Someone explain, how the Republican party is still alive...


Last Updated: 2012-11-07 19:43:51
  1. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    A handout mentality is evidently not wrong with America, countries with this mentality are actually more efficient.

    And no, the states should provide services to their people. Thats their job. The US seems to be the only place in the world where states bitch and moan yet fail to provide healthcare, comprehensive education etc.

    Advertisement
  2. kool kat2

    kool kat2 Well-Known Member

  3. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    More efficient in what way?

    States rights in the US went the way of the dodo back after the civil war. I don't blame you for not knowing that as you don't live here, but to anyone who lives here that is obvious. The states have gradually surrendered their rights to the feds ever since. It is generally thought that the responsibility for providing such things rests at the federal level, not the state level.
  4. Bob Blaylock

    Bob Blaylock Well-Known Member

  5. Bob Blaylock

    Bob Blaylock Well-Known Member

    I agree that this is certain a way in which our nation has gone badly downhill since its founding.

    It does seem noteworthy to see you arguing with a European, who thinks we don't have enough of a handout mentality, and arguing in favor of a much worse version than what now infests our nation. I guess this demonstrates that as much as our own society has degraded, it is still far ahead of the rest of the world.
  6. Bob Blaylock

    Bob Blaylock Well-Known Member

    See the Tenth Amendment. The vast majority of what the federal government now does, it does in open violation of the Constitution.
  7. bberryhill0

    bberryhill0 Well-Known Member

    Wait, are you saying that politicians are conscious?!?
  8. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Well, there is less wastage, more services for less, whatever. I'm not saying a handout mentality is good or anything but it really is irrelevant as such.

    Of course I know this, but the fact remains that states have a lot more sovereignty than they would in many other federations,

    Uhm... hi o/

    Anyway, the reason there is a minimum rate of VAT is due to the customs union. If there wasnt a minimum rate, one state wold set there standard rate at 0% and everyone would buy their TVs there, and in the end you would have to set up customs checkpoints inside the union (!).


    From what I have seen, it is in place in every civilised nation, from New Zealand to Malta.

    Ah yes, American superiority. Low life expectancy, higher poverty rates than most of post-communist Europe, people going bankrupt because they get ******* sick, ridiculous teen pregnancy rates, excruciatingly high greenhouse gas emissions, terrible divorce statistics, high murder rates... the list goes on.
    Gmash likes this.
  9. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Here in the states, states are allowed to set their own sales tax. Some states have no sales tax and people who live near the borders regularly cross the state line to buy their big ticket items. The company I work for was founded in California and has since relocated almost all of it's business to North Carolina. Only it's main HQ is still in California since we're a tech company and you basically have to have a presence there. Why did they relocate everything to North Carolina? Because it's cheaper to do business there. If a state can get a way with 0% taxes, let them. Competition is good IMHO.

    Same problems you have in every other country on the planet. Just saying. The US isn't perfect. But we do tend to produce more and innovate more than any other country on the planet. Those who live in poverty in the US tend to live a higher standard of living than the middle class in a lot of countries in the world.
  10. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Oh of course, countries set there own sales tax rates here too, and they often have different exemptions! Its just a minimum rate which makes sense. Tax competition is not good at all. It merely creates a race to the bottom, leading more of the burden to be placed on lower earners.

    Well you know, I am talking about developed countries. And these developed countries are doing better on most of these fronts. Most of which have experienced far more war and and have far less resources per head than the US. Those in poverty in the developed world will obviously live better than the middle class in Bihar, for loads of reasons. But that is a moot point as Bihar for example is 20 times as poor as our countries.
  11. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Got it. Competition is bad.
  12. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    It often is! Of course in some areas the government needs to enforce monopolies for the populaces benefit, in other areas it needs to prevent monopolies. Can't be black and white about this.
  13. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Can't agree. I think competition almost always (99%) of the time good for everyone and certainly good for consumers. Here we have states businesses are abandoning (looking at you CA) because taxes are high and the cost of doing business there is simply much higher than going across the country. States competing for business is good for everyone IMO. Brings jobs. Improves the economy. Etc.....

    Monopolies can be good or bad but tend to be bad. I can't think of a case where the government needs to protect a monopoly. At least not off hand.
  14. bberryhill0

    bberryhill0 Well-Known Member

    The government regulates natural monopolies like utilities.
  15. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    True. Regulates is different than protect though. If mom and pop open a nuclear power station and start competing with the local power company I don't think it's the feds job to stop mom and pop from doing so. Granted, this is an extreme example, but you know what I mean.
  16. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    I guess though the government might only feel certain companies are fit to run large power stations. In most countries nuclear power is run by state-owned companies, and for very good reasons (EDF is one plenty will know of). Perhaps a better analogy is if the Johnsons put a wind turbine on their land, and decide to sell power back to the grid - should they be forced to sell it to the monolpoly, or be part of a free market where they sell it to the company who will pay the most (I don't really have an opinion on this, competition is good in most cases, but for stuff like power its inefficent and government needs more influence in energy use what with greenhouse gas emissions and pollution).
  17. Strings

    Strings Well-Known Member

    >And no, the states should provide services to their people. Thats their job<

    Ok... it's been awhile since I read the Constitution, but I don't recall anything in there about healthcare, education, welfare, or any of the other "services" most on the left seem to expect government to provide...
  18. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    So? Thats not the point of constitutions. Anyway I'm sure a few states have that set out in their constitutions anyway, its a common thing to do to set out some sort of moral ideal for their societies.

    Also most on the left? I can assure you those to the right of center expect the government to provide and/or ensure these things, although perhaps in a different way to the Social Democrats or Greens or whatever.
  19. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Nuclear power may not have been the best example, but you see my point. Government regulation that quashes competition causes more problems than it cures IMO. Just look at wireless carriers in the US vs the UK. Only one UK carrier has LTE and they just turned it on recently. Here in the US where regs are much looser three of the 4 carriers have LTE, all of them have some version of 4G and we've had LTE here for the past two years.
  20. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    In the US, the government not getting involved has ruined the telecoms industry. You have to pay to receive calls in the US! In Europe there is way more competition between carriers, and roaming is free in your home country, and almost completely free outside your carriers country. Yes 4G is coming down the pipeline slower, but thats because our 3G network is so good in the first place. Customers in Europe are a lot less tied down, contracts are largely the domain of business users and people who wont pay up front for their expensive shiny new phone.
    Gmash likes this.
  21. Gmash

    Gmash Well-Known Member

    The US is one of the worst in the developed world when it comes to cellular service.
  22. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I've looked at UK contracts before just for fun since I had been told that cell service was cheaper over there. I came away unconvinced. Plans are still limited by minutes like they are in the US. (How those minutes are calculated I confess I don't know.) Here domestic roaming is free on every major network that I know of. Leave the country and you get charged an arm and a leg. I don't know of any real complaints about the 3g network here there is just demand for faster speeds. Providers are trying to differentiate themselves. Sprint rolls out wi-max. VZW rolls out LTE which is faster and blasts Sprint and ATT for having slower speeds. Now all three networks have LTE. Data plans in the UK just look so limited to me. I haven't seen one unlimited plan (though people may be grandfathered into them over there) while most people here either are grandfathered into one or they can go to Sprint and get unlimited. I don't see very many unlimited talk plans in the UK though those are common here and the highest data plan I've found limits you to 2gb a month. You can easily get 4 -10 GB a month plans here though you pay extra for it.
  23. savethebees

    savethebees Active Member

    I can't agree more. If we didn't have competition and all we had was, say, a single cellular company monopoly, we would never be offered any specials because they wouldn't need to be offered. It would be like that in a lot of other aspects.
  24. Gmash

    Gmash Well-Known Member

    I don't think anyone wants a monopoly, but the role the government should play is in setting some standards. They should have settled on one network format, either GSM or CDMA, instead of competing incompatible networks that have held the whole country back. Asia is far ahead in terms of network speeds and reliability.
    ElasticNinja likes this.

Share This Page