises certain functions, such as the military, to do that.
However, things such as healthcare are matters for the individual, not the government, which should ideally focus on ensuring that the economy remains strong and order is preserved.
The government is taking so much of our money and just spending it on themselves. So either we need like a huge decrease in taxes and an increase in wages, or we need them to actually use our money on us, and socialize basic necessities.
Decrease the taxes, yes. But the government should not fix wages. Let the market sort that out, with a small amount of government regulation to ensure that businesses don’t completely abuse their power.
Cronyism has resulted in millions living in poverty while there are simultaneously billionaires and millionaires abound. The market isn’t sorting itself out, it’s controlled by the ultra rich.
The biggest cost control for health care recently occurred because several non-profit hospitals got tired of being held at the whims of the big pharma companies with regards to generic drugs being bought and repriced and decided to produce their own versions of these generics…
Now big pharma is desperately selling their generic divisions at or below their worth …
Giving power to Medicare and the VA to actually negotiate their own drug deals would also go a long way to reign in costs.
We already tried near unfettered libertarianism and the “night watchman state” in the Netherlands once, it led to a series of pervasive dynastic “monopolies” controlled by oligarchic “regent” families. An unregulated market dominated by monopolies is a recipe for disaster.
It should work better for the US than it does for us anyway. Periodically big pharma tries to hold our government hostage too. Unfortunately, we are in such a period as we speak right now.
Sadly PreP may yet turn out to be one of the victims of this latest round of negotiations.
In practice, if that happens businesses will (try to) usurp much of the power that is better held by government and become even more exploitative.
Nope. On the contrary, excessive government intervention leads to cronyism as private companies and their lobbyists seek government favors. You’d be far better off if the government minimised its role because then businesses couldn’t hold as much sway.
Funny, lack of government intervention actually leads to much worse circumstances.
Businesses have already shown that they would hold more sway without said intervention. Environmental destruction? Love Canal would be just a drop in the bucket. Deepwater Horizon spill comes to mind as well.
Cronyism? Please…businesses would engage in monopolies or form into cartels to bring pressure on the government and people.
Those against minimum wage, and other things? Funny, corporations would employ the Pinkertons to attack strikers. Sometimes they actually had the government on its side when they sent the military against people protesting against them in the early union days.
Gilded Age Capitalism leads to never ending boom-bust cycles intersped with market corruption and tight oligarchic control of key industries … Teddy Roosevelt’s reforms were proved to be needed structurally for the economic structure to survive.
Not only this but the social safety network of the era promoted exploitation of the poor, the ill and the unfortunate. Basic services were not being provided locally or without governmental support - before the 1930’s reforms the “American system” was leading towards a breakdown.
The government’s regulations and oversight didn’t create cronyism - Robber Barons such as Carnegie and Vanderbilt controlled life for most Americans even more then companies do today … to say otherwise and believe what you say is to believe in alternative facts and a false reality.
Edit: @Lys and I were in each others minds again I see.
I agree that a level of government intervention is necessary. It’s just that the level of intervention should be much smaller than what socialists would want.
“I don’t agree with critics who say that capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with democracy—but unregulated, predatory capitalism certainly is. Massive economic inequality and corporate monopoly power are antidemocratic and corrode the American way of life.”
Well, better late than never I suppose. Pity misses Clinton didn’t articulate it this clearly or at all as a theme of her campaign because back then her subtext, particularly in the form of Tim “let’s de-regulate some more” Kaine said practically the opposite. Though of course the Dems always seem to be firm in the belief that they need to persuade “moderate” Republicans with crap economic policy, rather than focusing on maximum base turnout and persuading the masses of non-voters.
I wish i could post my polítical afiliation but i’m afraid i could get banned :^)
You absolutely can, in this thread everyone is free to post their opinion, and how they feel on different political matters, that includes what party you are. You won’t get in trouble for that. Trust me, but when debates do break out, just please be respectful of everyone and their beliefs. That is all .
What do you guys think of the latest developments in the Kavanaugh Saga? Drunken teenage “misunderstanding” with dramatic consequences, “fake” news media smear attempt of a highly qualified jurist or 100% genuine?
It does look like that at the moment and if that is true the more worrying aspect would still be the unreleased documents detailing his work at the W Bush White House, which does seem a little shady at the very least.
Atm, it’s a “he said she said” on something that happened 36 years ago when they were both minors. i’d say the odds are still in his favor, especially with the 65 women from ex-girlfriends to co-workers and ex-employees acting as character witnesses in his favor. Nevertheless, if a 2nd credible accuser turns up, or if a witness turns up who is able to confirm he was at that party despite his testimony to the contrary, then he’s done.
There are a lot of things i don’t like about the way these allegations have been handled, but i’m going to wait until after the accuser testifies to form a definite opinion on the accusation itself.
I am very skeptical, especially since similar allegations were put against Roy Moore. It just seems way too convenient to suddenly have the nominee for the Supreme Court accused of sexual impropriety. In addition to that, her story seems weak at best.