2 ms·

> That's wrong if I can find a single counter example. The same isn't true of my position. It's true my statement was brief, but I have made that position more

> That's wrong if I can find a single counter example. The same isn't true of my position. It's true my statement was brief, but I have made that position more clear. It's not that government is always good, but in the present UK and US situations, the state funds a number of support programs which are horrendously underfunded. I don't think any reasonable person could justify cutting social benefits or healthcare coverage, and so my position outlines itself. Good programs like these should be funded until poverty is eliminated. There's plenty of money around to do it and Apple having $55b instead of $50b in investments would change nothing for them, and everything for hundreds of thousands of poor people.

bmelton 13y ago
"I don't think any reasonable person could justify cutting social benefits or healthcare coverage, and so my position outlines itself." Plenty of people have very convincing arguments for doing both. More to the point though, many who argue at cutting those types of services at the federal level aren't necessarily insisting that they should be cut altogether (though obviously there are those that do). My personal belief is that the federal government is the American federal government is the least efficient possible organization you can give your money to, for any reason. I would feel much more comfortable paying that money directly to charity (of which I donate considerably to, also which don't include loans to my friends, which by the way aren't tax deductible either way), or failing that, would rather pay it into a state funded initiative, where the dollars will be kept closer to home and be more efficiently spent according to the needs of the state. Obviously this works better in small states like Maryland than larger ones like California or Texas, but it still allows them more control to exercise than something handed down from the federal government.

bmelton 13y ago

"I don't think any reasonable person could justify cutting social benefits or healthcare coverage, and so my position outlines itself." Plenty of people have very convincing arguments for doing both. More to the point though, many who argue at cutting those types of services at the federal level aren't necessarily insisting that they should be cut altogether (though obviously there are those that do). My personal belief is that the federal government is the American federal government is the least efficient possible organization you can give your money to, for any reason. I would feel much more comfortable paying that money directly to charity (of which I donate considerably to, also which don't include loans to my friends, which by the way aren't tax deductible either way), or failing that, would rather pay it into a state funded initiative, where the dollars will be kept closer to home and be more efficiently spent according to the needs of the state. Obviously this works better in small states like Maryland than larger ones like California or Texas, but it still allows them more control to exercise than something handed down from the federal government.