healthcare as a benefit/privilege?

[idav]

Where Does the Money Go?

So...yeah..I agree with you on the military cuts. Even though the chart above shows low percentage of spending in other areas I'm sure there is much we can save in those ares while preserving them in the process.

Jeez that is quite a military budget. Is our priority to fight in this world or live in it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I am serious. Would you care to share what benefit we receive from the Depts that I say to eliminate. In addition there are ways to increase the efficiency of every dept. I may have been a little harsh by saying eliminate the Dept of Energy, they do excellent work at the National Laboratory; however, I am sure that there is considerable waste in this dept as there is in all depts.

I responded about the Dept. of Ed. in a thread (can't remember which one now) some time ago. But all of the agencies you recommend eliminating means shifting the burden to the states but the states are underfunded and don't have the ability to adequately provide oversight and accountability...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jeez that is quite a military budget. Is our priority to fight in this world or live in it?

We spend more on our military than about a dozen countries around the world..."combined".

Our military industrial complex is massive and highly redundant....them along with our dozen or so security agencies....

 

[esmith]

I responded about the Dept. of Ed. in a thread (can't remember which one now) some time ago. But all of the agencies you recommend eliminating means shifting the burden to the states but the states are underfunded and don't have the ability to adequately provide oversight and accountability...

What burden? Most of those agencies do not contribute any economic value to the country. Remember, governments, and especially the federal government does not produce anything; they just consume. At least if we turned the responsibilities over to the States they would do what is right for their unique situation. If they screw up, it only affects a few people not the entire country.

 

[esmith]

I've often wondered if we need all four branches of the military when we can scale back and have and Army and Marines.

Seems like there was an administration that thought along those lines a few years back and even attempted to do so. Didn't work out very well though, we almost lost an entire country(not ours).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've often wondered if we need all four branches of the military when we can scale back and have and Army and Marines.

Canada tried doing that in the 70s: everything became just "the Canadian Forces" with land, sea, and air branches. We recently switched back to the traditional Army/Navy/Air Force divisions (though one major difference between your military and ours: we don't have a Marine Corps). I think the nature of the different service branches are distinct enough that lumping them all in together doesn't really get rid of much (if any) duplication. IMO, strategically, tactically, and logistically, it probably makes good sense to consider land, sea, and air capabilities separately.

However, there's one area where it seems like there's probably a fair bit of duplication in the US military: the National Guards. Effectively, your country has 51 separate armies and 51 separate air forces.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What burden? Most of those agencies do not contribute any economic value to the country.

Then you're not familiar with what any of these agencies do. To say that the EPA needs to be eliminated and turned over to the states shows a great deal of narrow mindedness as to their day to day functions. To make the assumption that states can hand that financial responsibility, provide adequate oversight as well as accountability means you don't understand how certain business function in local areas.

At least if we turned the responsibilities over to the States they would do what is right for their unique situation.

You have no knowledge of this and you can't make the blanket statement for all states. Some of these states can barely handle to the poor, the homeless or the sick in their states without federal dollars let alone have an adequate panel equipped to handle environmental and other issues, their oversight and accountability.

What locale was going to effectively deal with the BP Oil Spill. You had Republicans in the House apologizing to BP because they were being held accountable...The departments on your list are responsible for much of what the states can't handle and if left up to certain governors...wouldn't even bother dealing with...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Canada tried doing that in the 70s: everything became just "the Canadian Forces" with land, sea, and air branches. We recently switched back to the traditional Army/Navy/Air Force divisions (though one major difference between your military and ours: we don't have a Marine Corps). I think the nature of the different service branches are distinct enough that lumping them all in together doesn't really get rid of much (if any) duplication. IMO, strategically, tactically, and logistically, it probably makes good sense to consider land, sea, and air capabilities separately.

However, there's one area where it seems like there's probably a fair bit of duplication in the US military: the National Guards. Effectively, your country has 51 separate armies and 51 separate air forces.

You're right...While we have different branches...to me I do some overlap in functions here in the US....

 

[esmith]

Then you're not familiar with what any of these agencies do.
.

Sure do.

 

[Aquitaine]

Only, I haven't presented contradictory statements. I do not hold the mindset that taxation is gravy as long as I get my "piece". There's a marked difference between feeling deflated over expending your earnings towards programs that do not support America at large and prohibit you from meeting your personal goals vs. objecting to a program because you won't get a piece of the pie. I don't consider Medicaid and Medicare to be a "pie" worth reaching for. I have a hard time accepting that UH would be much better in terms of quality.

Ah, now I think I get it. It's gone from "It doesn't benefit me/my family" to "I don't believe it benefits the USA as a whole".

Also:

I do not hold the mindset that taxation is gravy as long as I get my "piece"

"When I'm paying more than others for a government-infused system that doesn't benefit my family. That's excessive."

-----

"Because these services are not as costly to me as universal health care has the potential to be. Additionally, my family may not benefit from universal health care.

The other services mentioned, are available to the city, state or American people, at large.

Obamacare does not benefit my family, due to our income tax bracket. Universal Healthcare wouldn't yield the benefits to my family that it would others. This is the distinction."

-----

"It's not the concept of taxation that bothers me on any government level. It's the concept of excessive taxation when you cannot benefit from a service provided."

As I've told you now...how many times was that...I'm quite happy with my health insurance and I really don't want it altered.

I know that. I'm not disputing that you are happy with what you currently have. What I'm trying to do is understand the double-standard with how you apply your "Libertarian principles" - a.k.a Universal Military = good, Universal Healthcare = bad.

I was a Libertarian when we started our discussion and I'm a libertarian now. Please, show me through my own statements, where I've stated or suggested that I'm otherwise.

Perhaps you need to educate yourself on the (American) Libertarian Party.
Healthcare | Libertarian Party

You haven't stated yourself that you're not a Libertarian, you state that you are. It is I who is skeptical of your Libertarian stance, primarily because of the double-standards and mixed signals coming from you.

I fully expect that you consider yourself a Libertarian.

Okay. What does this have to do with our discussion, here.

I suspect that you are not one of these people.

How does this correlate to our discussion?

I suspect that you are one of these people.

Have I not explained to you several times, that I believe that a military should serve to protect its people and react to conflict. I do not think that we benefit from policing the world. In other words - I don't support HUGE military and object to excessive government spending in this department as well.

Which directly conflicts with the following:

"At times, I do consider my local economy when voting. We have one of the highest concentrations of military in the world here in my area. I don't want our economy to buckle due to extreme military cut backs. But at the same time, I don't support excess spending in this arena either."

Which (at least to me) indicates that you are not in favour of changing the status-quo. You don't support excessive government spending in that arena, yet you are unwilling to accept any real cutbacks to it. Another example of a mixed signal that is causing confusion.

Dude, I don't have to prove to you that I'm an ACTUAL libertarian. If you see confliction with anything that I've posted, address it, by all means. But, I owe you nothing and could give a rat's rear less if you consider me an REAL Libertarian.

I'm currently in the process of addressing contradiction with stuff you've posted here. The "mixed signals" are what's confusing me, hence why I'm curious.

Sure. And almost half of the nation doesn't want UH. So...?

So... it makes perfect sense then for me to enter this thread and discuss UH with Americans, who are (as we both know) currently torn on the issue. It almost seems 50/50.

There isn't anything "non-libertarian" about not caring as to whether our military is tax-payer supported. Non-libertarian principles and ideals would reflect:

• Support of excess military force - we're here to protect our people and don't have to achieve this by policing (or bullying) the world - reactive response - far less costly and makes sense, given mistakes made in recent years
• Restriction of free market and free trade avenues between the US and other countries
• Failure to take a chill pill as a nation and consider non-violent solutions to problems

I take a balanced approach to our military. It's important but shouldn't be too large or too involved in the worlds' political affairs. I've grown into these views over the years.

In fairness, this may also be a cause for confusion - as political definitions do tend to vary from country-to-country. Also, I'm not interested in what the "Libertarian Party" think, instead I'm talking about Libertarian views/values in-general.

I don't really understand how I've sent mixed signals, if you are understanding my views under the lens of the Libertarian Party.

Ah, another potential cause for my confusion: as stated above I do not care what the "Libertarian Party" say or think, instead I'm focusing on Libertarian principles.

I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

You simply cannot be "fiscally conservative" if you are against major spending cuts to the US Military, which (off the top of my head) has more taxpayer money spent on it per year than any other nation's military, and by a considerable degree.

I may be wrong, but I've heard that the US spends more on it's military then at least the nearest top 5 "competitors" combined.

If this isn't Libertarian in your eyes, I probably don't subscribe to "your" definition of libertarianism and I'm fine with that.

Indeed, that may very-well be the case. But for the record, I am not arguing that being a Libertarian is bad, I'm just trying to wrap my head around (what I perceive) as double-standards in relation to your adoption of Libertarian principles. Also, I'm not one of these people who're going to accuse you of being "selfish" or what-not.

Self-interest is perhaps the ultimate driving force of Human motivation.

 

[dawny0826]

Ah, now I think I get it. It's gone from "It doesn't benefit me/my family" to "I don't believe it benefits the USA as a whole".

It's both.

"When I'm paying more than others for a government-infused system that doesn't benefit my family. That's excessive."

Yup, it's this.
-----

"Because these services are not as costly to me as universal health care has the potential to be. Additionally, my family may not benefit from universal health care.

Yes.

The other services mentioned, are available to the city, state or American people, at large.

Um, yes.

Obamacare does not benefit my family, due to our income tax bracket. Universal Healthcare wouldn't yield the benefits to my family that it would others. This is the distinction."

Yup, yup.

"It's not the concept of taxation that bothers me on any government level. It's the concept of excessive taxation when you cannot benefit from a service provided."

Oui. Oui.

I know that. I'm not disputing that you are happy with what you currently have. What I'm trying to do is understand the double-standard with how you apply your "Libertarian principles" - a.k.a Universal Military = good, Universal Healthcare = bad.

We don't use the term "universal military" in the United States and I've already explained to you more than once that the manner in which I support our military through taxation vs. our federally funded healthcare systems isn't the same. You're being rather stubborn and until you educate yourself on libertarian principles as in the Libertarian Party variety, you may continue to struggle to see where I'm coming from.

You haven't stated yourself that you're not a Libertarian, you state that you are. It is I who is skeptical of your Libertarian stance, primarily because of the double-standards and mixed signals coming from you.

It is I who thinks this is getting ridiculous, particularly when you've admitted that you don't fully understand the platforms of a Libertarian. So, you're skeptical of me, and yet, I suppose, expect me to take you seriously.

I fully expect that you consider yourself a Libertarian.

I am a Libertarian. Would you like to see my membership card?

I suspect that you are not one of these people.

Brilliant, coming from a person who admittedly, doesn't fully understand the concepts of the Libertarian Party.

I suspect that you are one of these people.

Which directly conflicts with the following:

"At times, I do consider my local economy when voting. We have one of the highest concentrations of military in the world here in my area. I don't want our economy to buckle due to extreme military cut backs. But at the same time, I don't support excess spending in this arena either."

I would be a dumb dumb not to vote intelligently.

Which (at least to me) indicates that you are not in favour of changing the status-quo. You don't support excessive government spending in that arena, yet you are unwilling to accept any real cutbacks to it. Another example of a mixed signal that is causing confusion.

I typically vote Libertarian, lovely. I support all sorts of stuff that goes against the status quo. Sadly, in America, there isn't always a Libertarian candidate on a ballot to vote for, particularly in state and local elections. I voted Libertarian in the last presidential election.

I'm currently in the process of addressing contradiction with stuff you've posted here. The "mixed signals" are what's confusing me, hence why I'm curious.

And I think you're imagining some of this. I'm sorry if I've confused you. Here...have a hug. (Hugs are free.)

So... it makes perfect sense then for me to enter this thread and discuss UH with Americans, who are (as we both know) currently torn on the issue. It almost seems 50/50.

Sure, sure. It makes perfect sense.

In fairness, this may also be a cause for confusion - as political definitions do tend to vary from country-to-country. Also, I'm not interested in what the "Libertarian Party" think, instead I'm talking about Libertarian views/values in-general.

But, you should be interested, as this DIRECTLY correlates to my viewpoints in this thread. If you'd take time to read up, the clouds would clear, my friend. (I can see clearly now the rain is gone!)

Ah, another potential cause for my confusion: as stated above I do not care what the "Libertarian Party" say or think, instead I'm focusing on Libertarian principles.

(I can see all obstacles in my way!)

You simply cannot be "fiscally conservative" if you are against major spending cuts to the US Military, which (off the top of my head) has more taxpayer money spent on it per year than any other nation's military, and by a considerable degree.

Oh yes, beautiful. I most absolutely can be fiscally conservative. Rule of thumb, I am.

I may be wrong, but I've heard that the US spends more on it's military then at least the nearest top 5 "competitors" combined.

We spend an insane amount of money on our military.

Indeed, that may very-well be the case. But for the record, I am not arguing that being a Libertarian is bad, I'm just trying to wrap my head around (what I perceive) as double-standards in relation to your adoption of Libertarian principles. Also, I'm not one of these people who're going to accuse you of being "selfish" or what-not.

Fair enough.

 

[Penumbra]

Right or privilege?

Ultimately humans have the rights that humans as a group define ourselves to have.

I think the question itself is kind of unnecessary because universal single payer systems around the world are all less expensive per capita than health care in the United States despite achieving higher life expectancy and lower child mortality rates, among other statistics, so it's more a question of how to spend resources properly than whether or not more resources should be spent. So it's a question worth asking from a philosophical standpoint, but the math behind it sort of undermines the necessity of asking it anyway- we can reduce costs and expand coverage, if done well.

Each of us, by expressing our political thoughts and in the way we act each day, express who we are. Some countries choose to work together within themselves in order to give everyone in the country affordable healthcare, even those that can't afford any healthcare. The United States, on the other hand, does not chose to work together, would prefer to let everyone fight out it out on their own, and the result is that a lower percentage of people are covered by any sort of insurance and the per capita costs are the highest in the world.

I believe healthcare is a right and the mathematically and philosophically the best way to do it is with a universal single payer system so that we can reduce costs and cover everyone.

 

[Aquitaine]

[snip]

Please understand that "The Libertarian Party" Political Party in the USA is just a small sub-faction of the many different branches of Libertarianism (see here). It isn't so simple as just Libertarianism = The Libertarian Party of the USA.

For example, there is a large political group in the UK known as "The Conservative Party", who frequently call themselves "Conservatives" - even though their party and policies aren't actually very conservative, fiscally. It's just a name.

I am a Libertarian. Would you like to see my membership card?

My goodness - your membership card? :biglaugh: You may as well say "I'm a Liberal, wanna see my membership card?".

It is I who thinks this is getting ridiculous, particularly when you've admitted that you don't fully understand the platforms of a Libertarian. So, you're skeptical of me, and yet, I suppose, expect me to take you seriously.

Even you admitted you don't agree with everything that party stands for, and since the general rule-of-thumb for modern US "I'm a Libertarian"ism is basically Free-Market = good, Federal = bad, minimal Government at all levels, I fail to see how you can oppose any real cuts to the US Military, yet hold the view that Healthcare must remain as Free-Market as possible..... y' know - because of Big Gubermint n' all.

Oh yes, beautiful. I most absolutely can be fiscally conservative. Rule of thumb, I am.

We spend an insane amount of money on our military.

Yet you don't want any real cutbacks......

 

[dawny0826]

Please understand that "The Libertarian Party" Political Party in the USA is just a small sub-faction of the many different branches of Libertarianism (see here). It isn't so simple as just Libertarianism = The Libertarian Party of the USA.

You're preaching to the choir. But, I'm not concerned about any other "factions" of libertarianism and you shouldn't be concerned about these other factions in the context of OUR conversation, as I'm a Libertarian of the Libertarian Party variety in America. So, if you have a genuine desire to understand what I'm conveying, you need to take time to educate yourself on these platforms, because these are the issues that are important to me, as an American. This the "brand" of libertarianism that I subscribe to.

You can't blanket label my views under "generic" libertarianism, as I'm a Libertarian of a specific political Party. Further, what, specific faction are you comparing my views against? And how can you do that accurately, when you aren't fully educated as to what I'm discussing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

I have read all of my posts now in this thread, twice and am astonished by the number of times I've had to repeat myself. If I've been confusing in any way or have contradicted myself, I'll assume responsibility for doing so and clarify. I can't take responsibility for doing this. Not in this thread.

For example, there is a large political group in the UK known as "The Conservative Party", who frequently call themselves "Conservatives" - even though their party and policies aren't actually very conservative, fiscally. It's just a name.

I believe I was quite clear when explaining that I'm a libertarian of the LIBERTARIAN PARTY variety. I've provided a link for you, if you care to educate yourself. So, what do you want to me say?

Let's try again. The ball is in your court.

http://www.lp.org/

My goodness - your membership card? :biglaugh: You may as well say "I'm a Liberal, wanna see my membership card?".

Seriously? :sarcastic When you pull yourself off the floor, you may want to allow my point to marinate. I belong to a specific polical party. I subscribe to specific ideology and I have sifted through the platforms and ideology of this party. I know what parts of it don't sit well with me and in convo over coffee can explain to anyone why, those parts which don't sit well with me.

Even you admitted you don't agree with everything that party stands for, and since the general rule-of-thumb for modern US "I'm a Libertarian"ism is basically Free-Market = good, Federal = bad, minimal Government at all levels,

Most intelligent people thoroughly examine that which their political party represents. I won't say "Yeah, Baby!" to something that doesn't sit right with me. Overall, the Libertarian Party makes so much more sense to me than the others in my country and best represents my views. Yes, I do think the Free Market is a very, very good thing. But, I hate it when people assume that I'm anti-government.

I've never, ever said that government needs to be eradicated. I've acknowledged its corruptions and I've acknowledged that we've allowed it, as a people. I've said we need LESS. Needing LESS does not translate to needing NONE at all. The concept of smaller government doesn't translate to an eradication of government - it shifts more responsiblity to local levels of government, where there is LESS and government operates less expensively. More responsibility is placed on indiviudal Americans to be as self sufficient as possible.

I fail to see how you can oppose any real cuts to the US Military, yet hold the view that Healthcare must remain as Free-Market as possible..... y' know - because of Big Gubermint n' all.

I never said that I oppose real cuts to the US Military. I do support cuts.

This reads so immature on your part when you have not taken the time to educate yourself on the platforms that I support.

 

[Aquitaine]

You're preaching to the choir. But, I'm not concerned about any other "factions" of libertarianism and you shouldn't be concerned about these other factions in the context of OUR conversation, as I'm a Libertarian of the Libertarian Party variety in America. So, if you have a genuine desire to understand what I'm conveying, you need to take time to educate yourself on these platforms, because these are the issues that are important to me, as an American. This the "brand" of libertarianism that I subscribe to.

You can't blanket label my views under "generic" libertarianism, as I'm a Libertarian of a specific political Party. Further, what, specific faction are you comparing my views against? And how can you do that accurately, when you aren't fully educated as to what I'm discussing?

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a general rule-of-thumb, in relation to the "I'm a Libertarian"s, I tend to simply use their same Free-Market/Minimal Government logic they use for Healthcare, to apply to other areas of the US system, in order to "test" how Free-Market and Minimal Government they actually are. To my knowledge, one of the biggest and most over-bloated Government Services is the United States Armed Forces.

I wonder how many of these 2008-born "I'm a Libertarians" want the same system for Military as they do for Healthcare..... y' know 'cause Free-Market/Minimal Gubermint n' all that.

I believe I was quite clear when explaining that I'm a libertarian of the LIBERTARIAN PARTY variety. I've provided a link for you, if you care to educate yourself. So, what do you want to me say?

Let's try again. The ball is in your court.

Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government

Seriously? :sarcastic When you pull yourself off the floor, you may want to allow my point to marinate. I belong to a specific polical party. I subscribe to specific ideology and I have sifted through the platforms and ideology of this party. I know what parts of it don't sit well with me and in convo over coffee can explain to anyone why, those parts which don't sit well with me.

I'm aware of that, you mentioned your views in-relation the The Libertarian Party earlier on. I'm not disputing that, what I'm saying is that just because you self-identify as a Libertarian and even have a plastic card saying so, doesn't necessarily mean you truly have consistent values with what you claim to believe in.

Just like a "card-carrying" member of the Conservative Party over here - it doesn't mean s/he's actually fiscally Conservative, in fact it's often the case that they're selective with how "Conservative" they are: they usually want less on Public Healthcare/Education/Welfare but want more spent on Military, Prisons and Corporate Bailouts.

So when people try to convince me of their genuine political views by offering to show me their "Membership card", to me it's a rather meaningless thing to say. Hence why, if people made cute little plastic cards for their general alignment (i.e. "Left" "Right" "Liberal" "Conservative" etc) and then tried to pass it off as "proof" of their values, it would be almost as daft.... and just as funny.

Most intelligent people thoroughly examine that which their political party represents. I won't say "Yeah, Baby!" to something that doesn't sit right with me. Overall, the Libertarian Party makes so much more sense to me than the others in my country and best represents my views. Yes, I do think the Free Market is a very, very good thing. But, I hate it when people assume that I'm anti-government.

I've never, ever said that government needs to be eradicated. I've acknowledged its corruptions and I've acknowledged that we've allowed it, as a people. I've said we need LESS. Needing LESS does not translate to needing NONE at all. The concept of smaller government doesn't translate to an eradication of government - it shifts more responsiblity to local levels of government, where there is LESS and government operates less expensively. More responsibility is placed on indiviudal Americans to be as self sufficient as possible.

I've never implied you want to eradicate and have no Government, just that you hold a double-standard with Healthcare. The slogan on the LP website is "Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom." So let's see some of that with the USAF, right?

I never said that I oppose real cuts to the US Military. I do support cuts.

This reads so immature on your part when you have not taken the time to educate yourself on the platforms that I support.

According to the USA LP website:

"The military budget of the United States, conservatively measured at around $700 billion (but probably closer to $1 trillion once all security measures and veteran benefits are considered), is approximately equal to all of the military budgets of all other countries combined. If the US military budget were cut in half, it would still be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half again, it would STILL be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half a third time, reduced to only one-eighth its current size, it would STILL be the largest in the world. And that's using the conservative measure.

Whatever motivates this enormous budget, it is certainly not for the defense of American soil. Indeed, when the Department of Homeland Security was created, this was a virtual admission that the Department of Defense had goals other than homeland security. No foreign army has the slightest capacity to invade the United States, and as North Korea has demonstrated, even the possession of a single nuclear weapon is enough to deter invasion."

Sounds me to like their calling for extreme cuts to the USAF, which is exactly what you're not calling for - see below:

"At times, I do consider my local economy when voting. We have one of the highest concentrations of military in the world here in my area. I don't want our economy to buckle due to extreme military cut backs. But at the same time, I don't support excess spending in this arena either."

Unfortunately, the US Military is currently massively excessive. I don't even think it could actually get any bigger without completely gobbling-up it's host nation! If you're not against "extreme" cutbacks to it, then you are supporting a massively over-bloated and excessive Government Service - and subsequently lose the right to label yourself as "Fiscally Conservative" and having "Libertarian principles".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Right or privilege?

Ultimately humans have the rights that humans as a group define ourselves to have.

I think the question itself is kind of unnecessary because universal single payer systems around the world are all less expensive per capita than health care in the United States despite achieving higher life expectancy and lower child mortality rates, among other statistics, so it's more a question of how to spend resources properly than whether or not more resources should be spent. So it's a question worth asking from a philosophical standpoint, but the math behind it sort of undermines the necessity of asking it anyway- we can reduce costs and expand coverage, if done well.

Each of us, by expressing our political thoughts and in the way we act each day, express who we are. Some countries choose to work together within themselves in order to give everyone in the country affordable healthcare, even those that can't afford any healthcare. The United States, on the other hand, does not chose to work together, would prefer to let everyone fight out it out on their own, and the result is that a lower percentage of people are covered by any sort of insurance and the per capita costs are the highest in the world.

I believe healthcare is a right and the mathematically and philosophically the best way to do it is with a universal single payer system so that we can reduce costs and cover everyone.

I agree. As you've encountered...we have one member in another thread who raised the question of Single Payer but continues to fight tooth and nail because he doesn't like the answer he's getting seeing as though he's against such a system. We know that if we make modest cuts and reductions in key areas as well as scrapping the hodgepodge systems of healthcare we have we can achieve single payer.

 

[dawny0826]

As a general rule-of-thumb, in relation to the "I'm a Libertarian"s, I tend to simply use their same Free-Market/Minimal Government logic they use for Healthcare, to apply to other areas of the US system, in order to "test" how Free-Market and Minimal Government they actually are. To my knowledge, one of the biggest and most over-bloated Government Services is the United States Armed Forces.

No ****, sherlock. Again, you're preaching to the choir. I've acknowledged TO YOU that America spends an insane amount of money on its armed forces.

I wonder how many of these 2008-born "I'm a Libertarians" want the same system for Military as they do for Healthcare..... y' know 'cause Free-Market/Minimal Gubermint n' all that.

Our military isn't a service "rendered" to the American people in the same manner as Medicare and Medicaid.

I'm aware of that, you mentioned your views in-relation the The Libertarian Party earlier on. I'm not disputing that, what I'm saying is that just because you self-identify as a Libertarian and even have a plastic card saying so, doesn't necessarily mean you truly have consistent values with what you claim to believe in.

I don't have to agree with everything that my political party represents. That makes me no less a Libertarian. I've said nothing on this thread that conflicts with Libertarian principles.

So when people try to convince me of their genuine political views by offering to show me their "Membership card", to me it's a rather meaningless thing to say. Hence why, if people made cute little plastic cards for their general alignment (i.e. "Left" "Right" "Liberal" "Conservative" etc) and then tried to pass it off as "proof" of their values, it would be almost as daft.... and just as funny.

At the end of the day, I know good and well what I support and why. I know good and well which parts don't sit well with me and why.

I've never implied you want to eradicate and have no Government, just that you hold a double-standard with Healthcare. The slogan on the LP website is "Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom." So let's see some of that with the USAF, right?

What do you not comprehend about "I support cuts"?

I'm just not going to throw labels around like "extreme", when I'd like to examine what extreme cuts would look like and how they would impact Americans before voting in favor of them, just as I'd like to see a universal healthcare proposal before rejecting it on a ballot.

Make sense?

No. I don't hold a double standard with health care. I told you I support military cuts. I'd like, as an American to see what those cuts look like and understand how they will impact my community. That's not anti-Libertarian. It's irresponsible not to think through how decisions impact your local community.

According to the USA LP website:

"The military budget of the United States, conservatively measured at around $700 billion (but probably closer to $1 trillion once all security measures and veteran benefits are considered), is approximately equal to all of the military budgets of all other countries combined. If the US military budget were cut in half, it would still be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half again, it would STILL be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half a third time, reduced to only one-eighth its current size, it would STILL be the largest in the world. And that's using the conservative measure.

Whatever motivates this enormous budget, it is certainly not for the defense of American soil. Indeed, when the Department of Homeland Security was created, this was a virtual admission that the Department of Defense had goals other than homeland security. No foreign army has the slightest capacity to invade the United States, and as North Korea has demonstrated, even the possession of a single nuclear weapon is enough to deter invasion."

Sounds me to like their calling for extreme cuts to the USAF, which is exactly what you're not calling for - see below:

"At times, I do consider my local economy when voting. We have one of the highest concentrations of military in the world here in my area. I don't want our economy to buckle due to extreme military cut backs. But at the same time, I don't support excess spending in this arena either."

Unfortunately, the US Military is currently massively excessive. I don't even think it could actually get any bigger without completely gobbling-up it's host nation! If you're not against "extreme" cutbacks to it, then you are supporting a massively over-bloated and excessive Government Service - and subsequently lose the right to label yourself as "Fiscally Conservative" and having "Libertarian principles".

Yeah...I know...

You're using the term "extreme" cut backs without providing a definition as to what, specifically, that would detail.

Again, the Commonwealth of Virginia has one of the largest concentrations of military in the country. It would be unwise for me, regardless as to my political affiliation, to not consider my local economy when voting.

This doesn't negate my support of military cuts and I might support "extreme" cuts as a Libertarian if I knew what the hell they were and what they entailed. If they entailed closure of all of the military installations in my state and impaired our shipbuilding (one of the largest int he world), the results would impair our economy resulting in further strain on our government (more specifically, American tax payers).

Would I still be in favor? It depends. I need to see the big picture. I'd need to educate myself on:

a. What we're spending the most money on within the auspices of our armed forces?
b. How can we cut, while keeping what's needed to protect and react to threat?
c. How can we cut without excessively damaging American economies?

These aren't anti-Libertarian principles. I'm all for cuts. I want to see excess go. There isn't anything anti-Libertarian about wanting "extreme" defined for me. You're throwing terminology out here that we're not using as Americans.

The Libertarian party isn't platforming for "extreme" military cuts. You're reading this yourself. The Libertarian party isn't bucking against "Universal Military". We don't use such terminology in the states.

Explain to me how I'm not in support of:

i: A desire for military cuts?
ii: The Libertarian concept of a smaller military?

One thought and ideal doesn't necessarily negate another.

 

[dawny0826]

I agree. As you've encountered...we have one member in another thread who raised the question of Single Payer but continues to fight tooth and nail because he doesn't like the answer he's getting seeing as though he's against such a system. We know that if we make modest cuts and reductions in key areas as well as scrapping the hodgepodge systems of healthcare we have we can achieve single payer.

How does this not translate to wealth redistribution, though?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How does this not translate to wealth redistribution, though?

From the bottom up or the top down?

I don't buy into the argument that wealth distribution is inherently "bad"....because I see it happening in both directions.

Under all current forms of healthcare in this country taxpayers pay. It doesn't matter if it's government run, government assisted, individual plans or group plans through private insurance companies. We pay for all the government run/assisted services and we pay upwards of $1000 a year in our private plans to help cover the cost of those who don't have insurance....

If we're paying anyway then I see no problem with reducing our spending in various areas, eliminating and/or consolidating agencies and services...to help pay for it.

 

[metis]

Why is it that some tout tax breaks and numerous tax deductions for the "job creators", but that's supposedly not "wealth distribution"; but anytime there's a program that has the wealthy pay proportionally more, that's "wealth distribution"?