Prelude to War in Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

I can understand how welfare, such as unconditional unemployment benefits, can reduce the motility of the workforce. Something Clinton addressed very well with Welfare Reform. But how can you possibly rationalise that efficiently-run, well-resourced state health and education systems (run parrallel to private systems) can be BAD for class motility, is beyond my comprehension.

---

That is really the thing though. There is no way for the US to have those things right now. The government does not care about streamlining things, and making them run better and cheaper. Regardless of how badly the US needs tort reform, no one high up cares anything about it. The US is so bad off that we have a shortage of the flu vac, something directly caused by no tort reform.


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bacon McShig

We desperately need to allow competition between manufacturers for production of military products, I'm pretty sure that's a BIG part of the costs... goods manufactured for military use are only produced by a few companies, which charge a huge amount because they can. IIRC, I read something along the lines of a simple hammer costing the military like $75 each... just ludicrous.

---

This is true, but those things are accounted for somewhat. The real problem is all the things unaccounted for. The total last I saw, was 1.1 Trillion, with a T, in unaccounted spending (effectively lost) over the last 6 1/2 years.

Thats 1/8th of the debt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

That is really the thing though. There is no way for the US to have those things right now. The government does not care about streamlining things, and making them run better and cheaper. Regardless of how badly the US needs tort reform, no one high up cares anything about it. The US is so bad off that we have a shortage of the flu vac, something directly caused by no tort reform.


.

---

Effiency is where I become a conservitive (in liking the idea of smaller, much much smaller government). Typically, I tend to belive more power should be entrusted to the states and their federal counterparts (in departments like education, both in prelimenary education and higher education as well as things like health, and even defense) should be largely geared towards accounting and organization of any centralized activity, drawing resources for the states only then. I haven't fleshed this out though. Basically, I just want to remove the centralization of all (if possible) government agencys - moreso - removing the power they have over current state counterparts. I also think municipal government should play a larger role in state affairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

You can't work because of a brain tumor? Look, guy, we really need you and if you can't show up we're going to have to replace you. I know, that's tough son, but this is AMERICA. Pull yourself up by the bootstraps, dust yourself off and work really hard for that cancer treatment, meals for your kids, rent and laughable efforts to save money or invest it wisely.

---

Exactly. Public health care and disability pensions are THE R0x0r.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Well, I really didn't address the welfare system at all, merely that more money is being placed there than any other facet of government and it's responsible for most of the national debt. You can make whatever case you want about the benefits of healthcare and human services and I won't argue with you - the substantial problem here, however, is that we cannot afford to pay for it as is clearly evidenced by the deficit and the percentage of that that is comprised of Health and Human Services.

---

You realise the problem that is the deficit. Yet, you support a goverment who's fiscal policy is to create deficits upon deficits to force goverment agencies into catabolisation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Exactly. Public health care and disability pensions are THE R0x0r.

You realise the problem that is the deficit. Yet, you support a goverment who's fiscal policy is to create deficits upon deficits to force goverment agencies into catabolisation?

---

Who supports what government? I don't support Bush, I just thought he was less of a problem than Kerry - especially fiscally.

What is "catabolisation", anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

What is "catabolisation", anyway?

---

Breakdown.

Was this the thread where we were talking about Congress passing everything Bush wants willy nilly?

"Congress has eliminated the financing of research supported by President Bush into a new generation of nuclear weapons, including investigations into low-yield atomic bombs and an earth-penetrating warhead that could destroy weapons bunkers deep underground...

The Bush administration called in 2002 for exploring new nuclear weapons that could deter a wide range of threats, including possible development of a warhead that could go after hardened, deeply buried targets, or lower-power bombs that could be used to destroy chemical or biological stockpiles without contaminating a wide area..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Breakdown.

---

Nah, Catobolisation doesn't exist.

Catobolize, Catobolized, Catobolizes.

I'm being a dick, sorry. :/

Catabolism's a scientific term. It's when big molecules break down into smaller ones and release energy.

Yes, but Catabolisation is a word that doesn't exist, broken down or not. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Yes, but Catabolisation is a word that doesn't exist, broken down or not. ;)

---

Yes, yes, I'm sorry I produced a word from syntax and not from a dictionary.