[promethius9594]

allow me to reiterate for barry:

and arguement is a conversation where i state my point/opinion and then some reasons why i believe it. you said: "Your opinion, and I stress that it is just that" and i say AMEN. that is my opinion. and i provided reasoning for my OPINION. now, you have stated a different opinion but have failed to provide reasoning for that opinion: ie, you have not provided an arguement but rather a personal disagreement without basis.

so, to start off with, what exactly IS your major? i must admit that my studies all relate to Physics and computer science, with minor background in biology and chemistry, so this isn't my area of expertise.

If you think that the government should be responsible for more than those three things, please, tell me what they are and why you think so, otherwise its not debating, just &*#ching and moaning.

Third, if you think the current system of 75% of every dollar going back to SOME form of taxes is reasonable, as opposed to drastically lowering taxes and letting people make their own decisions as to health care, retirement packages, etc... WHY?

now, in regards to shamrock:

"According to basic economic theory, yes. In practice, no, not judging by the experience of the UK since the introduction and subsequent raising of the minimum wage."

america and the UK are two completely different animals with entirely different backgrounds in governmental control of the industries. America didnt have minimum wages back in it's early days, and yet people seemed to somehow manage back then. the problem with setting minimum wage is that it also limits the number of employees the boss can hire without raising his prices. If we cut taxes, we don't need such a high minimum wage. by having lower minimum wage, but higher capitol gain per person, the person actually has the same or more buying power. also, by lowering minimum wage, the employer can afford to hire more employees, and get rid of forced overtime, thereby lowering the level of unemployment.

"It appears to be the true capitalist system that allows 50 million americans to go without any health cover. That's almost the entire population of the UK! Markets allocate efficiently in most cases, but certainly not fairly."

actually, a true capitolist system would leave ALOT more without medical coverage *AT FIRST. private corporations already offer much better coverage than public sector (on average). if average joe shmoe could be convinced to invest in his own health coverage, and then given a tax cut to cover the costs, he and his family would ACTUALLY have better health coverage. yes, there would be those who would not invest in health coverage and may one day go without care... thats the nature of accountability for decisions. maybe their friends would help them out (you know, a virtue... called charity)

[ 04-27-2004, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: promethius9594 ]