Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
Your logic sucks and you've said nothing to refute my point. This isn't about the military or banning guns. This is about government programs with little to no oversight. These government programs get bloated because the people running them are not spending their own money and there is no RoI or cost-justification to their jobs. All this is present in the private sector. Corporations do not have morals they exist to make money. Just like going to buy a car, you get what you can negotiate. If a corporation sees a chance to make money with no negative reprecussion it will. Is it morally right, no. But you wouldn't assume a car dealer will give you the best deal they can because they're moral, nice people. Put a private corporation in place to run oversight on government health programs and incentivise them to get better rates and find savings and you'll have a more efficient program.
Ironic?
lib·er·al (l  b   r- l, l b r l)
1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. |
I don't have to refute anything, I'm playing by your rules and applying the same principles with respect to military spending. As far as the gun control analogy I don't see how that's an invalid reflection on your government is bad stance. Yes, the government is inefficiencies and wasteful...that's the cost of doing business.
I am liberal with limits. I only respect the respectable. I am open minded to those ideas that are rational. You have similar stance I imagine otherwise you would be open to my take on things.