Monte wrote:
You surely aren't arguing that the only reason private schools continue to exist is because of public voucher programs, programs that don't exist everywhere. Yet, private schools do.
Of course that isn't what I am arguing, because that isn't even close to what I wrote. You used an example that does not correlate, nor support, your position, and I was pointing that out. IF the voucher systems existed, then you could argue that private schools are actually competing with public schools, and vice versa, and use the success or failure of the competition as support for your position. As it is, there is no competition.
Quote:
We do, of course. But that doesn't invalidate the program itself. That being said, losses from the public option will be paid for by spending cuts. In other words, it is intended to have no net impact on our deficit.
Losses paid for by spending cuts... the same spending cuts that resulted in a 50% reduction in USPS delivery service, or the same spending cuts that are proposing another 17% reduction in service compounded with a 33% cost increase to the consumer over the last 10 years, and will still be insufficient to cover costs for the next fiscal year?
Do you understand why no one believes those claims, and why this was perhaps the most idiotic comparison the President could use to bolster his case?
Quote:
That's true. But that's not quite the same thing. There are no privatized DoD's operating in an exchange competing directly with the government DoD.
True, but the DOD is supposed to be operating on a competitive bid process in procurement, obstenably to save money and reduce costs, yet I think it is blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer how much politicians interfere with the process to direct money towards special interests.
You think it will be any different with any other government agency?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
