(07-26-2015 07:34 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 06:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 06:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 05:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:03 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Wrong, pro-choice is when you call to arrange for an abortion, you are given the choice of a morning or afternoon appointment.

Stupid post but not surprising from you. Most people that are pro-choice believe it is up to a woman/couple to decide and not the the government. These people may also not ever consider having abortions.

So you are all for the government being out of your life when you want to kill a baby, but demand big government insert its dominance for everything else?

Good to see the 'ole nothing or everything argument is still alive in kicking among those not interested in having an actual discussion with another person and instead just looking to take wholly untrue potshots at those they disagree with.

That's rich coming from someone who's never had an actual discussion here without taking wholly untrue potshots towards the poster you're conversing with.

UCF08 is one of the better members around here regarding actual debate without malice or vitriol. Only his demand for sources is the only real point of contention one could have with his posts.

(07-27-2015 01:58 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 08:42 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I've never understood how republicans can be pro life and anti nanny state at the same time.

Because some of us don't consider the State a charity.

You do not get moral credit for forcing money out of someone else's paycheck using the IRS' henchmen to pay for a bunch of social programs that don't work.

If you let good people have more of the money they work for, more money would go to charities that much more effectively serve the poor and less fortunate than these government handouts.

"nice retort"

(07-27-2015 02:12 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 01:58 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 08:42 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I've never understood how republicans can be pro life and anti nanny state at the same time.

Because some of us don't consider the State a charity.

You do not get moral credit for forcing money out of someone else's paycheck using the IRS' henchmen to pay for a bunch of social programs that don't work.

If you let good people have more of the money they work for, more money would go to charities that much more effectively serve the poor and less fortunate than these government handouts.

"nice retort"

I could have written more but that pretty much sums up the laughable notion that more would be given to charity.

(07-27-2015 02:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 02:12 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 01:58 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 08:42 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I've never understood how republicans can be pro life and anti nanny state at the same time.

Because some of us don't consider the State a charity.

You do not get moral credit for forcing money out of someone else's paycheck using the IRS' henchmen to pay for a bunch of social programs that don't work.

If you let good people have more of the money they work for, more money would go to charities that much more effectively serve the poor and less fortunate than these government handouts.

"nice retort"

I could have written more but that pretty much sums up the laughable notion that more would be given to charity.

Because middle-class white Americans aren't the most charitable folks on Earth already. Oh wait, YES THEY ARE.

(07-27-2015 11:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But if abortion were to become illegal, I doubt that charities or adoption would be able to handle the increase. Our social programs would collapse.

You presume that nothing would change in regard to personal behavior and adoption regulations if that paradigm existed. I submit it would help reduce unwanted pregnancies by its elimination and more focus at that point would be on contraception. I also think it would spur a reduction in red tape and a streamlining of the adoption processes. Many couples are simply scared to death of the current adoption paradigm. It is obtrusive and outrageously expensive.

(07-27-2015 02:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 02:12 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 01:58 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 08:42 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I've never understood how republicans can be pro life and anti nanny state at the same time.

Because some of us don't consider the State a charity.

You do not get moral credit for forcing money out of someone else's paycheck using the IRS' henchmen to pay for a bunch of social programs that don't work.

If you let good people have more of the money they work for, more money would go to charities that much more effectively serve the poor and less fortunate than these government handouts.

"nice retort"

I could have written more but that pretty much sums up the laughable notion that more would be given to charity.

No. It sums up your doltish though process.

(07-27-2015 07:48 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But if abortion were to become illegal, I doubt that charities or adoption would be able to handle the increase. Our social programs would collapse.

You presume that nothing would change in regard to personal behavior and adoption regulations if that paradigm existed. I submit it would help reduce unwanted pregnancies by its elimination and more focus at that point would be on contraception. I also think it would spur a reduction in red tape and a streamlining of the adoption processes. Many couples are simply scared to death of the current adoption paradigm. It is obtrusive and outrageously expensive.

You presume quite a bit yourself, and I don't know of any data which supports your theory.

(07-27-2015 12:16 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But if abortion were to become illegal, I doubt that charities or adoption would be able to handle the increase. Our social programs would collapse.

I thought about this and I have to admit, you're probably right.

The first couple of years, all the adoption applications would likely be filled. Then what?

So let's get back to the original thread, the whole nanny state concept.

I believe that the (compassionate) conservative position is that there are certain levels public welfare services that are necessary. I also believe that many of these programs have grown far beyond their intended usefulness and have created a new class of entitlement families. For example, are 50 million food stamp families really needed? How many of the new disabled class are truly disabled? (SSI recipients have tripled since 1980.)

Remember it was Bill Clinton who was President when welfare had its first reformation.

I see nothing wrong with welfare reform. No system is prefect however. Some people will always exploit it.

My overall approach would be:

1) A guaranteed minimum income based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, with focused and means-tested programs transferred to states at state option;
2) Universal basic health care using the French Bismarck model;
3) Investment in the US economy for every citizen through a privatized component of social security that would invest in infrastructure in newly privatized federal activities (interstate highways as national toll road system, postal service TVA and western power/water authorities, airports and air traffic control, Fannie/Freddie, rails);
4) A bank account for every American, through the privatized postal service (New Zealand model);
5) Funding with 15% social security tax (7.5%/7.5%) with no maximum, a 15% tax on all business and investment income, a 15% consumption tax, and no personal income tax (except for passthrough business income and investment income), plus a 5% (2.5%/2.5%) incremental social security tax to fund the privatized account.

1 and 2 significantly reduce income inequality and effectively eliminate the "welfare trap." 3 and 4 significantly reduce wealth inequality. 5 makes the US a much more attractive destination for investment, leading to economic growth and a revitalization of the middle class.

(07-26-2015 01:03 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:55 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:44 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I've never understood how republicans can be pro life and anti nanny state at the same time.

I've never understood how democrats can be anti-death penalty and pro-abortion at the same time.

No one is pro abortion.

Oh I'm sorry, I meant pro-choice. Which is exactly the same thing as pro-abortion.

Wrong, pro-choice is when you call to arrange for an abortion, you are given the choice of a morning or afternoon appointment.

Pro-choice means when you decide to have sex, you are responsible for all the risks--there is your choice. So if you get pregnant, you already made your choice, let the kid, if there is one created by your choice, have theirs (and it is always to live their life without being killed first by someone who wants a do-over.)

(07-28-2015 12:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My overall approach would be:

1) A guaranteed minimum income based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, with focused and means-tested programs transferred to states at state option;
2) Universal basic health care using the French Bismarck model;
3) Investment in the US economy for every citizen through a privatized component of social security that would invest in infrastructure in newly privatized federal activities (interstate highways as national toll road system, postal service TVA and western power/water authorities, airports and air traffic control, Fannie/Freddie, rails);
4) A bank account for every American, through the privatized postal service (New Zealand model);
5) Funding with 15% social security tax (7.5%/7.5%) with no maximum, a 15% tax on all business and investment income, a 15% consumption tax, and no personal income tax (except for passthrough business income and investment income), plus a 5% (2.5%/2.5%) incremental social security tax to fund the privatized account.

1 and 2 significantly reduce income inequality and effectively eliminate the "welfare trap." 3 and 4 significantly reduce wealth inequality. 5 makes the US a much more attractive destination for investment, leading to economic growth and a revitalization of the middle class.

There's a lot of interesting, and pretty good ideas in this. Though, man, can you imagine what'd it actually take to pass such legislature/changes? On both sides?

(07-28-2015 07:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 12:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My overall approach would be:
1) A guaranteed minimum income based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, with focused and means-tested programs transferred to states at state option;
2) Universal basic health care using the French Bismarck model;
3) Investment in the US economy for every citizen through a privatized component of social security that would invest in infrastructure in newly privatized federal activities (interstate highways as national toll road system, postal service TVA and western power/water authorities, airports and air traffic control, Fannie/Freddie, rails);
4) A bank account for every American, through the privatized postal service (New Zealand model);
5) Funding with 15% social security tax (7.5%/7.5%) with no maximum, a 15% tax on all business and investment income, a 15% consumption tax, and no personal income tax (except for passthrough business income and investment income), plus a 5% (2.5%/2.5%) incremental social security tax to fund the privatized account.
1 and 2 significantly reduce income inequality and effectively eliminate the "welfare trap." 3 and 4 significantly reduce wealth inequality. 5 makes the US a much more attractive destination for investment, leading to economic growth and a revitalization of the middle class.

There's a lot of interesting, and pretty good ideas in this. Though, man, can you imagine what'd it actually take to pass such legislature/changes? On both sides?

Vision and leadership. Bill Clinton and Newt could have gotten it done in the late 1990s, if only they could have worked together instead of having cat fights over Monica Lewinsky.

It's actually a conservative approach, if by conservative you mean it has been tried and proved to work. Every part except 1 is being tried and is proving successful in other parts of the world. While 1 hasn't actually been tried, you'd certainly have to agree that Friedman, Boortz, and Linder are about as conservative a group of thinkers as it gets.

I don't think democrats could ever push it because they would have to abandon their class warfare demagoguery. I think republicans could sell it to the working poor as a better deal than what they have now, and it also works for their mainline demographic because it is strongly pro-growth. While republicans could do it, and I think it would be politically advantageous for them to do so, I am afraid that they are too stupid to do it.

I have done the math, and it does work, in fact it balances the budget. The real key is that the consumption tax is an amazing revenue generator, which is why Europe and the rest of the developed world have already gone that route. One point that I didn't make about the math in the original post is that Bismarck health care removes the Medicaid cost from the states, and that gives them a big pot of money to pick up on the focused and means-tested programs if they want to.