Posted on 07/25/2005 3:31:53 AM PDT by JohnLongIsland
Edited on 07/25/2005 3:50:02 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Modern American politics is dominated by the doctrine that government is the problem, not the solution. In practice, this doctrine translates into policies that make low taxes on the rich the highest priority, even if lack of revenue undermines basic public services. You don't have to be a liberal to realize that this is wrong-headed. Corporate leaders understand quite well that good public services are also good for business. But the political environment is so polarized these days that top executives are often afraid to speak up against conservative dogma.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Because we all know that throwing money at the K-12 government educations system *always* results in better educated H.S. graduates. < /sarcasm, for the sarcasm meter-impaired>
This guy is totally blind, unable to see that basic assumptions and premises of his arguments are fatally flawed.
I agree. That's "Corporate Socialism".
Bye.
Well yeah, if patients are denied care it tends to keep costs down.
Quit reading at this point. Friedman is an economic illiterate...JFK
LOL, I don't think so. I just know you aren't gonna last for even one day here.
Troll alert. First thing out of his keyboard is name calling. Typical...JFK
OOHH! IBZ???
You got it. Smelling ozone already...JFK
"Big business titans love Big Government because they can squeeze the competition and have the taxpayers subsidize their inefficiencies. Call it Corporate Socialism."
Been there, done that. It was called "National Socialism" in Germany, where Hitler used the corporations for his benefit.
When I first started reading this article, I thought it was a satire. Then I saw it was Krugman and I realized it was unabashed socialism.
"So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending."
False. More jobs lead to more taxes, which leads to more spending.
He also says:
"You might be tempted to say that Canadian taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing Toyota's move by paying for health coverage. But that's not right, even aside from the fact that Canada's health care system has far lower costs per person than the American system, with its huge administrative expenses. In fact, U.S. taxpayers, not Canadians, will be hurt by the northward movement of auto jobs."
Canada has far lower costs per person because medicine is under price controls. This restricts the quanity, leading to 6 month wait for an MRI. Therefore, Canadians come to the US for health care. Read any Mark Steyn article on Canadian health care.
Nuked, and OUTTA HERE!!!
heavyfella
This account has been banned or suspended.
That bears repeating. Always be skeptical of opinions from the Business Roundtable. That's the lobby group for big business. They'll frequently support more government spending and onerous regulations.
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.