IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

At least you are honest, cyclops, about what the IRS is about, but you might not want to be too hasty about that assertion? Boy, that brings up all kinds of questions in my mind, as the U.S. was already on the road to world prominence as a very young nation by the time the modern income tax code was even instituted, was it not?

Also, you ignore the technical advancement, such as what Henry Ford's assembly line epitomizes in terms of the movement from the farm to manufacturing and the modern rise of our standard of living and the middle class. You also ignore the fact that LBJ's war on poverty has not eradicated poverty even after trillions have been redistributed to the poor.

I believe our overall success lies almost entirely in capitalism, not in the socialistic programs. You must first create the wealth before any of it can be redistributed, and redistribution tends to be somewhat superficial in my opinion, over the long term.

Well, if you can demonstrate that we are spending less as a portion of GDP on taxes now than we have in the past, have at it. And also demonstrate that the rich are paying less in terms of the percentage of income tax revenues, also be my guest.

I believe the primary problem is spending, not tax revenues. We could slow the rate of spending growth by curtailing the cost of living increases and inflation built into some of the budgets. I would love to be able to review the budget and start hacking away.

The government is pretty much like individual citizens, whereby financial problems are primarily spending problems, not income problems.

No, I was instead referring to the redistribution of monies through progressive taxation - a program which has been spectacularly successful and will continue into the future; a socialistic program.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, I was instead referring to the redistribution of monies through progressive taxation - a program which has been spectacularly successful and will continue into the future; a socialistic program.

Cycloptichorn

I'm not sure that progressive tax rates are in fact a 'socialist' invention, at least in terms of their history. They were introduced in capitalist states, though it is certainly true that their more socialist political parties generally advocated (and instituted, when they had the power) much steeper increases in rates on higher incomes. An excess of this contributed to economic stagnation in the UK, until the sainted Margaret Thatcher brought about needed reform. It appears to have worked well in Sweden though. However, even there a retreat from these socialist excesses appears to be the policy of the current (relatively) conservative government.

The thoroughly socialist states of the Soviet empire and China, didn't tax their way to "equality". They used mass executions, starvation and seizures of property to achieve that. The "peoples" government turned out to be a rather brutal autocracy. It did however produce an awful, dull, freedomless uniformity. However, I wouldn't call that a virtue.

[
But, b/c I'm a glutton for punishment: I don't think there's much evidence that the economic policies of these nations were responsible for the brutality of the nation's leaders. Otherwise, you'd see a lot more killing going on in the Norwegian area then you actually do.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[
But, b/c I'm a glutton for punishment: I don't think there's much evidence that the economic policies of these nations were responsible for the brutality of the nation's leaders. Otherwise, you'd see a lot more killing going on in the Norwegian area then you actually do.

Cycloptichorn

Brutal leaders almost always play the class envy card to gain power, so it seems to me that socialistic movements are fertile ground for them. They don't usually promise to kill everyone they don't like before they are elected.

I don't think Norway is a good example, and isn't it true that as too much socialism dampens economies, they usually resort to more capitalistic policies? Why not avoid the problem in the first place?

I think you have a pretty difficult time having a discussion which touches upon socialistic ideas in any way without descending into cheap rhetoric, George.

But, b/c I'm a glutton for punishment: I don't think there's much evidence that the economic policies of these nations were responsible for the brutality of the nation's leaders. Otherwise, you'd see a lot more killing going on in the Norwegian area then you actually do.
Cycloptichorn

Norway is not a meaningful counter example. It is riding on a tide of petroleum wealth that largely pays for the government and the social systems of its relatively small population. Unless, perhaps you would like to add Kuwait to your list of socialist paradises.

Now I see that Thomas likes Obama, and Edwards "a close second" !!!!! This from a guy who once used a photo of Milton Friedman as his avatar !@!!! I am shattered !

I regard public health care matters as the province of our states. Our Federal Government should have no particular role in the matter.

It may well be that in Western Europe these kinds of government run or mandated programs work better than they do here - for a host of reasons, ranging fron the much higher rate of immigration (legal & illegal) we experience, to possibly traditions of greater efficiency in government operations and greater public acceptance of the supposed benevolence of government bureaucracies. Somehow, I just can't see it all working well here.

Thomas, maybe you don't know this because you don't live here, ...

I am perfectly happy with my health care.

...... All the leading Democratic candidates' healthcare plans leave the choice to you. If you have private health insurance and you're happy with it, you can keep it. If you have state-based health insurance and you like it, you can keep it. If you don't like the solutions you have, or don't currently have health insurance, the plans give you the chance to get into a federal program. (Obama's plan even leaves you the option to remain uninsured, as long as you do insure your underage children.)

So if you're right, and the market and the states do the best job at providing healthcare, consumer choice under these plans will bring out a market- and state-based system. By contrast, if I am right and healthcare is an exception to the rule that free markets work best, consumer choice will bring about a federalized system. Personally I'm fine with either outcome. I like that the Democratic candidates conduct the experiment instead of shoving the federalized solution down consumers' throat.

And that, in case you were wondering, is why nice libertarians like myself can end up supporting the Democratic healthcare proposals, and the candidates who made them.

Do you know that my father served for over twenty years in the U.S. Congress as - a Democrat ! (I later overcame this legacy.)

And one of my relatives was on the Mayflower.