Watch more of the videos from that day and not just the ones the mainstream media wants you to see. There were plenty of folks there who were peaceful and looking to make their voices heard.
Choices have consequences
- Thread starter greybeard
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
But hospitals should?
simme
Old Dumb Guy
I suspect that a lot of people on the left would say "yes". They appear to want free college, free health care, free everything. I suspect that a significant number would think the hospitals and doctors should all be government employees dispensing their services to everyone with no bill sent for their services. If our current administration were asked that question, I am afraid of the answer. Seems like some want us to go down the path of the government providing all essential services. We have somewhat been inching along on that path for a while, but looking at a big acceleration now it seems. Isn't that sort of what the Soviet Union tried to do? If I remember correctly, most people there lost any incentive to put forth an effort, the government was not able to deliver many services, but owned almost everything. Then the whole system collapsed in 1991. Some of our young political folks may not have read that history lesson.
Buck Randall
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,697
- Reaction score
- 3,148
u4411clb
Well-known member
You are correct these poor red states should get off the government tit and taking money from blue states that pay more in taxes than they get back unlike the red states looking for handouts.
OP
OP
greybeard
Well-known member
simme
Old Dumb Guy
I did not mention states at all. Problem is that the government keeps spending money that it does not have. At current spending rate, the current way is not sustainable. And now we have a group in charge that wants to ratchet that up even more. We don't need the government "tit" that you mentioned. What is the logic to take money from people and give it back to different people. Is that fostering economic growth and prosperity for the country? Does the government add value in doing that? I know that if I spend more money than I take in for year after year, I will go broke. Pretty sure that is the way it works for everyone - individual, company, state and country. Most efficient way to generate wealth and prosperity is to work and provide a product or service at the individual level. Not to print money or take from one and give to another. Within a family, if you take from each family member and give to another family member, at the end of the day, you don't have any more than you started with. But if all family members work to make something for sale or provide a service, at the end of the day, the family will have more. They generated wealth and added value. That principle works for family, company or country. My reference to the Soviet Union that went broke after having a long term attitude that the government owns everything and takes care of the people - that definitely did not work for them. They went broke and could not feed themselves. The path we seem to be headed toward - should we expect a different result?
u4411clb
Well-known member
I don't worry about the government spending money they don't have. It is more them spending it on crap. Government and business are not apples to apples but if Amazon builds a warehouse they are spending money they don't have if government builds a rural hospital or a school or the military or interstate they are spending money they don't have it is called investing. But giving money to other countries and paying people not to work and tax cuts for corporations that build products overseas and sell them here but all their bosses live in US and welfare and drug programs for these pill poppers and heroin users no thanks.
