for those who want to reduce government services - what country is your model?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Switzerland basically tackled and won the war on opioids by investing in treatment. Not exactly the direction our country is going on solving anything.

Socialists. All headed for hell.

Have you ever been to a Socialist country? They are AMAZING. I lived in the UK for 5 years and it was not hell at all.

And if you mean like Jesus doesn't like socialists...you should read the Acts of the Apostles. Jesus was basically a Communist. "And all the believers met together in one place and shared everything they had. 45 They sold their property and possessions and shared the money with those in need. 46 They worshiped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord’s Supper, and shared their meals with great joy and generosity.

LoL. Jesus was not basically a communist. Communism does what it does with a gun to your head. You have no choice.

Do much misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Switzerland basically tackled and won the war on opioids by investing in treatment. Not exactly the direction our country is going on solving anything.

Socialists. All headed for hell.

Have you ever been to a Socialist country? They are AMAZING. I lived in the UK for 5 years and it was not hell at all.

And if you mean like Jesus doesn't like socialists...you should read the Acts of the Apostles. Jesus was basically a Communist. "And all the believers met together in one place and shared everything they had. 45 They sold their property and possessions and shared the money with those in need. 46 They worshiped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord’s Supper, and shared their meals with great joy and generosity.

LoL. Jesus was not basically a communist. Communism does what it does with a gun to your head. You have no choice.

Do much misinformation.

See Acts 5:1-10 for what supposedly happened to people who weren't with the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Switzerland basically tackled and won the war on opioids by investing in treatment. Not exactly the direction our country is going on solving anything.

Socialists. All headed for hell.

Have you ever been to a Socialist country? They are AMAZING. I lived in the UK for 5 years and it was not hell at all.

And if you mean like Jesus doesn't like socialists...you should read the Acts of the Apostles. Jesus was basically a Communist. "And all the believers met together in one place and shared everything they had. 45 They sold their property and possessions and shared the money with those in need. 46 They worshiped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord’s Supper, and shared their meals with great joy and generosity.

LoL. Jesus was not basically a communist. Communism does what it does with a gun to your head. You have no choice.

Do much misinformation.

See Acts 5:1-10 for what supposedly happened to people who weren't with the program.

NP and excellent analogy for the gun to the head Pp. Those who did not conform and turn over all their profits for the many were killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Somalia.

I was going to say the northwestern frontier province of Pakistan.

It's like the Wild West guys!


All joking aside, they don't have a model. It's just whining and "duh librelz" without any real solutions to problems. Except I guess survival of the fittest.

[Anonymous]

Why look to other countries for examples when we have the history of the United States itself as the best example.

[Anonymous]

Let's go back to Clinton-era welfare reform. It was working until Obama tried to weaken it and get more people dependent on government again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why look to other countries for examples when we have the history of the United States itself as the best example.

how so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's go back to Clinton-era welfare reform. It was working until Obama tried to weaken it and get more people dependent on government again.

you're missing the point. my question is: please point to a nation that has thrived under austerity or minimal social spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's go back to Clinton-era welfare reform. It was working until Obama tried to weaken it and get more people dependent on government again.

you're missing the point. my question is: please point to a nation that has thrived under austerity or minimal social spending.

You also asked foe a state example. We have counter examples, like Kansas, where cutting back on services made the Kansas economy worse than neighboring states, to the point that even the Republican legislature balked at further cuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One could look at Singapore or Switzerland, but they are very small countries.

They are also countries with very strong Nanny States that regulate nearly every part of your day to day life. You get fined for EVERYTHING in Switzerland and Singapore.

Here’s a good example: trash bags. In Switzerland, the only trash bags you are allowed to buy are those with a tax-paid tag. Each trash bag costs you around $5 USD in order to ensure that you personally incur the costs for your waste. If you accidentally place a recyclable item in the waste trash bag, that is also a fine (around $50 USD). Public wastebaskets are also pretty rare in Switzerland. I’ve carried around my garbage (eg, an empty side can) for the better part of a day because there is a real cost ($5 garbage bags) for businesses to provide garbage service to the public.

Americans would be shocked at how well certain counties enforce their rules and laws. That’s the biggest inconsistency with America: we claim to love freedom and capitalism, but we throw a hissy fit when someone tries to make us pay for the externalities we impose upon others. That doesn’t happen in Switzerland or Singapore. You pay for ANY resource you use.

That's how they do it in my hometown in NH. Recycling is free, but you have to pay like $3 for every special city-labeled trash bag (you can't use regular Glad bags). Or you can take your trash to the dump yourself and pay a tip fee. So people who don't want to recycle or generate a lot of trash pay a lot more than people who generate very little, unlike my city here in VA where everyone pays the same quarterly solid waste fee that includes trash and recycling.

Of course NH also doesn't have a state income or sales tax. Localities fund schools through property taxes, so people pay like $18,000 a year for a small old house assessed at $250,000, yet the schools are still not very well funded. There were years we only had art or music once a month in elementary, no foreign languages or JV sports, etc. When people talk about "local control," it makes inequalities much greater than when social costs are spread across entire states or across the country. Small localities just can't finance things like long term care or education at 21st century standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's go back to Clinton-era welfare reform. It was working until Obama tried to weaken it and get more people dependent on government again.

At least Obama kept his constituents happy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's go back to Clinton-era welfare reform. It was working until Obama tried to weaken it and get more people dependent on government again.

you're missing the point. my question is: please point to a nation that has thrived under austerity or minimal social spending.

Great Britain

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's go back to Clinton-era welfare reform. It was working until Obama tried to weaken it and get more people dependent on government again.

you're missing the point. my question is: please point to a nation that has thrived under austerity or minimal social spending.

Great Britain

You do realize they have Socialized Medicine and lots of people on Welfare, right?

I'm pro Universal Helathcare btw...I think its HILARIOUS someone picked the UK. Clearly a very ignorant person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's go back to Clinton-era welfare reform. It was working until Obama tried to weaken it and get more people dependent on government again.

you're missing the point. my question is: please point to a nation that has thrived under austerity or minimal social spending.

Great Britain

Great Britain at its most austere has way higher social spending than we do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why look to other countries for examples when we have the history of the United States itself as the best example.

This is kind of silly - we don't have a lot of history to consider. The social safety net was really only formed after the Great Depression, in order to prevent such conditions again. It's still an experiment, and its outcomes remain to be seen. Plus, it was actually expanded under George W. and then reduced (slightly) under Obama. The problem is, as others have noted, that the U.S. does provide less to its citizens than other countries, but for the most part taxes them just the same. There are huge inefficiencies and inequities, some due to the sheer large/decentralized nature of the country.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-16/the-u-s-social-safety-net-has-improved-a-lot provides a good overview of things.

As for models? There are none. Health care is a basic need of all citizens, and until the U.S. ensures its accessible to all, at equitable rates, we will have problems. A wealthy society is not the same as a society with a lot of wealthy people. We are not a wealthy society in the way that many countries are, such as those in Scandinavia. We have more people at the extremes, both wealth and poverty. They have a larger middle. And surely everyone here understands that that is the more appropriate societal goal.