Ravenwood - 03/13/03 01:11 PM
Here is a surprise, the NY Times features an Op-Ed demanding that states raise taxes. Jim Gogek tries with futility to address the problem of substance abuse programs. With state and local budgets on the verge of busting, Gogek fears that substance abuse programs will be some of the first cuts made. Gogek's solution is to simply raise taxes on alcohol to pay for the supporting program. He even offers this gem of logic.
Raising taxes would also make the heaviest drinkers pay more, which is fair because they're the ones associated with the worst alcohol-related problems.Liberals are so quick to tax, that they completely miss the easy solution. Ok Jim, so you feel that people that abuse alcohol should bear the burden of the corresponding alcohol abuse program. Actually, I'm inclined to agree. However, following that logic, it would make much more sense to lower or eliminate the tax on alcohol, than it would to raise it. When it is time for substance abuse treatment, rather than have the government pay the bill, have the abusers pay for their own treatment. After all, it's only "fair because they're the ones associated with the worst alcohol-related problems."
It's so simple, I think it's brilliant. If Gogek wasn't stuck in liberal la-la-land, thinking that it's the government's responsibility to provide treatment, he might have seen it for himself. Why punish everyone who drinks for the boob who can't hold his liquor? Make him pay for his own treatment, eliminate the layer of government bureaucracy, and leave the rest of the social drinking public alone.
I challenge anyone to find a hole in my logic.
This may not qualify as a "hole in your logic", but it seems to me that the types of a-holes that abuse alcohol to the point where the government gets involved; are most likely to be dependent on the government for their healthcare needs anyway. However, I agree with you, but the socialists will never see it this way.
Posted by: matt w at March 14, 2003 4:29 AMOf course, the government's point is that if it were left up to the alcoholic individual, he would never get treatment. And the government would have to clean up the mess produced. And you and the government are also assuming that alcohol abuse treatment works.
Another point on your side: programs funded by individuals who actually want to solve their problems are far more likely to work and work efficiently than government programs forced on people at no extra direct expense to them.
BINGO! I was hoping to make that point when someone fell into my trap, but you guys are just too smart.
Go to the head of the class Robert.
A 'paid' program is bound to be much more successful than a 'free' program for just those very reasons.
As for 'motivating' someone to get treatment, the government still has the threat of jail time for people who are caught for DUI, drunk in public, etc.
Posted by: Ravenwood at March 14, 2003 10:37 AMthe real problem with liberals is that they are anti-darwinism. They want to legislate and regulate everyone's behavior to the point where everyone is "safe" from themselves.... I say let the people drink... when they die, it's a notch in the belt of Darwinism.
That doesn't really cover the bases for the people who are crippled and maimed by the moron who thinks "I'm OK to drive..." but that's what jail is for.... assuming jail worked as a deterant...
oh, forget it, one point keeps leading to another.
Posted by: Jim S at March 14, 2003 12:26 PMOnly one little problem with your "antisocialist" logic, many people who have terrible alcohol additions could not pay for treatment, thus the reason the tax on liqueur is already in place. Do you think your logic is better than the people on Capitol Hill? Then why don’t you run for office?
Also the USA is the RICHEST industrialized nation in the world, and also one of the LAST with out a socialized health care system, thanks Republicans. I also want to send a shout out to Republicans for: having the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression, giving us three years of recession, taking a 3 Trillion dollar surplus and turning it into, what will be with the new budget (521 Billion in the red), negative 7 Trillion.
Not bad for a bunch of ignorant bastards.
Message to whom ever runs this site: take your head out of your fat ass and read a book.
You sure do have a Logic Problem.
First, if a person is rich enough to pay for a heavy drinking habit, he's rich enough to pay for treatment if he wants it. Even more so with a lower tax burden.
Second, part of the reason we are the RICHEST nation in the world is precisely BECAUSE we don't have socialized medicine.
Third, we don't have the highest unemployment since the Great Depression. That is just wrong.
Fourth, the recession only lasted 2 quarters, not 3 years. Q42003 was the highest rate of POSITIVE growth in 20 years. In case you didn't realize recessions are measured by a NEGATIVE growth rate.
Fifth, you are confusing a budget surplus with the national debt. Budget surpluses are a factor of how much revenue (taxes) you take in (seize) versus how much money you spend. It is an annual figure. The national debt is cumulative.
Sixth, the budget surplus was never $3 Trillion, and the National Debt is way below $7 Trillion. (Exaggerate much?) In fact the budget surplus was a pipe dream to begin with. It never materialized because it was based on the dot-bomb bubble not bursting.
As for the ignorance scale, you're 0 for 6. Care to try again?
Posted by: Ravenwood at February 13, 2004 11:28 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
