Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (81581)	10/22/2009 9:54:10 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"This reminds me of the liberals wanting Government option... which then opens the can of worms: "what WILL the government pay for?" Clearly they cant pay for everything that is available out there... yet there doesn't seem to be the necessary discussion... things like "who DOES get transplants"? Yukky and messy." I find myself getting messy when I just wade in on a side of the argument that feels comfortable at the time. Like most people I can imagine problems getting fixed with money and the government seems to have lots. I'm a real skeptic about conventional wisdom because popular appeal is, well its appealing to the point of being gratuitous. So, like in this example, I pull out of the current political land scape and ask my self a couple of questions like: "What is government for, where does spending come in to that?" "Should the government pay for anything?", if so "What is the underlying principle that drives government payment of anything?" again apart from current circumstance "Where are the parameters of government spending?" "What is the line of abuse or corruption" Basically you have to either go with one of the major economic philosophical points of view or come up with your own policy that is consistant across circumstance.