Posted on 12/01/2003 8:01:35 AM PST by presidio9
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:31 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Have you ever had to make serious cuts -- 15% or more -- in your family budget because of an unexpected job -- loss or unforeseen expense? It's not pleasant, but it's not impossible. And it's also not permanent. As long as you're willing to face your financial problems squarely, you can be sure that the hard times won't last forever and things will improve.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
You're the one who constantly questions people's ability to reason. If you're going to be discussing how a so-called "multiplier effect" might influence the state economy of California, you have to be talking about more than 20 hospitals.
In your case, there's nothing to scrape away; just a standard, unabashed whinning, begging, sloven tax-eating parasite.
Your definition of "better" care is different from mine. When you go see your doctor, you want him to be attentive. I want him to be good. It is a fact that the best doctors tend to be employed in urban areas.
That's how McClintock begins. It makes sense.
Substitute 50% for 15% and it doesn't.
That was my point.
I have no objection to cutting the State budget by 15%. I support it. I think it necessary. I think it better to cut quickly rather than slowly.
But the costs of the cuts should be honestly portrayed...which means that the public should be aware that some will suffer no loss of income at all and others will be hurt catastrophically.
You "liberals" are all the same. Never right...but can never admit you are wrong.
HehHeHe... I guess it's your taxes I'm eating. Taste pretty good too. :)
If you don't like whiners then take your own advice and stop whining.
As it should. One might infer that ex-Gov Davis lost his job because of this very mechanism. Given that we agree on the mechanism, I suspect we differ on how to manage the mechanism.
I would argue that government should be exposed and accountable for its bad decisions and bad management (even bad luck.) A government should NOT be able to use it's power as a weapon to protect its incumbancy at the expense of the general public.
I infer from your posts that you'd prefer to PROTECT incumbancy by insulating the government from bad decisions, bad management, or just plain bad luck.
And finally, don't make it personal. My property values are not in danger. :)
Nothing personal intended ... You brought the subject of property value into the discussion, not me. You used it as yet more fuel to throw into the fire of the terrible hardship of cutting government spending. I'm calling that subject a red herring.
They're stating their opinion and I'm stating mine. Who's right and who's wrong is also a matter of opinion.
Troubling for those who demand certainty...but that's how it is.
I took that to be personal.
I infer from your posts that you'd prefer to PROTECT incumbancy
Not at all. I voted for Arnold. And supported his candidacy on this forum...mostly by telling McClintock supporters that he was a great guy and would make a great governor. :)
I think this can be done by changing the law to allow small rural hospitals to close their emergency rooms without losing their hospital accreditation, and replacing the ER with upgraded paramedic services.
I need boots to read the BS you are shoveling. I know in the liberal world there are "no absolutes" and no right and wrong, but I originally said that all these posters are disagreeing with the "original point" you so pretentiously tried to claim they were avoiding, and you denied that the multitude of posters were disagreeing with you as you claimed to me, you Sophist!
You were wrong that cutting 15% of CA's balooning budget hurts the economy, and you are wrong that people were disagreeing with your incorrect original point.
Troubling for those who demand certainty wiggle room...but that's how it is.
In wealthy urban areas. True.
Your definition of "better" care is different from mine
I don't think so. A hospital's quality is to be judged by staff as well as doctors. And a doctor's attitude and the pressure he's under to make money and service his case load are not to be ignored.
I wonder if you're aware of how much pressure recent changes in medical economics have put on doctors. I know a first-rate surgeon who's told me that he feels sorry for those who're going under the knife on Friday's or Saturday's...because he's had to adopt a killer work-load in order to maintain his income.
If you think that's my point...you can't read.
OK...thanks for clarifying. Your point was clouded by the inference drawn by many (dare I say all) that because the cuts would be painful to some number of individuals, that they should not be done. Since you have clearly stated that DESPITE that pain, you DO think the cuts should be made then we have no disagreement over substance, only one over form.
I guess I find it unnecessary, even counterprodutive, to tug on the heart strings by playing games with statistics. Your pulling 50% out of thin air is, as is the comment about property value, a red herring. Even though my individual salary falls below the level of a rounding error on my employer's cash flow statement, it represents 100% of my income. And, in aggregate, 3,000 of my salaries makes a HUGE difference to my empoloyer's cash flow even though it represents only 8% of its salary outlays. One might be tempted to view that fact as a tautology.
You must not have any faith in the intelligence of the average individual if you believe that they don't understand that cutting government spending will put some people out of work, will cut someone's benefits, or will cut out some program someone arguably needs or wants.
They don't need support there. Calif. has a line-item veto.
Ah, the multiplier effect.
Well, it works locally as well as globally...especially in communities dominated by few employers or industries.
But, now that you mention it, a 15% cut in state expenditures will certainly have a multiplier effect on the state economy (what sort of effect is endlessly debated by "economists" :)). Think about the multiplyer effect of a 15% cut in taxes if you doubt it.
Suddenly the sophist is specific? I'll play. Your original post;
A 15% drop in family income can almost always be dealt with by belt-tightening. A 50% drop is a catastrophe...and that's what will happen to some people as the state cuts spending.
Then you went on some bizarre tangent with a made up scenerio magically adding 15 + x = 50 in post #6 for the purpose of saying;
15%=50% & 50%=catastrophe, therefore 15%=catastrophe.
If you can't read or follow this line of logic, that is because it was insipid nonsense that anyone on FR would disagree with. God bless em.
Now do you see why the multitude of posters would dare counter such brilliance?
Perhaps, but I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to make sure the cut - in my neck of the woods - is 15% rather than catastrophic.
If more people did what I did, rather than resisting all cuts and mindlessly painting all who advocate them as fascists, heartless, cruel, selfish, etcetera our problems would be a lot easier to solve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.