bodypilot90 0 #1 June 15, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801765.html?hpid=topnews and they want to run health care Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #2 June 20, 2008 Who's really surprised? Public housing is inferior to private housing. Public parcel transport is inferior to privately run parcel transport. Public education is inferior to private education. Public restaurants are inferior to privately run restaurants. And the list goes on... The simple (simplified) reason is that privately run enterprises only make money if they give purchasers what they want for a price the purchaser will pay. Publicly run entities exist to spend the money they are given and ask for more. The only surprise here is that democrats are finally agreeing to turn it over to the private sector and allow it to be run like a business. Businesses make money and cost taxpayers nothing. Unnecessary government programs (like a restaurant) cost money and generally offer inferior goods and services.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #3 June 20, 2008 *blinks* Holy shit... how've ya been?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 June 20, 2008 I think this article is a PERFECT example of government in action, and a PERFECT example of what social healthcare would be. Take a look at the picture of the Senate Dining Room. Then ask yourself what a government dining facility for the peasants would look like. QuoteYear after year, decade upon decade, the U.S. Senate's network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money -- more than $18 million since 1993, according to one report, and an estimated $2 million this year alone, according to another. Okay. It lost a million bucks a year since 1993. And this year is on pace to lose $4 million? Huh? What the hell happened? And another factor - there are 100 Senators. It has lost $2 million so far this year. Thus, it has LOST $20k per senator - JUST THIS YEAR. LOST $20k per Senator - not USED. But, then again, they've gotta subsidize the staffers, etc. QuoteAll told, they bring in more than $10 million a year in food sales but have turned a profit in just seven of their 44 years in business, according to the GAO. An these are the folks going after oil companies for actually making a profit. QuoteIn a masterful bit of understatement, Feinstein blamed "noticeably subpar" food and service. Foot traffic bears that out. Come lunchtime, many Senate staffers trudge across the Capitol and down into the basement cafeteria on the House side. On Wednesdays, the lines can be 30 or 40 people long. Okay, so let's look at healthcare. You can pick two of three things: 1) Inexpensive; 2) Available on demand; 3) high quality. Jeez - apparently they can only get "inexpensive" right. The products and service subpar? Even thought the government is providing it? No shit. QuoteEven revenue in the once-profitable catering division has been decimated, as senators have increasingly sought waivers to bring in outside food for special events with constituents and private groups. There ain't no way a Senator would rely on government food. Think they'll exempt themselves from peasant healthcare, too? QuoteI know what happens with privatization. Workers lose jobs, and the next generation of workers make less in wages. These are some of the lowest-paid workers in our country, and I want to help them," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a staunch labor union ally, said recently. The wages of the approximately 100 Senate food service workers average $37,000 annually. The provie shit food and shit service and lose more than a million a year. They should be paid more, and work less, so long as a Senator doesn't have to use them. Let the peasants use them. QuoteFeinstein made another presentation May 7, warning senators that if they did not agree to turn over the operation to a private contractor, prices would be increased 25 percent across the board. I think there should be a tax on the cash flow to the Senate restaurants if they increase the prices. 25% is unconscionable. Oh, this is a WONDEFUL find about politics and socialism. National healthcare? It'll lose money and provde shit service. And that's before the attempts to "fix it." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #5 June 20, 2008 Come on guys! That's not fair. They aren't in the restaurant business, but they know everything about fixing health care, energy, and social welfare...just look at the successes of Social Security, Welfare and beautiful layers of bureaucracy that over-regulates just about everything...If 100 people, plus staff cannot run a "small" enterprise like a restaurant, dedicated solely to them, why-oh-why would anyone ever think they can run anything else. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #6 June 20, 2008 QuoteBusinesses make money and cost taxpayers nothing. Unnecessary government programs (like a restaurant) cost money and generally offer inferior goods and services. One exception comes to mind. Professional sports franchises are private businesses that make a shitload of money AND cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. A total scam pulled off on the US citizenry by a very conniving group of billionaire businessmen." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 June 20, 2008 QuoteA total scam pulled off on the US citizenry by a very conniving group of billionaire businessmen. So, are you saying that you do not believe that the politicians, voted in by the citizenry, have anything to do with it? I don't recall private businessmen ever managing to pass a public tax at a meeting of the board of directors. The cities and counties, and even states, pass these taxes. They do it as an investment to collect more taxes and revenues from taxes on sales, hotels, etc. Blaming the team owners for taxes? Isn't that like blaming the pilot when a skydiver hooks in? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 June 20, 2008 QuoteBlaming the team owners for taxes? Isn't that like blaming the pilot when a skydiver hooks in? Didn't you get the memo? Those local referenda are part of the federal tax scheme that benefits big business.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #9 June 20, 2008 Quote Quote Blaming the team owners for taxes? Isn't that like blaming the pilot when a skydiver hooks in? Didn't you get the memo? Those local referenda are part of the federal tax scheme that benefits big business. Only YOU keep bringing up "federal". I bet those fat campaign contributions have nothing whatever to do with the decisions that pols make, favoring their rich contributors.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #10 June 21, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Blaming the team owners for taxes? Isn't that like blaming the pilot when a skydiver hooks in? Didn't you get the memo? Those local referenda are part of the federal tax scheme that benefits big business. Only YOU keep bringing up "federal". I bet those fat campaign contributions have nothing whatever to do with the decisions that pols make, favoring their rich contributors. *yawn* As I recall, it was *you* that brought up the stadium owners and concurrent tax referenda when the discussion was about FEDERAL tax laws, in the other thread. Funny, I don't see you making the same gripes about subsidies for ethanol production, etc... I guess some pigs ARE more equal than others, aren't they Professor?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 June 21, 2008 I'm kinda unclear why people are bitching about this? Isn't the idea to HAVE less government. Even if it's just a few employees in a cafeteria, isn't getting these people off the government payroll something that would normally make conservatives happy?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #12 June 21, 2008 Your memory is bad. The topic was "taxes" and "corporate welfare", not "federal taxes". YOU were the first to insist that it was only federal taxes being discussed. You were the one that reckoned state and local taxes != taxes. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3220263#3220263 And I don't like tax breaks for oil companies, subsidies for farmers, subsidies for ethanol producers..., OK? Nor do I like taxpayer funds being used to clean up environmental messes left by poorly run companies dumping their waste.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 June 21, 2008 QuoteYour memory is bad. The topic was "taxes" and "corporate welfare", not "federal taxes". Evidently, yours is worse. QuoteWell, it's like when the sales taxes of people who go to see a ball game go directly to the wealthy team owners, like G.W. Bush. Link to post by idrankwhatQuoteMy point is that the tax system is written to benefit the wealthy and that quoting tax rates is deceiving. Sorry, but a bond issue to build a stadium, voted into being by the local community and paid for by local sales taxes, isn't "written into the tax system" like income tax is. QuoteQuoteYou were the one that reckoned state and local taxes != taxes. Actually, my QUOTE was: QuoteLOCAL SALES TAX, not federal or state income tax I don't see anything in my quote saying that sales tax is not a tax. Another red herring, professor? Someone who is unable to differentiate between a local sales tax referendum and INCOME tax should probably refrain from participating in threads discussing the two disparate issues.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #14 June 21, 2008 Quote I'm kinda unclear why people are bitching about this? I'm not, just pointing out, they (either party) can't run anything and make it better, cheaper. They (the libs) want to run health care. That should scare everyone. It will not be fast or cheap or good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #15 June 21, 2008 QuoteI'm not, just pointing out, they (either party) can't run anything and make it better, cheaper. Well, I know that's the popular sentiment, but it's simply not true. For instance, the government run military is, in fact, less expensive than the private contractors.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 June 21, 2008 QuoteFor instance, the government run military is, in fact, less expensive than the private contractors. On a person by person basis, agreed - for what the military can still do after the drawdowns.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #17 June 21, 2008 Quote Quote I'm kinda unclear why people are bitching about this? They want to run health care. That should scare everyone. It will not be fast or cheap or good. I've had to tighten my belt quite a bit over the past 6 months (on disability from an injury), but at no time in my life was it even tighter than when Hillary got ahold of the healthcare system in the 90's. Yes, I'm scared. Not just for my profession, but for everyone in the country if she gets ahold of it again. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #18 June 21, 2008 Quote I'm kinda unclear why people are bitching about this? Isn't the idea to HAVE less government. Even if it's just a few employees in a cafeteria, isn't getting these people off the government payroll something that would normally make conservatives happy? Because the conservative argument of "less" government has nothing to do with headcount. I'm sure you can figure out the rest. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #19 June 21, 2008 QuoteFor instance, the government run military is, in fact, less expensive than the private contractors. That's also a Constitutional mandate. There's nothing in there about "...and the Congress shall be granted exclusive restaurants..." In actuality, you are correct to a point. The military has contracted out several types of jobs, results of the downsizing in the 90s and some jobs not being "on mission" per se.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #20 June 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteYour memory is bad. The topic was "taxes" and "corporate welfare", not "federal taxes". Evidently, yours is worse. QuoteWell, it's like when the sales taxes of people who go to see a ball game go directly to the wealthy team owners, like G.W. Bush. Ummm - YOU asked for a definition of "corporate welfare" and I gave you several (in the thread I cited), including tax dollars going to line the pockets of wealthy team owners like George W. Bush. Hell, even Michelle Malkin can see it! Bush's Baseball Tax Fetish Michelle Malkin 4/4/2001 Comment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is it with some Republican leaders and baseball? When it comes to America's national pastime, the party of lower taxes and less government leaves its principles in the dust. The lead GOP pitcher for sports pork is President Bush, who launched a federally sponsored initiative last week to "revitalize" baseball. He will host kiddie T-ball games on the White House lawn, recruit Cabinet officials to help promote the sport, and throw out the first pitch at the Milwaukee Brewers' new ballpark. What's wrong with Bush's baseball fetish? Many of his supporters will argue that there's no harm in embracing athletic nostalgia and patriotic symbolism. But there's nothing romantic about raiding the public purse, which is what modern baseball increasingly is all about. I hate to be a spoilsport, but the president's latest crusade is a foul play that undermines the credibility of serious fiscal conservatism. Take Miller Park, the $400 million stadium in Milwaukee where Bush will join baseball commissioner Bud Selig (the Brewers' former president) this Friday. The Brewers paid for less than one-fourth of the cost of stadium construction, and much of that came from subsidized government loans. Taxpayers voted overwhelmingly against public funding for the Brewers' new home. But they were forced to pick up the rest of the tab through a sales-tax hike, totaling $300 million, which was imposed upon them in 1995 by the state legislature. Who championed that tax increase? Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, the Republican welfare reformer who now heads Bush's Department of Health and Human Services. Thompson played hardball with local lawmakers, including state Sen. George Petak -- a Republican who cast the deciding vote that passed the stadium sales-tax hike. Soon after, Petak's district held an anti-tax revolt. They punished Petak by making him the first and only Wisconsin legislator ever recalled. Prominent Republican officials from New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum to Massachusetts Gov. Paul Celluci to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have joined tax-happy Democrats in drumming up public money to pay for new sports stadiums at nosebleed prices. Economist Raymond J. Keating of the Washington, D.C.-based Small Business Survival Committee estimates the total costs of building big league ballparks at $11.5 billion, with taxpayers picking up about 81 percent of the tab, or $9.3 billion. It wasn't always this way. Keating writes: "Ballparks were once privately financed. Like other businesses, team owners bought the land and erected their own facilities. Before 1953, only one Major League Baseball club played in a government-funded stadium, and 75 percent of funding for ballparks came from private sources." Since then, only one big league ballpark has been built without taxpayer money, while 19 baseball stadiums were 100 percent taxpayer-funded. "Given current efforts," Keating predicts, "another $5 billion to $6 billion could be spent in the next few years on big league ballparks, with taxpayers easily on the hook for at least $3.5 billion to $4 billion." It is bad enough that President Bush will lend his implicit endorsement to such baseball tax thievery when he proudly dons a satin jacket at Miller Park and lounges in a private luxury box built with public money. What's worse is the continued political dissonance Bush creates every time he speaks of "letting Americans keep more of their own money" and "sending tax dollars back to the people so government can't spend it." As co-partner of the Texas Rangers, Bush championed a sales-tax increase and loan package worth $135 million for the construction of a new baseball stadium. Defenders of the deal -- which also gave a quasi-governmental sports authority the power to condemn private land for the new ballpark, shops and a hotel -- note that local residents approved the tax hike. But support came only after the Rangers threw a tantrum and threatened to leave. Moreover, Bush essentially bribed minorities into voting for the tax increase by campaigning personally at black churches and promising to reward them with racial set-aside construction contracts. Yuck. With Republicans cheerleading for these crummy corporate welfare pay-offs, who needs big-spending Democrats? ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 June 21, 2008 Come talk to me when I can vote on whether or not I want to pay income taxes. Best you stay with physics, professor.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #22 June 21, 2008 QuoteCome talk to me when I can vote on whether or not I want to pay income taxes. Best you stay with physics, professor. Ha ha. It seems everyone but you can see that corporate welfare exists. Even Michelle M. None so blind as those that will not see.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 June 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteCome talk to me when I can vote on whether or not I want to pay income taxes. Best you stay with physics, professor. Ha ha. It seems everyone but you can see that corporate welfare exists. Even Michelle M. I don't recall saying that it didn't. Countering arguments that weren't made again, professor? QuoteNone so blind as those that will not see. Agreed... but when all you've got is "big business BAD", it's sort of expected.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
