TorilMUD Forums

I was discussing the 200 million dollars for free contraceptives in the stimulus bill with an obama supporter today and he said well do you know why its in the bill, and of course I didn't. Apparently its in there because spending 200 million on contraceptives saves the government 600 million in other costs. Of course I have a fundamental problem with that, but I want to discuss the bigger picture. Why is our government in the busines of increasing / protecting revenue...

Some examples:
Several states looking at how to offset the fall in ciggarette tax revenue as smoking rate declines
Oregon looking at taxing people based on the # of miles they drive rather than on the taxes on a gallon of gas
There was a lot of talk about the impact on tax revenues if the automakers went under.... from loss of revenue on cars sold and worker wages.

So many programs are being sold these days on how it impacts revenue. I just don't like it. The government shouldn't be around to figure out how to get more money. Obviously if you are going to provide services, you need to figure out how to pay for those services but is that the point of government to provide services? It just feels more and more like I'm here to pay taxes so the government can spend more. As they run out of money, they try and figure out new taxes, new fees, new ways to get more money and it really irritates me.

kiryan wrote:I was discussing the 200 million dollars for free contraceptives in the stimulus bill with an obama supporter today and he said well do you know why its in the bill, and of course I didn't. Apparently its in there because spending 200 million on contraceptives saves the government 600 million in other costs. Of course I have a fundamental problem with that, but I want to discuss the bigger picture. Why is our government in the busines of increasing / protecting revenue...

Umm... cutting costs is not the same as increasing revenue. You're basically complaining that the government is trying to spend less money!

Some examples:
Several states looking at how to offset the fall in ciggarette tax revenue as smoking rate declines
Oregon looking at taxing people based on the # of miles they drive rather than on the taxes on a gallon of gas
There was a lot of talk about the impact on tax revenues if the automakers went under.... from loss of revenue on cars sold and worker wages.

Yes, because the government has a budget and if not enough revenue comes in to meet that budget they must borrow money. Something you were complaining about a few days ago, if I remember correctly. You can't have it both ways.

So many programs are being sold these days on how it impacts revenue. I just don't like it. The government shouldn't be around to figure out how to get more money. Obviously if you are going to provide services, you need to figure out how to pay for those services but is that the point of government to provide services? It just feels more and more like I'm here to pay taxes so the government can spend more. As they run out of money, they try and figure out new taxes, new fees, new ways to get more money and it really irritates me.

Except that the government just CUT 600 million in costs by passing out contraceptives. You understand that this makes it so you pay less taxes, right?

you miss the point completely or perhaps I didn't articulate it right either way, I'm not going to argue with you.

I missed nothing, you articulated it very poorly. You spoke about cutting costs as a launching point to a completely different discussion. I was mostly pointing out that you had completely failed to make any real sense.

Work Harder, Millions on Welfare are Depending on You

Sarvis wrote:I missed nothing, you articulated it very poorly. You spoke about cutting costs as a launching point to a completely different discussion. I was mostly pointing out that you had completely failed to make any real sense.

You missed the point. Re-read (or, read for the first time?) the first sentance of the last paragraph.

teflor the ranger wrote:

Sarvis wrote:I missed nothing, you articulated it very poorly. You spoke about cutting costs as a launching point to a completely different discussion. I was mostly pointing out that you had completely failed to make any real sense.

You missed the point. Re-read (or, read for the first time?) the first sentance of the last paragraph.

Are you just trying to bait him or have you never worked in a large corporation?

Kiryan's first point was about decreasing operating ratio, which is a good thing. It is a percentage based term. To break it down, if you have an O/R of 95, then 95 cents of every dollar brought in goes to paying for the ability to continue existing. Saving money decreases the operating ratio. On a short term basis, you invest in lowering your O/R.

He then went on to discuss the way that local governments are looking to replace revenue and tied it to government altogether.

It may have been a semantic error on his part, but it was an error nonetheless. Decreasing operating ratio through investing is not the same as increasing revenue. An organization with a crappy operating ratio can have as much revenue as they want; they will still fail.

I, for one, am actually encouraged that our government is looking for ways to decrease its O/R because that means it can delay increasing its revenue and debt.

I'll apologize now for any slight that is perceived to my first sentence. I will also not get into a post by post argument with you; it's just not my style.

Vigis wrote:

teflor the ranger wrote:

Sarvis wrote:I missed nothing, you articulated it very poorly. You spoke about cutting costs as a launching point to a completely different discussion. I was mostly pointing out that you had completely failed to make any real sense.

You missed the point. Re-read (or, read for the first time?) the first sentance of the last paragraph.

Are you just trying to bait him or have you never worked in a large corporation?

You know this is Teflor, right?

Because we need to generate revenue in order to pay for all the bombs the Republicans made us drop on brown people. If you don't want the government to require revenue, stop voting for politicans that waste your money on stupid shit.

Hey Joe, Obama is going to keep bombing brown people FYI.

Hooray for yellow and white

Vigis wrote:Are you just trying to bait him or have you never worked in a large corporation?

I am not trying to bait him, he simply missed the point.

Also, I would be worried if we had to start viewing our government as a large corporation. Large corporations shouldn't have nuclear weapons and prisons.

Corporations seek to generate profits, to grow and to control.

I have a different view of government, and I think the founding fathers did as well which is why they drafted a document that heavily RESTRAINED the government and gave RIGHTS to the people.

Thank you for helping me understand exactly what I'm trying to say. Government is acting too much like a corporation.

kiryan wrote:Corporations seek to generate profits, to grow and to control.

Why is it good for Corporations to do that, again?

to enrich the owners / share holders. Thats why corporations exist.

So it's ok for a Corporation to try and grow and control things, because shareholders make a profit?

Sarvis wrote:So it's ok for a Corporation to try and grow and control things, because shareholders make a profit?

That's exactly what they are supposed to do.

So, for instance, if a corporation built and ran prisons it would be ok for them to have control over the laws that put people in prison?

Because there are corporations which own prisons, and they have very powerful lobbyists that helped make pot illegal and keep it that way so that the prisons stay nice and full.

Sarvis wrote:So, for instance, if a corporation built and ran prisons it would be ok for them to have control over the laws that put people in prison?

A corporation that builds prisons (they do not posess the authority in the operation of prisons in general) have the same lobbying powers that other corporations and citizen groups do and they are not only allowed, but are afforded the freedom to advocate for their own interests thanks to the sacrifice of those who helped build this country.

Essentially, they don't control the law, and the law is not something that prison building corporations control. Your weak point does not even appear to be valid.

Why would it be ok for a corporation to infringe upon your unalienable rights? Who said that?

I'm not following you again. Unless you are thinking that the way that a corporation seeks to control its supply chain and control channel / retailer pricing and inventory is akin to control... There is obviously a huge difference.

There are huge problems with the way corporations go about controlling things. The problem is government regulation creates an incentive for corporations to control politicians who can change the rules of the game and make winners and losers. Lets remember Lehaman Brothers, AIG and Merill for a minute. The government should be protecting us from corporations infringing upon our inalienable rights, but it seems no one wants rights, they want low interest rates, plasma tvs, free healthcare ect...

kiryan wrote:Why would it be ok for a corporation to infringe upon your unalienable rights? Who said that?

I believe Sarvis is making the faulty assumption that prison building corporations are the dictators of the law. If that is true, I for one, welcome our new prison building corporation masters.

kiryan wrote:Why would it be ok for a corporation to infringe upon your unalienable rights? Who said that?

You, just now. Putting words in my mouth, as it were.

You said Corporations seek growth and control, and I provided a real life example of corporations influencing law for profit. Growth and control.

I'm not following you again. Unless you are thinking that the way that a corporation seeks to control its supply chain and control channel / retailer pricing and inventory is akin to control... There is obviously a huge difference.

I have no idea where you're talking about, or where you got that from. supply chains were never mentioned anywhere in this thread. Again, I provided a real life example of how corporations are indirectly infringing upon our "inaliable rights" in the name of profit.

There are huge problems with the way corporations go about controlling things. The problem is government regulation creates an incentive for corporations to control politicians who can change the rules of the game and make winners and losers. Lets remember Lehaman Brothers, AIG and Merill for a minute. The government should be protecting us from corporations infringing upon our inalienable rights, but it seems no one wants rights, they want low interest rates, plasma tvs, free healthcare ect...

Yes, exactly. Corporate growth and control, which you laud, has led to an erosion of our rights.

It's always been funny to me how corporations can do no wrong when you talk to a conservative. For instance, if a government bans smoking in bars you'll hear no end of complaints of government overstepping it's authority and assailing our rights. If a Corporation fires someone who smokes, even if they only smoke on their own personal time, you won't hear a peep. Because as long as violating your rights is done in the name of profit, it's ok.

The type of control I am talking about is the type of control a corporation uses to make its business more productive to minimize risks. They exert control over their supply chain and over their retailers through contracts. They do this in a manner where each side has the ability to say yes or no. This is good control that a corporation seeks to have.

When corporations are out there influencing politicans to create laws that increase their profits its wrong. Corporations shouldn't be doing that, politicans shouldn't be doing that.

My point is that our government is not a corporation, it should not be operating like one because thats not its purpose. Its purpose is to uphold the constitution and protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority

--

I love this next part.

If a Corporation fires someone who smokes, even if they only smoke on their own personal time, you won't hear a peep. Because as long as violating your rights is done in the name of profit, it's ok.

LOL, What right would that be, your right to have a job? Your right to not be discriminated against? Corporations should be able to fire whomever they want, whenever they want, for whatever they want. If the owner doesn't like black people and wants to hire less qualified white people, then why should he have to hire them. Its his loss because his competitor will hire them.

It would be fine from my POV if all bars voluntarily banned smoking, thats not infringing on my rights. If no one else will, I can open a bar that allows smoking. When the government does it with a flat out ban, there is no alternative.

Sarvis wrote:I provided a real life example of corporations influencing law for profit.

It's called "democracy," Sarvis.

kiryan wrote:LOL, What right would that be, your right to have a job? Your right to not be discriminated against? Corporations should be able to fire whomever they want, whenever they want, for whatever they want. If the owner doesn't like black people and wants to hire less qualified white people, then why should he have to hire them. Its his loss because his competitor will hire them.

Unless all competitor's also hate black people -- then they just starve and die. The free market, because of free will, is not perfect. I think that the idea that the free market could cure racism is so far fetched, not even bill O or Rush pill junkie would put it on the air.

So basically, racism should be ok because of the free market?

A pure capitalist is not racist. If you choose to put yourself at a disadvantage by not hiring black people, then the market will punish you. On the other hand, if there is an advantage to not hiring black people, you shouldn't be forced to. Its all about how you see businesses.

Do they exist to make your life better, or do you have a job because they exist.

Unfortunately, the free market does not take into account the mindset of large chunks of the United States, where hiring practices may be influenced by potentially faulty ingrained perceptions based on discriminatory practices taught in the home. While things are getting better, to say that the free market would have compensated for 1970's or 1980's business practices in certain states of the country in terms of discrimination would be an error.

I'd go into the numbers for more recent markets, but they're shrinking and the response would only be "then those people should move to an area that doesn't discriminate against them." Of course, the way the economy is now, areas that are more racially friendly in the open market would likely not be able to handle the influx of displaced workers if that happened.

All that aside... it makes sense to me to create a resource for birth control if the result is that it saves taxpayers more than it costs them. I understand the reasoning behind not wanting the government to make decisions and create regulations and laws based on the perception of profit, but this doesn't seem to be a corporate profit-building issue. Is the resistance to the idea possibly based on other factors, such as personal feelings regarding birth control?

you spend 200 million because you're going to save 600 million. couldn't you just save 600 million by not spending it? I guess I'm just looking at it as they are "saving" money by spending money... and they are going to spend the "savings" anyways so we're not saving anything, we're just continuing to expand services (which will probably cost us more).

I mean the 600 million they are saving is going to be social services I'm sure... I suspect its factored over the lifetime of the children that wouldn't be born which then you have to ask yourself, is it really saving money since that person will earn wages and pay taxes...

It has nothing to do with being contraceptives, its just the one talked about most prominently in the news and the only one I'm aware of that has the savings justification documented so clearly. I mean theres money to make federal buildings more efficient ect, but they dont come out and say we're spending 5 million to repair this building to save 500k a year in heating costs.

I disagree Kiryan. The markets can only punish people so much. The influence of the market on people is not complete.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/02/04/obama/index.html

some good thinking points there, off topic, bye.

I absolutely agree with these two statements. Some of the rest I think is poor reporting at best.

--

Because wages got hit then by the double-whammy of global competition and new technologies, the typical American family was able to maintain its living standard only if women went into the workforce in larger numbers, and later, only if everyone worked longer hours.

When even these coping mechanisms were exhausted, families went into debt -- a strategy that was viable as long as home values continued to rise.

--

I'd throw someting in about the stock market and pensions too...

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with the idea that all the money is going to the rich people now. There is globalism which pits the lower class of America with the rest of the world. What makes the guy on the assembly line making 8.50 an hour better than the guy in China making 1.50 an hour?

I suppose you could consider it to be an investment of a type, but any effort expended today in order to improve things tomorrow is going to be an investment of some kind or another.

You can look at it as a loss of the potential income of unborn children, or you can look at it as an attempt to reduce the number of children born into a situation that fosters a generationally recurring lifestyle which will keep the majority of those children dependent on the taxpayer's dollar once they become adults.

Having an unwanted child isn't just an issue of a child who may grow up in poverty or neglect, it's also an issue of young women who give up educational and advancement opportunities, who face potentially life-threatening complications at young ages, who are taking on a burden that will keep them in a situation earning less and spending more than their peers. And yes, it does work that way. Some women are fortunate enough to have tight friends and family who help, but many don't (which is part of the reason they're in that situation in the first place). Where I work you're only allowed so many hours of unscheduled absence, so those mothers who have children who have multiple illnesses are always walking a tightrope of having too many absences to qualify for promotion or so many absences they have to worry about losing their job. We have mandatory overtime on Saturdays, and for women who don't have a network to help out with childcare, taking a child to a service on the weekend can cost so much that even with overtime you're paying more than you're making. I make decent money and it's still that case... what about women who aren't educated or bright enough to secure a position that pays enough to keep them comfortably above the poverty line?

No, I don't believe the government should be in the business of making moral or ethical decisions for us, or of making decisions based on profit or financial gain, but a decision like this is an investment into today's youth as much as it is an investment into tomorrow's social services programs. The savings in the cost of medical care for unwanted births, alone, is going to be substantial.

Now, if they would take that savings and funnel it back into educational opportunities in low income populations, we might make some forward progress.

so being a crazy right winger, the natural extension of this idea that the government should spend money to save money would be to pay people to have abortions in an effort to "save" money on future entitlements.

I really don't like how funding a program, providing contraceptives, is justified by saying we'll save money. Should the government be handing out contraceptives as a social program?

I suppose there's a lot to weigh on this issue. If birth control is considered a part of standard medical care, then it can fall under social services that handle medical care. $30.00 a month birth control or $30,000.00 childbirth and all the well and sick child visits after that, it's all medical care. Unfortunately, an abortion can fall under the same heading if approached in a strictly technical fashion without regard to the life created.

Do governements offer birth control as a social service? Do schools offer sex education as a lesson? Is routine wellchild care considered something medically necessary that taxpayers should have to foot on medicaid? Immunizations? Accidents due to stupidity such as injuries sustained while DUI?

I think most government programs are funded not just for the idea of how much money would be saved, but also for the concept of preventing hardship among the masses. Medical care is offered in the form of Medicaid to help children grow up healthy. Children who grow up healthy cost the taxpayers less in extended medical bills and also have a greater chance of becoming employed taxpaying adults, themselves. Impoverished children without medical care tend to make others sick, too. Immunizations keep some really nasty forms of disease from spreading from not only sick children, but to healthy children and adults, as well.

Can you see no other benefits to offering contraceptives as a social program other than saving money?

I understand and see the implications, but I dont want to get too far down that road. If spending this money is going to "save" us money, then I want to see 600 million cut out of the budget.

The reality is that they are going to spend this 200 million and spend the 600 million... probably in the same program that they were supposedly going to "save" it in.

kiryan wrote:I understand and see the implications, but I dont want to get too far down that road. If spending this money is going to "save" us money, then I want to see 600 million cut out of the budget.

The reality is that they are going to spend this 200 million and spend the 600 million... probably in the same program that they were supposedly going to "save" it in.

Nah, it'll go towards the Iraq war.

That's probably the truth of it, but until you can get private auditors into the government's books with full public disclosure, there's no chance the issue will be resolved.

My personal feeling is that the accounting for government programs should be made public, so that individuals can go to a site online and pull up the books for any government entity. Having a few disgruntled individuals calling foul on the misused funds in these programs just might lead to a better system. Having a few disgruntled individuals inside the organizations who can review a public accounting just might lead to a few more whistle blowers pointing out the areas we tend to hemmorhage taxpayer money the most.

Let a few hundred thousand people find out exactly what the budget is for televising ballet in space for potential alien review and they just might ask very loudly for a revision of how their money is being spent.

Lotteries are a good add to this thread. Oregon lottery accounts for 8% of the budget. There have been debates over the years as to whether Oregon should rely on lottery sales to fund spending.

They just banned smoking in bars, and between that and the recession, bar lottery sale are off 15-20% across the state. They've been thinking for 18 months on how to increase revenue, expecting this dynamic. They are constantly working on developing games that attract new players, analyzing the data, doing demographics on their players ect ect ect. My sister worked for the lottery for 3 years in their research department.

I think state lotteries are sick and wrong. Sick and wrong for the state to promote gambling. Sick and wrong for Indian casinos to portray them as "indian self reliance." Sick and wrong for the state to look at the people as a source of revenue.

The cigarette and liquor taxes are another good one. States across the nation are looking at what declining cigarette sales are doing to their budgets. Alaska enacted a fresh tax on Liquor a few years back and it reduced drinking significantly. Other states are looking at it and are faced with the quandry that they want to drive drinking rates down, but if they tax too much, they decrease their revenue. Does this sound like government has the right focus... making decisions based on how it affects revenue?

kiryan wrote:Sick and wrong for the state to look at the people as a source of revenue.

But perfectly ok for corporations to look at people as a source of revenue?

The cigarette and liquor taxes are another good one. States across the nation are looking at what declining cigarette sales are doing to their budgets. Alaska enacted a fresh tax on Liquor a few years back and it reduced drinking significantly. Other states are looking at it and are faced with the quandry that they want to drive drinking rates down, but if they tax too much, they decrease their revenue. Does this sound like government has the right focus... making decisions based on how it affects revenue?

Frankly, I'm more worried that they want to reduce drinking. We've tried that, it leads to worse problems than taxation.

Plus, I like drinking.

perfectly acceptable for corporations to look at us as sources of revenue because we have the power to choose what to consume and who to consume from. The government has direct control over us and their job / objective should be dramatically different than that of a corporation.

Government taxation ploys such as the tobacco and alcohol taxes are rediculous. For one, it gets in the way of business in that it cripples their ability to control prices of their goods. Secondly, it is legislature designed to curb behaviors they deem morally reprehensable; however, the behaviors, in and of themselves, are completely ok -- aside from drinking and driving which puts others at risk due to your poor judgement. The government should lose revenue with respect to these goods and rightly so. In fact, it should have never been a source of added revenue aside from the normal sales tax.

As far as the government thinking like a company, I think they should, and I don't see a problem with it. When governments lean towards implementing socialist programs, those governments must be extremely fiscally responsible or they will overtax, over spend, and implement poor programs -- like the US has done for virtually every socialist program they've put in place. However, if the government was run more like a business -- which actual budget limits, consequences, etc -- the programs and the effects of those programs would raise considerably.

In some sense yes, you want government to operate like a business... seeking efficiencies. However, the main thing I am against and worry about is the government looking at us as sources of revenue.

But the day isn't all bad =). Here is government taking the next natural step as it becomes a health insurance business. Control over care provided and reduction in costs / covered care.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... zfDxfbwhzs

This is my favorite paragraph (btw this is reportedly in the stimulus bill that just passed).

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Good management practices apply uniformly across all organizations.

Don't waste resources. Don't treat your talent like crap. Try not to be overly redundant.

This does not mean you want your government to operate as a business.

What makes government different from most other organizations including businesses is that a government has what businesses generally do not have. A duty and a responsibility to manage conflicts of interests. In fact, an entire web of conflicts of interests. A Republican government must aggressively promote the welfare of not only republican voters but also democrats. It must wield absolute power but constrain and limit its use to an absolute minimum. It has to be fiscally responsible and spend money on things that don't give the US the best bang for the buck, for instance, AIDS relief in Africa and food aid to North Korea (wouldn't those millions be better spent on American college scholarships?).

Government should follow the best practices of organizations that also apply in the business world. However, government absolutely cannot afford to BE a business. Businesses have a nasty habit of resolving conflicts of interest by focusing on what is most interesting to them.

teflor the ranger wrote: A Republican government must aggressively promote the welfare of

Has anyone told them that? *duck*

Sarvis wrote:

teflor the ranger wrote: A Republican government must aggressively promote the welfare of

Has anyone told them that? *duck*

Frequently and often, but the reason for the success and institutional reputation of the United States Federal government is due to the seriousness with which each US government in the last century has undertaken its tasks.

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/smart ... ewing.aspx

Oregon trying to raise the liquor tax 1800%. Works out to 15 cents a glass apparently. Government is gonna nickel and dime us to death over the next 2 years. Think very carefully before you vote to raise any new tax or "fee" else someday the majority band together to tax something you hold near and dear for no reason other than enough people will vote for it.

kiryan wrote:http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/smartspending/archive/2009/02/19/in-oregon-and-elsewhere-beer-tax-hikes-a-brewing.aspx

Oregon trying to raise the liquor tax 1800%. Works out to 15 cents a glass apparently. Government is gonna nickel and dime us to death over the next 2 years. Think very carefully before you vote to raise any new tax or "fee" else someday the majority band together to tax something you hold near and dear for no reason other than enough people will vote for it.

I'm actually more or less ok with consumption taxes. Problem is we're saddled with too many taxes overall. We've got the income tax on your dollar. Then we have the sales tax on your 80 cents. Now we have the liquor tax on your 76 cents.

Suddenly, your dollar is only worth 61 cents. Keep drinking, stop Taxocrats. They are taking it out of your wallet to pay for the failed 80 year war on poverty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/healt ... ml?_r=1&hp

New York Health Official Calls for Tax on Drinks With Sugar.

Everyone who stood by and let them inflict taxes on alcohol and tobacco and redirect them straight into the general budget (to pay for whatever they want) can get ready for the next public revenue source #1. sugary drinks (or is that carbon taxes for having electricity and driving your car).

BTW 100% fruit juices are very high in sugar, but I'm sure they'll get a pass because they are considered healthy), but give it 20 years and I'm sure we'll start realizing how evil juice drinks are making our kids obese.