Single Payer

[ShockCrazy]

How can this be? Aren't those huge companies all run by liberal progressives? They would never grow so large as to have too much wealth and power. Would they? Or are we just supposed to believe they will be more responsible with all that wealth and power?

Not really Bezos is a libertarian, and Cook has donated on both sides of the aisle, usually about specific issues, but mostly has fund raised for Republicans, most recently with Paul Ryan.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

The US military
Interstate highway system
Emergency 911 services

I could list more. None of those 3 are perfect by any means, but each is operated far better than "the worst run private companies".



I did not say anything about wanting to grow the federal government. Clearly you are putting words in my mouth.

I'll add:

National Park Service
FDIC
National Weather Service
Consumer Product Safety Commission
National Transportation Safety Board

There are others.

[shockmonster]

Senator Portman (hardly a Trump supporter) today said that Repeal and replace wasn't dead in the Senate and there were efforts still being made to make a better bill. Time will make it difficult with the other issues before them, but there are still Senators who want to do it.

[Play Angry]

I consider myself conservative but there is one topic that is concerning to me that doesn't get a lot of play and is considered blasphemy when I talk to my conservative friends. This is regarding the extreme wealth that is being generated. I'm not talking about people making $500k a year, but the people making tens of millions+. The wealth of the US over the past 20 some years has been moving more and more to the few. I believe our government made rules to prevent this when families like the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Carnegies, etc., started controlling vast amounts of wealth. We are getting to the point where that is happening again, yet it is companies that are controlling everything - Amazon, Google, Apple, to name a few. It is concerning what direction we are headed. I'm all for capitalism, but extreme wealth could be damaging to our society.

Wars/revolutions and plagues have historically been the catalyst for ending a cycle of expansion of the wealth gap. We're probably due for a disruptive event relatively soon.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

All these discussions seem, to me at least (when we discuss tax cuts), to take the stance that the current amount of revenue and the way it's collected is the absolute minimum amount in total, and the absolute minimum amount of the wealthiest portion to contribute. We literally NEVER have a discussion where it's even possible that some in the middle or slightly above or below might have to give a little more. It's blasphemous. Only the # of people that don't pay must go up, and the wealthiest few must pay more.

Do you think that has to do with the fact that those of us discussing it have little to nothing to do with either of those groups?

In my opinion, one of the great absurdities of our tax code is refundable credits that can generate a tax refund in excess of a taxpayer's tax liability. This should not happen. NO ONE should ever get back more than they pay in. I'm fine with a zero liability in certain extreme circumstances, but nearly everyone should be obligated to pay something.

Another great absurdity of our tax code is a structure that allows Warren Buffet to pay a lower effective rate than his secretary.

One last absurdity: lower rates on unearned income than on earned income. Real, actual, honest to God work should be rewarded with lower rates.

I'm all in for tax reform. But I feel the outcomes from reforms Trump will pursue will look vastly different than what I would want to pursue.

[ShockerPrez]

The only way to get the ultra rich is to tax wealth. But there are issues with doing that as well.

A real radical approach would be for the Fed government to just send an invoice to the states based on population and the states decide how to raise the money to pay the Fed. Eliminate federal taxation on a personal level entirely.

Maybe leave Fica and SS taxes in place, but eliminate personal income tax.

[shockfan89_]

The US military
Interstate highway system
Emergency 911 services

I could list more. None of those 3 are perfect by any means, but each is operated far better than "the worst run private companies".



I did not say anything about wanting to grow the federal government. Clearly you are putting words in my mouth.

LOL really? I don't think the worst run private company has ever paid $37 for a screw, $436 for a hammer, $640 for a toilet seat, not to mention leaving 7 Billion worth of equipment in Afghanistan, 1.3 billion on a failed health records system, 2 billion on an unsuccessful upgrade of the electronic medical records system, overpaid a contractor by 757 million, 1 billion on a failed logistics management system. In 2011 Boeing charged the Army $1,678 for rubber coasters that cost $7 to build. The GAO also found the military posses 7.1 billion of excess spare parts (I believe this was before leaving the 7 billion worth of equipment in Afghanistan) Maybe that was done on purpose to balance the books?

Compare the KS DOT to the private run Kansas Turnpike (before they merged) and you will know just how inefficient government can be...

[ShockCrazy]

LOL really? I don't think the worst run private company has ever paid $37 for a screw, $436 for a hammer, $640 for a toilet seat, not to mention leaving 7 Billion worth of equipment in Afghanistan, 1.3 billion on a failed health records system, 2 billion on an unsuccessful upgrade of the electronic medical records system, overpaid a contractor by 757 million, 1 billion on a failed logistics management system. In 2011 Boeing charged the Army $1,678 for rubber coasters that cost $7 to build. The GAO also found the military posses 7.1 billion of excess spare parts (I believe this was before leaving the 7 billion worth of equipment in Afghanistan) Maybe that was done on purpose to balance the books?

Compare the KS DOT to the private run Kansas Turnpike (before they merged) and you will know just how inefficient government can be...

You seem to circle on every public failing and ignore that private failures happen. Here's one close to Wichita, ever hear of the Learjet 85?

[pinstripers]

You seem to circle on every public failing and ignore that private failures happen. Here's one close to Wichita, ever hear of the Learjet 85?

Private failures DO happen. Public failures continue to do business.

[jdshock]

1)Being a progressive, I assume you already donate excess income to the IRS, yes?
2)Can you define "a small amount of wealth redistribution"? I don't need details, just a general thought. It appears to me we already have a system with a moderate wealth redistribution system in place, but I suppose all of these debates are about our own personal baseline.
3)Again, disparity is in the eye of the beholder I guess. I believe the system we have allows for mostly that opportunity now. If you work hard, go to school, study and stay out of trouble you ever chance to be successful in this country. If you want it handed to you, then not so much.

1) That's just not a persuasive argument. I can think the government should put a stop sign at a specific unprotected intersection, but it doesn't mean I have to come to a complete stop every time I go through that intersection beforehand.
2) Yeah, I think the current income tax system has a small to moderate amount.
3) Eye of the beholder and all, I guess. Wealth disparity is just getting worse. More money is collected at the top and there is less elsewhere. Maybe that is because the middle class is slacking more than ever, but I don't think so.

[shockfan89_]

You seem to circle on every public failing and ignore that private failures happen. Here's one close to Wichita, ever hear of the Learjet 85?

I don't have to pay for private failures like Learjet 85 (unless I am an employee or own stock), I have to pay a part of every federal public failing. Yes, I guess you could say I care a lot more about the failures being funded with my tax dollars.

[ShockCrazy]

I don't have to pay for private failures like Learjet 85 (unless I am an employee or own stock), I have to pay a part of every federal public failing. Yes, I guess you could say I care a lot more about the failures being funded with my tax dollars.

Yet you somehow believe that suddenly everything being privatized is going to magically make these failures disappear.

[pinstripers]

Yet you somehow believe that suddenly everything being privatized is going to magically make these failures disappear.

nothing magical about it

[ShockCrazy]

nothing magical about it

Wait... So let me get this straight... You agreed private companies fail, you have issue with public failures, but privatizing public entities will stop failure?

[shockfan89_]

Wait... So let me get this straight... You agreed private companies fail, you have issue with public failures, but privatizing public entities will stop failure?

Private companies are forced to compete with other private companies (the marketplace) to survive. Typically, the companies that are most efficiently run are going to survive longer. This doesn't mean private companies don't make mistakes or fail. This means they are FORCED to operate as efficiently as possible to compete, and they must correct mistakes in order to stay in business. Government programs, especially at the federal level, don't have to compete AT ALL. They are allocated more and more money every year to perform the same functions they performed last year (often providing the same sub-par services but with more tax dollars).

There are VERY few instances where private companies couldn't provide the same services for far less money. That doesn't mean it would work every time, but we should always check to see if a private company could provide the service before creating a government program to do it.