Could this be the reason why there are fewer clients calling?

Started Feb 12, 2013 | Discussions thread
Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,076
Re: Could this be the reason why there are fewer clients calling?

ptox wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

ptox wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

PenguinPhotoCo wrote:

'feed the need' of what?
The govt's 'give back' programs - SS, medicare, unemployment, foodstamps, etc all have very reasonable reasons for being - mostly because we as individuals suck at planning our own futures.

That is a TERRIBLE reason for such programs to exist. The federal government is supposed to be as limited in scope as possible. It is not supposed to be an eternal safety net. SS, medicare, unemployment, food stamps, etc. are some of the absolutely most destructive forces that can be inserted into an economy. They are escalating in cost and therefore destabilizing forces that when left unchecked will inevitably lead to economic hardship on a national scale.

Handwaving nonsense. Responsibly and intelligently administered medicare is a stabilizing force because it mitigates the potential of personal financial disaster in case of medical emergency and returns people to productivity sooner. You can apply similar arguments in favor of all the programs you cite: it's far cheaper for a society to help a person up front than it is to bear the cost of his dissolution. That is the reason needle exchanges, supervised injection sites and other harm-reduction programs are highly cost-effective: they're simply cheaper than the alternative of ambulances and emergency rooms.

Uneducated nonsense on several levels. First, the idea that the system we have is either responsibly or intelligently administered is laughable at best. The theory is sound but the practice is an unmitigated disaster. Next, you've completely misunderstood my argument. You say it's cheaper to help upfront than bear the cost of his dissolution, but I don't believe the government has any responsibility to bear that dissolution, thus eradicating your argument.

So is it nonsense, or is it unrealistic?

Things ('solutions') that are suggested for real life that are unrealistic are nonsense. It's not an either or.

The problem with you minimalist-government types is that you have no answer for the next logical question, which is if not the government, then who? Since dissolute people don't simply disappear, someone has to deal with them (to put it bluntly).

US! The citizens should be the ones responsible for each other. Our families, our friends, the widows and orphans and the poor and the needy. These are who WE are called to help and to aid. Directly, with our own hands and with the strength of our communities, not indirectly through mandatory taxes paid to in ineffectual government.

In places where government is not the solution (because it can't or won't), that means slums and shantytowns, disease and massive crime--of the sort that doesn't stay where it begins. I suspect the purity of your ideology would suffer once these began to appear on the outskirts of your hometown.

Incorrect. The government is virtually never the solution. In places where those things are happening it's a break down of community.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D750 Nikon D5 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow