alt Hacker NewsI think what I’m saying is being misinterpreted. I should have been more clear. Everybody’s definition of “taken care of” is different.
The government needs to balance the interest of the public with the interest of the individual. It is not intended to “take care of “people regardless of their asks.
Otherwise, what if I am only “taken care of” if I have a beachside penthouse in Malibu and also a pony?
The government is not taking care of people if it allows the average expenditure per person to eclipse the average tax revenue per person. The economics need to be roughly sustainable at the national state and even rural area level.
Replies
Since the 1980s the Republican party had adopted a position of starve the beast, of screwing up these very numbers so that people can make exactly the argument you have.
What happens when half of government acts is bad faith purely to poison the well, one half of government and an entire political party make it so that the numbers don't work (and via the fiscal policy they intentionally inflict/structure/design) purely so that they can promote their policy position of 'the numbers don't work'?
How many unfunded tax cuts have we had recently? Those aren't acts of nature. The numbers you speak of not matching aren't acts of nature. They are intentionally designed to 'starve the beast' in the 1980s Republican way, and in newer ways the party has come up with since. All so the exact argument you gave can be made.
> Otherwise, what if I am only “taken care of” if I have a beachside penthouse in Malibu and also a pony?
That's a false equivalence.
We aren't talking about giving people penthouses. We are talking about providing EMS. Heck, I can even grant "degraded EMS" maybe we don't ensure an ambulance is stocked with the latest and greatest tech because you are rural. Maybe the ambulance is a hand-me-down from a larger city.
But it's not a huge ask to say that rural communities deserve at least some level of emergency health medicine. Less people means less health incidents. That's the primary reason why so many rural locations today are able to get by with volunteer EMS (Something my family participated in. Calls happened roughly once a month at most in my town of 300).
> The government is not taking care of people if it allows the average expenditure per person to eclipse the average tax revenue per person. The economics need to be roughly sustainable at the national state and even rural area level.
I agree, it's smart to make sure the government isn't over spending on frivolous things. I just don't think "EMS" is frivolous. Everyone might need it, it doesn't ultimately cost that much to provide (especially if it were actually ran by the government and not private entities), and it's services buy a lot of good will with citizens. Additionally, it creates economic output. Someone dying or getting a lifetime disability because EMS wasn't available is someone that's not adding to the economy.