• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Heads up: Potential government shutdown

RaleighDevil said:
Maybe if we reduced the influence of the national government, there wouldn't be so many people in Washington trying to influence lawmakers.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly one of the most intelligent hypotheticals I've ever encountered. If the government didn't have gazillions of $ taken from its subjects to spread out to its friends, there would not be so many greedy dweebs in Washington trying to become friends of the government. Money for nothing. No greedy hole can resist.
 
deacvision7 said:
Quite possibly one of the dumbest hypotheticals I've ever encountered.
Click to expand...

How is that dumb? It is crystal clear and obvious. You can enact any law you want, but DC will swarm with lobbyist and their ilk as long as they have the power to affect everything in personal life or business.
 
knowell said:
How is that dumb? It is crystal clear and obvious. You can enact any law you want, but DC will swarm with lobbyist and their ilk as long as they have the power to affect everything in personal life or business.
Click to expand...

It's dumb because those lobbyists would just move the K st in Albany or Sacramento or Austin. And because they would be spread out, it would be less efficient, so they'd actually have to spend more money to buy their influence.
 
Reduce the amount of taxpayer cash that politicians control. Then crony capitalists would spend less trying to buy influence with politicians. They might spend more trying to produce a product people would willingly purchase. Or reverse this with Obamacare and watch insurance companies and politicians get richer as taxpaying people get poorer and sicker.
 
tjcmd said:
Reduce the amount of taxpayer cash that politicians control. Then crony capitalists would spend less trying to buy influence with politicians. They might spend more trying to produce a product people would willingly purchase. Or reverse this with Obamacare and watch insurance companies and politicians get richer as taxpaying people get poorer and sicker.
Click to expand...

You've outdone yourself. Congratulations.
 
If you don't like having a doctor, you can keep not having a doctor.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
It's dumb because those lobbyists would just move the K st in Albany or Sacramento or Austin. And because they would be spread out, it would be less efficient, so they'd actually have to spend more money to buy their influence.
Click to expand...

It's not the location. It is the money to dispense and the power used to control and manipulate businesses. Microsoft learned real quickly that not playing the game and paying off the right people will cost you a lot more than making the payoffs, sorry, I meant lobbying.
 
knowell said:
It's not the location. It is the money to dispense and the power used to control and manipulate businesses. Microsoft learned real quickly that not playing the game and paying off the right people will cost you a lot more than making the payoffs, sorry, I meant lobbying.
Click to expand...

Yup. Monopolies and deregulation is the answer. Everyone knows that businesses would work in society's best interest of it wasn't for that pesky government intervention.
 
I don't want NHS style care. I want to choose my own doctor, hospital, nurse and everything else related to my care when I am sick. If you want to go to the lowest bidder, join such a scheme. Just don't force me to do it or to pay for you to live out your european dreams of "health care".
 
DistrictDeacon said:
It's dumb because those lobbyists would just move the K st in Albany or Sacramento or Austin. And because they would be spread out, it would be less efficient, so they'd actually have to spend more money to buy their influence.
Click to expand...

Which they already do anyway.
 
tjcmd said:
I don't want NHS style care. I want to choose my own doctor, hospital, nurse and everything else related to my care when I am sick. If you want to go to the lowest bidder, join such a scheme. Just don't force me to do it or to pay for you to live out your european dreams of "health care".
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunr...ked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States
 
Quite honestly, our overall health care is pretty embarrassing. We pay so much per capita and get worse results than other developed western nations.


TCFchart.png
 
Democrats have figured out that they can use the "threat of a government shutdown" to get almost anything they want. They know that the GOP is stuck between a rock and a hard place, because they'll be blamed for the shutdown if they do not comply. I predict that voters will catch on and that strategy will backfire soon. Just like the identity politics that backfired in the 2014 election, you can only play the same hand so many times.
 
Last edited:
UNCG Deac said:
Democrats have figured out that they can use the "threat of a government shutdown" to get almost anything think they want. They know that the GOP is stuck between a rock and a hard place, because they'll be blamed for the shutdown if they do not comply. I predict that voters will catch on and that strategy will backfire soon. Just like the identity politics that backfired in the 2014 election, you can only play the same hand so many times.
Click to expand...

Hold up. Democrats are threatening to shut down the government? Are you kidding?
 
2014s dumbest post contest is heating up even more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top