TOO much Government?

[hotzester]

Doesn't the government have anything better to do than further destroy the economy?

Nope, baseball season hasn't resumed yet.

I hope Obama is a miracle worker, hes getting into a huge mess.

And the man hasn't even been sworn in yet! He also wants to extend unemployment benefits again. So all of you business owners will be paying for an employee that isn't there anymore for just a little bit longer, which means that money can't be put toward a newhire, which does nothing to reduce unemployment, ignoring the fact that the unemployed still continue to have that safety net.

It's only going to get worse. Buckle up.

[potthole]

I understand what you're saying, but right now we need government-supported jobs just to keep the economy going. If no one is working, they can't buy stuff and blah blah blah. Economics is cyclical and all that junk. So I am for larger government. We may not want to be France, but they've got a lotta shit I would like to have (like five vacation weeks a year and free college).

And where would all this money come from to help pay for a bigger government? A government needs funds to operate and a healthy economy is the best way to get those funds.

If we just go about and start building a huge government, we'll be a lot closer to your special France, because we'll be borrowing their money.

Oh, also, usually breaking out a random "blah, blah, blah" isn't the best way to be taken seriously in a discussion/debate.

[hotzester]

Sometimes I find myself looking at the results of any given election, and I feel discouraged that there are so few conservatives in this country...but then I find a thread on a random message board where the vibe seems to be in line with my beliefs...it's very reassuring. Puzzling as hell, but reassuring.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. " -- Thomas Jefferson

[sunshyne]

Yep, keep your chin up zesty

[krystal]

I don't think anything is free. It's all paid for in taxes. I'm not completely stupid (but I will admit to being atleast partially stupid). The main thing I think is that the government should make jobs until the economy is kick-started again. This is what happens with out-sourcing, a wonderful idea to make cheaper products, causing people to lose jobs. I know what it feels like to have a guy leaning over your shoulder to take a picture of the part you are working on so they would know what it looked like assembled when it goes to Mexico to be produced instead. That was a fun day. But right now my job is relatively stable, unless workers' comp insurance companies start going under. Then I'm screwed. So, as of now, I put my bit in savings and then proceed to blow the rest.

[hotzester]

The main thing I think is that the government should make jobs until the economy is kick-started again.

And then when the economy is better, we lay off all of those government workers. That really is the definition of stability, what with all the hiring and firing we'd be doing.

[potthole]

I don't think anything is free. It's all paid for in taxes. I'm not completely stupid (but I will admit to being atleast partially stupid). The main thing I think is that the government should make jobs until the economy is kick-started again. This is what happens with out-sourcing, a wonderful idea to make cheaper products, causing people to lose jobs. I know what it feels like to have a guy leaning over your shoulder to take a picture of the part you are working on so they would know what it looked like assembled when it goes to Mexico to be produced instead. That was a fun day. But right now my job is relatively stable, unless workers' comp insurance companies start going under. Then I'm screwed. So, as of now, I put my bit in savings and then proceed to blow the rest.

Still don't know where you think all the money would come from. You mention taxes, but to support a massive wave of government spending/job creation, you'd have to raise 'em. I don't think you'll get much public support from that, given the current economic situation.

[providencecrow]

I don't think anything is free. It's all paid for in taxes. I'm not completely stupid (but I will admit to being atleast partially stupid). The main thing I think is that the government should make jobs until the economy is kick-started again. This is what happens with out-sourcing, a wonderful idea to make cheaper products, causing people to lose jobs. I know what it feels like to have a guy leaning over your shoulder to take a picture of the part you are working on so they would know what it looked like assembled when it goes to Mexico to be produced instead. That was a fun day. But right now my job is relatively stable, unless workers' comp insurance companies start going under. Then I'm screwed. So, as of now, I put my bit in savings and then proceed to blow the rest.

Still don't know where you think all the money would come from. You mention taxes, but to support a massive wave of government spending/job creation, you'd have to raise 'em. I don't think you'll get much public support from that, given the current economic situation.

Well no, first youd have to raise the taxes just to get out of the red and into the black so that you can have some slush fund money to hire people. Basically if they raised taxes today, logistically they could start hiring people in about 30 years if they are lucky. Either way, you're right, we're screwed haha.

[hotzester]

Except that raising taxes puts the burden on the taxpayers, which leaves less money in the pockets of the consumer, thus eliminating their ability to spend, and any need for more employees in any sector.

The only solution is to put MORE money in the pockets of the citizens of this country. Tax cuts will do that. Consumers have more money to spend, which means businesses have more customers, need more product, and will ultimately have to hire more employees.

[potthole]

The only solution is to put MORE money in the pockets of the citizens of this country. Tax cuts will do that. Consumers have more money to spend, which means businesses have more customers, need more product, and will ultimately have to hire more employees.

Sort of as proof of this... we just bought our first home a couple months ago, which makes us eligible to get a $7500 tax credit when we file our income taxes in a few weeks. We already have a few things lined up that we will be spending the money on.

[Mad Dog]

I don't think anything is free. It's all paid for in taxes. I'm not completely stupid (but I will admit to being atleast partially stupid). The main thing I think is that the government should make jobs until the economy is kick-started again. This is what happens with out-sourcing, a wonderful idea to make cheaper products, causing people to lose jobs. I know what it feels like to have a guy leaning over your shoulder to take a picture of the part you are working on so they would know what it looked like assembled when it goes to Mexico to be produced instead. That was a fun day. But right now my job is relatively stable, unless workers' comp insurance companies start going under. Then I'm screwed. So, as of now, I put my bit in savings and then proceed to blow the rest.

Still don't know where you think all the money would come from. You mention taxes, but to support a massive wave of government spending/job creation, you'd have to raise 'em. I don't think you'll get much public support from that, given the current economic situation.

Actually, we could get the money in loans from China then let our grandchildren pay for it. Then we wouldn't have to raise taxes!!

[hotzester]

Count your blessings, Potthole!! That credit didn't exist when we bought our first home! BAAH.

Actually, we could get the money in loans from China then let our grandchildren pay for it. Then we wouldn't have to raise taxes!!

Ignoring the possibility that this is sarcasm:

A) We can't put that kind of faith in the Chinese. It would be a huge risk, and quite frankly very dangerous.

B) China is cutting us off. They've got their own issues right now, and they're being a little less generous, opting to use the money previously used to purchase foreign debt instead for domestic loans. The Chinese aren't going to rescue us on this one.

[krystal]

I don't mean to raise taxes today. I believed when they started the bailouts they should have used atleast some of that money to create jobs. Because if you create jobs, you not only create consumers, you create taxpayers. It's also simpler than unemployment, where people get paid for not working.

[hotzester]

I don't mean to raise taxes today. I believed when they started the bailouts they should have used atleast some of that money to create jobs.

Where does the bailout money come from if you're not raising taxes?

Because if you create jobs, you not only create consumers, you create taxpayers.

How do you plan on creating consumers without first putting money into their pockets? A company can hire 700 new employees, but if the public doesn't have money to consume the goods and services sold by those employees, those employees will soon be out of work once again.

[sunshyne]

Honestly, the bailouts were a terrible idea alltogether. The government doesn't even know what was done with the money for the financial bailout, they were just way too eager to give the financial companies money to stay afloat because a lot of Gov. officials have their pockets attached to said financial institutions. They are putting more restraints on the auto bailout, but it is just as equally a bad idea, because bad business got the auto industry where it is today, and a little more money is just like putting a band-aid on a severed leg and hoping that it will stop bleeding. Businesses that close because of bad business open doors for other like businesses to take their place, it is a natural cycle.

Sure, you will whine to me about all the jobs lost and such, but there would be jobs at other factories that would open up to take the place of the failed ones. Jobs would be available there, the only difference is the union wouldn't have jacked the pay and benefits up so high that workers are making more than what is reasonable compared to quality and quantity of work.

Someone might say, what about all the people that would lose their homes if not for the financial bailout. I would say, it should be up to the financial institutions that encouraged the people to buy houses bigger than they could afford, to remedy. Be it re-write mortgages to have less of an interest, so that people can pay the principle and the only people that get screwed is the financial institution that knew what they were getting people into.

/rant

[hotzester]

Well the issue with the financial bailouts, particularly Fannie and Freddie, is that the problem was CAUSED by the government. The sole reason Congress wanted to bail them out is because they knew how terrible it would reflect on Congress, so they needed to keep things low key.

The auto bailouts are equally as horrible. I understand that there would be jobs lost, but I don't think too many of the employees were complaining when the unions which drove the companies into this mess were paying them ridiculous salaries with incredible benefits. If the unions hadn't been involved, the factories would have been able to pay less, and it wouldn't cost as much to purchase a car, which would mean higher sales and more job security.

People can spin it any way they want, but the reality is that fiscal conservatism works.

[krystal]

Oh, also, usually breaking out a random "blah, blah, blah" isn't the best way to be taken seriously in a discussion/debate.

I didn't want to say "So on, so forth."

Another thing to consider is whether we are more worried about national debt vs. consumer debt. If you cut taxes, it helps the people, but puts less back into the deficit. If you raise taxes, money we aren't able to spend goes... supposedly towards the deficit. Some people get most of what they pay into (federal) taxes back the next year. Some people have to pay more, another thing to consider.

I'm not a total socialist, but I do believe I am socialistic enough to be disliked in here (I hope this isn't like high school)... but there is one thing I have to say to make everyone hate me... just a little bit more. Because a lot of people talk about smaller wanting a smaller government, we could always just back, say a hundred and fifty years or so to a time when there wasn't government funded public school for you to send your children, or government funded police and fire departments. That should be fun.

I'm done being a jerk now (but I make no promises).

Oh, it also bothers me that our money isn't back by anything. I know it helps (for good and for bad) to be able to print money, but the idea that our economic worth is based on computer numbers and potentially worthless paper doesn't fill me with the warm and fuzzies. Maybe it's just me, though.

[hotzester]

Some people get most of what they pay into (federal) taxes back the next year.

Those are people who overpaid their taxes to begin with, and they're merely getting a refund on the interest free loan they'd floated to the government for the previous year.

to a time when there wasn't government funded public school for you to send your children, or government funded police and fire departments.

Yet another example of someone taking "smaller government" to mean "no government". Two different things that make up one discussion that has been explained to death in this thread.

And yes, I agree - money is SUPPOSED to be backed in gold. We've gotten WAY too far from that.

[krystal]

Not no government. No public service. As people like to point out, they are separate. We'd still have the military and Congress and other governmental agencies. Just not ones that would save us money. Life doesn't necessitate public schools, it's just cheaper than hiring tutors.

[hotzester]

Not no government. No public service. As people like to point out, they are separate. We'd still have the military and Congress and other governmental agencies. Just not ones that would save us money.

To be taken with any semblance of seriousness, you're going to have to elaborate. I can't quite understand how you'd have government jobs without public servants.

[sunshyne]

Hmmm.... so you think that by having a smaller government, they would take away public schools?

I was thinking more along the lines of people just not living off the government and not depending on the government to tell them when to or in which direction to wipe their asses.

The american people should be voting on more issues, laws are getting passed that most Americans didn't even know about until they were passed. Apparently Americans are too stupid to know what is good for them so the government is going to tell us? If the people are not having a say in laws, taxes and other goings on in the government, then we might as well had never separated from England, and stayed with a tyrannical, dictatorship that taxed us without representation.

[hotzester]

Agreed, Sunshyne...here's what I'd do:

-Eliminate welfare. If you LEGITIMATELY can not work, due to a diagnosed, clinical mental or physical disability, you will receive an appropriate stipend from the taxpayers so you can support yourself. Otherwise, get to work. Children would still be eligible for WIC, because they should not have to pay for the laziness of the parent.

-Make English the official language of this country. This would reduce printing costs on damn near everything the government prints, because they'd only have to print it in one language, slashing the expense dramatically.

-Require random drug screens on anyone receiving any form of public assistance, which (as mentioned in mandate #1) isn't many people anymore.

-Establish government funded daycare for low income households. "I don't have a sitter" would no longer be a viable excuse for not working.

-Eliminate Medicaid. If you have a medical bill, and don't have insurance, you will just have to pay for your services like everyone else. This will eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Medicaid fraud that takes place every year.

-Lower taxes around the board. This starts the ball rolling toward economic recovery. More money>More to spend>More to consume>Greater Demand>More jobs in manufacturing and retail>Increased retail sales>More tax revenue for the government.

-Dissolve the unionization of government agencies. There's no reason public service should be represented by a union. Since government shouldn't interfere with PRIVATE sector industry, I'd offer tax incentives to companies who don't bow to the union extortionists, but I couldn't dissolve them.

-Offer tax incentives to companies who allow their employees to telecommute, reducing traffic, demand on gas, and maintenance costs on highways.

This is fun.

[Rock Monster]

How about everyone in the US just takes an IQ test. If you fail, you have one year to not be dumb. Take another test after a year, if you fail, you get deported. Less people = more resourses/jobs/etc to go around.

[hotzester]

Way to bring it.

[krystal]

No, I actually want more publice service. We know the line between too much and too little government services has to be drawn, but no one can agree on where. I was making an example of the fact that some say that we can't have some of those things because it would raise taxes more. You don't want more public service, but people seem to neglect the public services they already take for granted. People complain about lack of teachers and over-crowded schools, but who wants to pay for it? I'm in an a-hole amount of debt because I had to take out loans to pay for college. I don't like knowing that although my company pays for my health insurance, I have to pay $1,500.00 up front for any procedure outside of a doctor's visit. Don't get me wrong, I make decent money, but before the fluke of nature that got me the job I have I worked in fast-food, where the idea of benefits were a wet dream that none of us had.

Most of these things, people are paying for anyways. They just seem to get offended when they're paying it to the government instead of a company that doesn't guarantee its services. Some call that capitalism. Capitalism is all well and good in theory, but sometimes reality screws it up a bit, but think of all the people who lost jobs because they were shipped overseas for cheaper production costs? Those who had problems finding new jobs? Are they buying stuff? Or are they going to start saving more, because, well, shit happens?

So the government gets bigger. I'm more worried about the government agencies we already have than the ones that would be created for public service. I'd rather see money that has already been slated to "help the economy" go to building roads and schools and staffing. If the money's not there for new programs, then it wasn't there to begin with, raised taxes or no. Personally, I'd rather have a job than a stimulus check.

I believe that I don't get paid to be alive, why should anyone else? Welfare is crap. If I was able to live on $6.50 an hour, why can't anyone else?

I understand eliminating Medicaid, especially because of how many patients and doctors try to screw the system. I also know, though, that I would opt not to have procedures not fully covered by my insurance than to pay and go bankrupt for it, which is sad, but happens a lot. I live with the belief that if I can't afford it, I don't get it. Period.

But, no matter how much my ego wishes otherwise, I'm not always right. Everything I mentioned above could ruin the country for all I really know. What would you suggest?

[hotzester]

One at a time:

We know the line between too much and too little government services has to be drawn, but no one can agree on where. I was making an example of the fact that some say that we can't have some of those things because it would raise taxes more. You don't want more public service, but people seem to neglect the public services they already take for granted.

For me it's simple. People need to be protected from things like fire, crime, and attack. Obviously things like snow plowing and other basic necessities are going to be on the list too, but I draw the line right before it gets to socialized healthcare and a tax on non-diet sodas.

I'm in an a-hole amount of debt because I had to take out loans to pay for college.

No. You're in an a-hole amount of debt because you CHOSE to take out loans to pay for college. You didn't HAVE to go to college.

I don't like knowing that although my company pays for my health insurance, I have to pay $1,500.00 up front for any procedure outside of a doctor's visit.

Get your own insurance. There's no law mandating you accept your employer's benefit package. Shop around until you find one that fits your desires.

Capitalism is all well and good in theory, but sometimes reality screws it up a bit, but think of all the people who lost jobs because they were shipped overseas for cheaper production costs?

Those companies chose to ship their jobs overseas because it is cheaper to produce there, you're right. But do you know WHY it is cheaper to produce there? Because they don't have the insurance liabilities, the legal fees, the demand for high cost health insurance, unions driving up salaries, minimum wage laws, or any of the other interferences that outside influences have caused on the private sector.

Those who had problems finding new jobs? Are they buying stuff? Or are they going to start saving more, because, well, shit happens?

Some will save, but most will still buy. That's the glory of the freedoms we enjoy. You can do what you want with your money. If you're a turd and spend it all, then it's YOUR problem. Stop pestering the rest of us with your burdens.

So the government gets bigger. I'm more worried about the government agencies we already have than the ones that would be created for public service. I'd rather see money that has already been slated to "help the economy" go to building roads and schools and staffing.

Why not allow parents the right to choose which school their child goes to? The strong, worthwhile schools will survive, and the shitty schools will fold. The result? Smarter kids.

If I was able to live on $6.50 an hour, why can't anyone else?

They can. They're choosing not to.

Everything I mentioned above could ruin the country for all I really know. What would you suggest?

I believe that some of it would be catastrophic. But some of your points make sense. I'm never afraid to commend someone for making a valid point if it disagrees with mine. To answer the question of what I would do, just see some of my posts in this thread.

[hotzester]

No fair, you edited your post. lol Now I have to.

[hotzester]

I understand eliminating Medicaid, especially because of how many patients and doctors try to screw the system. I also know, though, that I would opt not to have procedures not fully covered by my insurance than to pay and go bankrupt for it, which is sad, but happens a lot.

You're intertwining Medicaid with private insurance. It's apples and oranges.

That said, if you're on Medicaid and can't afford a procedure, or if you're uninsured and can't afford a procedure, the market is widely open to private donors to cover such instances. Encourage people to make donations to these charities, and the funds will be there. One needn't look much beyond the front doors to the Shriner's Hospital to see that it works.

[potthole]

Speaking of Medicaid fraud, a few months I happened to discover a couple of patients trying to pull that crap on us. Pretty good feeling being able to pass that info along to the proper people here in the office.

[sunshyne]

Health care is the only odd button with me. While I think that people should have to pay for health insurance, I don't think that people should have to pay $100 for a tylenol in a hospital. Insurance companies, false malpractice suites, and actual malpractice are part of the blame for the high cost for medical care, but the main issue behind high cost is that when anyone walks into a hospital, they are taken care of, then they get a bill, or their insurance does. The people who don't have insurance, are on government care, or are illegally in America don't pay, and aren't made to. So you know who eats that bill? We do, thats the main reason you probably have a $1500 deductible.

Hotzester - I agree with your English language opinion. They are voting on the 22nd in Nashville to make English the primary language of business. I hope it passes. The people that are against it say that we are building barriers against other cultures and to immigrants, I say the tower of Babel didn't work out so well because people couldn't understand eachother. Language is the glue that binds us as a country.
Besides, to become a US citizen LEGALLY, you have to know and understand the english language. The only people that would benefit from a multi-lingual country are the people that are here Illegally, or that have no intentions of being American, or staying in this country for a long time.
Being unable to speak english, builds its own barriers especially when trying to advance in the American work world. I say English First.

[krystal]

I meant the peon jobs that aren't necessary to running the country from a strictly law standpoint.

[hotzester]

Health care is the only odd button with me. While I think that people should have to pay for health insurance, I don't think that people should have to pay $100 for a tylenol in a hospital. Insurance companies, false malpractice suites, and actual malpractice are part of the blame for the high cost for medical care, but the main issue behind high cost is that when anyone walks into a hospital, they are taken care of, then they get a bill, or their insurance does. The people who don't have insurance, are on government care, or are illegally in America don't pay, and aren't made to. So you know who eats that bill? We do, thats the main reason you probably have a $1500 deductible.

Malpractice insurance premiums are HUGE. We're talking tens, sometimes hundreds, of thousands of dollars per year. This is largely because everyone is so quick to sue, and because the current system allows litigation for just about anything. Tort reform would fix this.

As for people not having insurance - you're right that the clinicians are still required by law to treat them, but they do get stuck with a bill. Whether or not they PAY IT is entirely different. But they ARE billed and their credit WILL be affected. They just don't care. Can't squeeze blood from a stone.

[krystal]

I never understood how people could pull schemes like medicaid fraud. I don't have the energy or ambition to do something like that...

[hotzester]

My conscience would never let me do it.

[krystal]

My sense of morality definitely wouldn't. The glories of being totally honest as much as possible has made me a trustworthy a*hole. I kinda like that.

[potthole]

I never understood how people could pull schemes like medicaid fraud. I don't have the energy or ambition to do something like that...

When I've nabbed patients at my place of work they usually try putting multiple addressses on one account, both with their name, or they'll try shifty stuff with the account of another family member.

[hotzester]

Yeah, using a family member's name is pretty common. I see some creative uses of maiden names sometimes as well.

[potthole]

Yup! That's how I caught my most recent person... noticed they were having stuff billed to both their married and maiden name, each with a different Medicare number.

[krystal]

I hope they get arrested for fraud.