Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago

Sorry man, I don't live in a fantasy world where our country's economics is left up to human kindness, because I don't believe there is enough of it to make it work.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



The possibility of DakotaT being correct on this is why "charitable contributions" remains my only "tax deduction." It's also why I chose my tax rate of 10% -- tax to me is justified only if we justify it as a sort of secular tithe. I do believe we have a moral obligation to those less fortunate and I also agree that people can't be relied on to satisfy that moral obligation on their own. They don't have to give to a particulasarc charity, but they must be charitable to some degree.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Pack93z
12 years ago

Primary requirement: Only spend on activities for which the government actor has a comparative advantage (i.e. can do it better, at a lower opportunity cost, than any market actor could).

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Here is my issue with Market based "actors".

They have and will always have one primary agenda, turning a profit. Which then brings in a ethical question and in many cases no checks to keep them in balance.

Example. Red Cross.

They have noble intentions, however without a paying customer base, there is no check system in place to ensure that their primary objectives as a organization are kept in line. Hence we have a organization that actually utilizes incoming funds very poorly for their intended purpose. Helping people.

Now imagine if they were under a contract of sorts to provide those services.. they would be performing as poorly as some of the government programs do.

Again, in my eyes, we need to kick the government back into what they should be and not what they are. A non biased, public servant for the good of the people, all people. Not just those that can afford to contribute to the campaign machines.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago

Here is my issue with Market based "actors".

They have and will always have one primary agenda, turning a profit. Which then brings in a ethical question and in many cases no checks to keep them in balance.

Example. Red Cross.

They have noble intentions, however without a paying customer base, there is no check system in place to ensure that their primary objectives as a organization are kept in line. Hence we have a organization that actually utilizes incoming funds very poorly for their intended purpose. Helping people.

Now imagine if they were under a contract of sorts to provide those services.. they would be performing as poorly as some of the government programs do.

Again, in my eyes, we need to kick the government back into what they should be and not what they are. A non biased, public servant for the good of the people, all people. Not just those that can afford to contribute to the campaign machines.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 



Yes, but if you give the task to someone who can't do it as cheaply, you're also using your funds poorly. IMO the Red Cross wouldn't be able to get away with their inefficiency were they subject to the market constraints that those evil profit-seekers would. Because they'd either fix things or they'd be bankrupt.

The problem isn't profit-seeking. The problem is profit-seeking combined with government-instituted insulation from the bad consequences of their choices: in the case of the Red Cross, that insulation comes from their tax-reducing status as a not-for-profit; in the case of the current for-profit corporations, it is the protection offered by limited shareholder liability and an unlimited lifespan.

That's why the absolute requirement has to be "only if they have an actual comparative advantage." And why any grant of power to the state must NOT be accompanied with insulation from civil liability. Because acting through the state ALWAYS yields insulation of the decision-maker from market constraints otherwise. Always.

Noble intentions are never enough. That's why DakotaT's position, while noble as aspirations and showing him to be as compassionate as anyone can be, the kind of person one wants as a friend and neighbor and fellow citizen, is wrong. Noble intentions alone merely pave the way to hell. Because, unfortunately, whether one is in the private sector or the public one, there are far too many people who don't share his moral character, people who, if you insulate them from the consequences of their choices will make bad choices.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago
I think we should give all our money to the government and trust that they will take care of us from the cradle to the grave.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
12 years ago

I think we should give all our money to the government and trust that they will take care of us from the cradle to the grave.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



You forgot your sarcasm smiley! [grin1]
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago

You forgot your sarcasm smiley! [grin1]

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



no I did not. You and all your government dependent friends have convinced me. I was wrong to fight the inevitable for so long. It is what the people want so give it to them.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
12 years ago

no I did not. You and all your government dependent friends have convinced me. I was wrong to fight the inevitable for so long. It is what the people want so give it to them.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



It has to work better than trickle down economics.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
12 years ago

Primary requirement: Only spend on activities for which the government actor has a comparative advantage (i.e. can do it better, at a lower opportunity cost, than any market actor could).

First example: Various "security" and "war" services: Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force combat personnel. Coast Guard search and rescue. The uniformed beat cop. Fire departments. Criminal court. Border control to prevent entry of criminals and infectious diseases.

Does not include such things such as REMF functions, police detectives, or anyone or any function provided bye the so-called "Department of Homeland Security". Does not include enforcers of "limit immigration" laws.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



I primarily agree, but differ slightly. Government should only supply what private sector cannot, like a national military, interstate system. And much of that, federal government should be more of a coordinator of the states instead of provider. Everything else should be provided by the private sector, cost is never really an issue. There is no reason government can do anything cheaper, and even if there was, even if more expensive, it would be generating revenue and expand the tax base.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
DakotaT
12 years ago

no I did not. You and all your government dependent friends have convinced me. I was wrong to fight the inevitable for so long. It is what the people want so give it to them.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



I don't have any government dependent friends. All my friends are just like you momolucs. And like all of you, none of them have had a life altering crisis with their child that have made them re-evaluate everything. Needing all the toys and bells and whistles is just not important anymore - and voting for the assholes that make sure a small percentage of our country has all those things is not something I'm on board with anymore - but I once was.


UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago

I don't have any government dependent friends. All my friends are just like you momolucs. And like all of you, none of them have had a life altering crisis with their child that have made them re-evaluate everything. Needing all the toys and bells and whistles is just not important anymore - and voting for the assholes that make sure a small percentage of our country has all those things is not something I'm on board with anymore - but I once was.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



agreed. I could care less about the crap people collect. If I had my way we would all live without 3/4 of the stuff we have. and be far better off for it.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (13h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (19h) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
21h / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.