Who ever said community service has to be physical labor. There are way even quadrapalegics can contribute to the community and society in general. If we let people think they are unable to contribute and we allow them to waste away feeling in adequate or that everyone owes them something because they are disabled then we are mearly contributing to their problems aswell as sapping the tax budget. All I am suggesting is that a means of them contributing back to society is put in place reguardless who creative it must be. If a person can not go rake leaves at the park and pick up trash then find them a task they can do. If enough of this is done, society will benifit and then when some one is truly unable to do anything (coma patient) then the costs will be marginally offset by the good other dependents of the state are doing.Stormscythe wrote:
I don't think that this would work. How would someone suffering from some illness be able to conduct that community service?KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:
I see our population all ready growing too lazy. I can not justify an increase in social services when there is such a large group willing to milk it for all its worth while myself and other responsible citizens work our asses off to maintain a barely middle class life style. If you want social services get a state or federally funded job and earn it. I am tired of well fare and the idea we should give something for nothing. If you want well fare checks there should be mandatory community service attached. Make people contribure to society before they take their hand out and drink or somke it away.
And it's just what I can tell you from my own experience: The numerous times I've been in the hospital for various reasons (mainly sports) would have cost us a lot more than the insurance. Those who do NOT take advantage from a compulsory insurance system are only a very few lucky ones who never seem to get in trouble for any reason. That's simply because the state pays all the expenses that are left for the hospitals after using your insurance's money - or well, as soon as the state is more or less your insurance, that's even easier
imortal, unfortunately it isn't signed. It would definately fix a lot of things wrong in our country.
Last edited by DSRTurtle (2007-03-25 07:15:24)
That's why it's important for the government to enforce antitrust laws. When it fails to do so, it rapes the average citizen's interests. This is why we're currently being overcharged by these contractors. We need to foster competition in the reconstruction market.imortal wrote:
I am not saying you are wrong, except for the capitalistic part. The unfortunate side of capitalism is that it tends toward monopolies, and then "what the market will bear" begins to hurt instead of help. Lack of competition is a down side. I never said the system was perfect.Turquoise wrote:
As you stated though, Halliburton is one of the few companies that can provide the services we needed in Iraq, and because of that, they behaved like a monopoly -- very uncapitalistic.
The only problem is that in some fields (like this), you only have one or two companies that can do such work. I can't remember where I saw this, but I've read that Halliburton is one of a couple of companies that can do this massive reconstruction work.Turquoise wrote:
That's why it's important for the government to enforce antitrust laws. When it fails to do so, it rapes the average citizen's interests. This is why we're currently being overcharged by these contractors. We need to foster competition in the reconstruction market.imortal wrote:
I am not saying you are wrong, except for the capitalistic part. The unfortunate side of capitalism is that it tends toward monopolies, and then "what the market will bear" begins to hurt instead of help. Lack of competition is a down side. I never said the system was perfect.Turquoise wrote:
As you stated though, Halliburton is one of the few companies that can provide the services we needed in Iraq, and because of that, they behaved like a monopoly -- very uncapitalistic.
UGA you are correct. I remember hearing/reading that as well.UGADawgs wrote:
The only problem is that in some fields (like this), you only have one or two companies that can do such work. I can't remember where I saw this, but I've read that Halliburton is one of a couple of companies that can do this massive reconstruction work.Turquoise wrote:
That's why it's important for the government to enforce antitrust laws. When it fails to do so, it rapes the average citizen's interests. This is why we're currently being overcharged by these contractors. We need to foster competition in the reconstruction market.imortal wrote:
I am not saying you are wrong, except for the capitalistic part. The unfortunate side of capitalism is that it tends toward monopolies, and then "what the market will bear" begins to hurt instead of help. Lack of competition is a down side. I never said the system was perfect.
If that's the case, then we should keep a very close eye on how much they charge: no more of this cost-plus bullshit. That policy is just asking for abuse....DSRTurtle wrote:
UGA you are correct. I remember hearing/reading that as well.UGADawgs wrote:
The only problem is that in some fields (like this), you only have one or two companies that can do such work. I can't remember where I saw this, but I've read that Halliburton is one of a couple of companies that can do this massive reconstruction work.Turquoise wrote:
That's why it's important for the government to enforce antitrust laws. When it fails to do so, it rapes the average citizen's interests. This is why we're currently being overcharged by these contractors. We need to foster competition in the reconstruction market.
I think it is more important that we make it easier for small businesses to get started and make it harder for larger companies to use the government to limit its competition. It is natural for a company to use the tools it has to reduce competition and increase profits. The goverment is currently a tool for large companies; time to take the goverment out of the toolbox.Turquoise wrote:
That's why it's important for the government to enforce antitrust laws. When it fails to do so, it rapes the average citizen's interests. This is why we're currently being overcharged by these contractors. We need to foster competition in the reconstruction market.imortal wrote:
I am not saying you are wrong, except for the capitalistic part. The unfortunate side of capitalism is that it tends toward monopolies, and then "what the market will bear" begins to hurt instead of help. Lack of competition is a down side. I never said the system was perfect.Turquoise wrote:
As you stated though, Halliburton is one of the few companies that can provide the services we needed in Iraq, and because of that, they behaved like a monopoly -- very uncapitalistic.
give the people a valid choice and let them vote for their favorite with their pocketbook.