Text 15495, 135 rader
Skriven 2007-06-18 17:39:05 av Carl (1908.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================

"lizardgirl" <gabiks@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:1182183396.409552.248790@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 15, 5:55 pm, "Carl" <cengm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "lizardgirl" <gab...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1181935812.777819.186880@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Why would the feds have to give the states the money? The feds could
>> define standards, but let the states collect the money and administer
>> the programs.
>>
>> The states already have welfare and health programs. In many cases 
>> there's
>> overlap.  A number of states are coming up with their own versions of
>> universal health care.
>>
>> Why do we have to have both federal and state versions?
>>
>
> there was concern even with the block grants that folks would migrate
> to states that offered services that better met their needs.  while
> this didn't happen, it is a real possibility for some percentage of
> the population.
>
> i like the idea of the fed setting the standard with the states both
> controlling the collection and re-allocation of funds (taxes) in
> support of local programs.  this however puts the entire burden for
> funding state programs on the state tax base.  no problems if you have
> a nice 'evenly' distributed population.  problems can occur if, one,
> your tax base can not support those services or, two, can not met the
> federal standards.  migration state to state can really have an impact
> on a state only model.

But states can do other things, such as lower corporate taxes to bring in 
new
businesses, corporate headquarters, plants, etc.  Create the jobs and
the people will come/stay.  MN has seen a number of businesses leave because
the corporate tax rate is so high.  It would be a lot worse if Minnesotans
didn't like living here so much.

States might even try new ways of implementing programs rather than
being locked into  the old/marginal programs we have now.

> if the fed is going to set the standard does it not then share a social 
> and
> financial responsibility to see to its implementation?

Why?  The feds define a minimum wage...is it the feds responsibility to
pay that wage?  The feds define auto gas mileage requirements, are they
obligated to pay auto makers to make lighter/more dangerous cars?


>> >> I wish we'd spend substantially more on fraud detection and 
>> >> prosecution.
>> >> Most of our programs have huge amounts of fraud (estimates ranging up
>> >> from 15-50% depending on the program).
>>
>> > is there welfare fraud?  sure.  but the system needs to be smarter,
>> > less vulnerable to abuse.
>>
>> There seems to be very little effort to do that though.
>
> which seems like a great opportunity for policy makers to demonstrate
> their worth.

LOL.  How long have you been practicing your stand-up act? :)

>
>> >> To the degree that we can all be convinced to work for the common 
>> >> good,
>> >> that's great.  Freedom is lost whenever someone is compelled though.
>>
>> > yes and no.  there are shades of grey there.  taxes being one of
>> > them. :^)
>>
>> Sure, there are shades of gray...and everyone weighs them differently.
>>
>> I had a conversation recently in which it was argued that the feds should 
>> do
>> those things that it can do best/most efficiently.
>>
>> If you want to be the most efficient, have a dictatorship. Of course that
>> efficiency comes at the cost of freedom.  I add that cost when weighing
>> those shades of gray.  Others are predisposed to wanting the
>> feds to have the power and are much less critical.
>>
>> The more power the feds have, the more ability they have to inflict
>> a single (politically correct) view of how you should live your life.
>
> i agree (love the quotes :^).  i see very little difference between a
> pure democracy (which we are not) and communism.  its wrong, i think,
> to look for *freedom* in the form of govenment, any government.

----
"America wasn't founded so that we could all be better. America was founded
so we could all be anything we damn well please."
-- P.J. O'Rourke
----

> there  is a social cost that must be paid.  the freedoms we enjoy as a
> democratic society are not free.  taxes are just on of those
> things.....i have no problem paying more taxes given its the result of
> me making more money.

Sure...but that doesn't mean that everything that is paid for by taxes
is automatically one of those social costs, or that all taxes are inherently
"just" and proper simply because there are some things that should
be paid for by taxes.

> can the government use tax money to support (or not) social programs
> that push society in a direction that crowds my personal liberty?
> yes.  but that in my opnion is a problem of 'representation' not tax
> collection.

And the more money you let them collect, the more power you give
those representatives to crowd that liberty.  Money by itself isn't evil,
and often the people that want to do something that infringes on my
freedom may be very well intentioned.

----
"Giving government money and power is like giving car keys and whiskey
to a teenage boy"
- P.J. O'Rourke
----


Carl

"Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from life what conservatives
seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers
of government agencies to do good."
-- Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan  (D)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)