Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

Post by Scea91 » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 4:20 PM UTC

megablast wrote: post #60

refurb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're living in the US, but I do and I have the exact opposite viewpoint. The amount of waste, corruption and poor planning by the gov't makes me feel like I'm throwing money away. I'd rather give it a charity since then I'd know a majority of it had an impact. I think if the gov't was a bit more efficient and could be shown to be good stewards of money I'd probably hate paying taxes a lot less.

The road out front of your house costs $100,000 to build. You just using that, gets you back all the taxes you spend. Now multiple that by 10 million things, and you are still better off.

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 4:21 PM UTC

faceyspacey wrote: post #251

tinco wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

every 60 minutes I work, ~30 minutes of that work product is appropriated by government How about every 60 minutes you work, 30 minutes of that is spent establishing the world around you? From the opportunities you had as a young person, and those of your children, to the safety and security of your adult life. Half of your product is yours to spend freely, the rest goes towards the idea that you don't even have to t…

Except for here in the states 25% of the taxpayer money is going to military, intelligence and debt from past wars we know to have been bad ideas and knew all along were bad ideas. And let's just say another 25% is misspent. In a country this big and bloated, that's also likely a low ball figure. But overall, only 50% of taxpayer money is going to anything remotely properly executed and needed. That said, our public…

Post by deadbunny » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 4:24 PM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #135

p_eter_p wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always say this, but nobody can ever point to a solid example. Do you have hard numbers that government social programs are less efficient than charity?

Ask yourself this: is the government efficient with its defense spending? If the answer is no, why would it be any different with its social programs?

Post by compiler-guy » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

Bartweiss wrote: post #220

bbctol wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of talk with respect to the US Democrat/Republican split on how Democrats are terrible at highlighting when government helps people (because it seems to cheapen the process or some silly issue.) http://democracyjournal.org/arguments/keep-it-simple-and-tak...

I saw an interesting comment recently, from a Republican who wished for Pelosi or some other important Democrat to just say thank you . Thank you for the money, thank you for working to help these people, fund these programs, keep everything running smoothly. It's an interesting thought. There are plenty of reasons it's not going to happen in a vacuum - if Pelosi did it tomorrow she'd be mauled by both parties. But a…

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 4:32 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #241

mi_noi_noi wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say charities are better in the sense that: - You at least have more than one choice. If the charity you give to performs poorly by whatever metrics you value, you can give to another one next time. - It is voluntary. Nobody with guns will put you in a cage if you don't donate to a charity, as is the case if you don't pay your taxes.

> - You at least have more than one choice. If the charity you give to performs poorly by whatever metrics you value, you can give to another one next time. You can vote out your government. Charities seem more PR-focused, and the press seems less interested in holding them to account. I have a lot more faith in government to spend money effectively than I do in private charity.