patrick.net

You idiot - wealth gets created DESPITE the government, not because of government. Excess government doesn't create prosperity...it creates poverty. Its the "middle-man" that sucks off that which is stolen from one class of American (the producers) and given to another class of
American (those who do not produce).

^ he says, writing on a computer whose miniaturized components were mostly developed with government money in the 1960s and on a network that was mostly funded with government money in the 1970s, a legal framework that was established by government in the 1980s, and using a web architecture that was initially developed with government money in the 1990s.

Government money, YOU IDIOT, government has no money of its own. The only money government has is that which it confiscates (steals under threat of force) from those who actually earn it.

With people like you no wonder America is if financial, economic, moral and educational decline.
Where did you go to school?

If the people didn't "provide it," would the government have any "money of its own?"

I find it amusing that you talk about americas decline and blame it on the government, when the countries that are growing the fastest right now are mostly still built on economies of state owned businesses.

I mean, really, there is zero evidence to support the idea that having a tiny skeleton government with no power is good for anything. The last time we had that type of government we were all farmers and there were not any airplanes, automobiles, or electricity in most homes.

And in case you haven't noticed, or can't figure it out for yourself, government attempting to provide everything to everybody is collapsing our economy. Could that be why so many people are angry and frustrated with our "public servents"?

Servant's

Honest Abe says

And in case you haven’t noticed, or can’t figure it out for yourself, government attempting to provide everything to everybody is collapsing our economy.

Our current economic situation has very little to do with what government provides. Shit, unless you're 65, disabled, or incredibly poor, our government doesn't provide much of anything except for a bunch of dead middle easterners.

Our economy is in a bad state for the same reason that all western economies are in a bad state. We don't have domestic production any more. We had two back to back bubbles (first stock market, then real estate) that hid this fact for nearly 20 years, but now we're finally seeing what it looks like.

The economy *WILL NEVER RECOVER* because there is nothing to "recover" to. 10% unemployment and seriously reduced incomes for the people who do have jobs is the new reality.

Things will get better eventually -- when America and China have GDP parity.

Could that be why so many people are angry and frustrated with our “public servents”?

Only the stupid ones.

Kevin says

The economy *WILL NEVER RECOVER* because there is nothing to “recover” to. 10% unemployment and seriously reduced incomes for the people who do have jobs is the new reality.

I agree with this, but with a caveat. As a thought experiment, what would this economy look like if all home owners had no mortgage payments and renters only had to pay the landlord for the depreciation of their rentals?

Would we still be "broke" as a nation? Or would we be able to make ends meet very easily?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty

Honest Abe says

And in case you haven’t noticed, or can’t figure it out for yourself, government attempting to provide everything to everybody is collapsing our economy.

Give me examples of "everything to everybody".

What does that even mean?

Honest Abe says

Where did you go to school?

You know, I'd like, at this point, to know a bit more about YOU, Abe Sapien.

How old are you, roughly? Where do you live? What was your occupation? and your pops? Tell me and I'll share mine back.

Apparently not many on this site understand that America is crumbling around you. Apparently you agree with the course of action our "wise" representatives have chosen. Apparently you support the notion that a debt and spending problem can be cured with more debt and more spending. Apparently you are in denial. Denial is willful and deliberate ignorance.

I know what you don't. You choose not to learn. So be it.

Every day people wake and start a new day. Babies are born. Crops are brought in. Cows milked. Ventures formed. Old hurts forgiven. New relationships start.

Consider that perhaps the sucking whirlpool of decay and blackness, exists in your mind. I had a friend I eventually eased away from, because for them everything was crumbling every day, and who wants to listen to griping every day of their lives? Not me.

Some folks in 1930's thought the world was going to hell, and would only end with the Rapture. It didn't.

Honest Abe says

So be it.

Does that mean to imply that we won't see any more posts from you? Great.

If America, the great bastion of Capitalism, is crumbling and the socialist nightmares like Canada and Norway are doing very well, well what do you conclude? That you might at the very least begin to look at some of the reasons for their stability?

Obama is not the solution, but near as I can tell your solutions are the problem. This country could benefit greatly from an open discussion about socialism...

Here's an article for you in parting:

The Dismantling of Civilized Society
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26458.htm
By David Michael Green, a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York.

some highlights:

"In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented America with a set of economic lies so transparent that even a monster like George H. W. Bush called them "voodoo economics""...

"This week Republicans once again have issued a manifesto calling for slashing taxes on billionaires and cutting deficits, all at the same time. And once again they will win big electoral landslide victories in November despite that patent idiocy. Or perhaps because of it."

"On the one hand, I don't blame Americans for voting for the party that isn't the Democratic Party this fall. Obama and crew are miserable failures,"

"And second, because 'the alternative' to the Democrats are the very folks who put us in these crises to start with, and they are now explicitly devoted to making conditions even worse for ordinary Americans."

"Perhaps their lies are more plausible because they have promised to cut spending. It's just that there are two little caveats they hope you won't notice. First, that they somehow miraculously fail to specify in advance of the election what they intend to cut. ...that what they are proposing is to mathematics what a dropped object falling upward would be to physics?"

Honest Abe says

left leaning democrats, liberals, progressives and socialists put government first and foremost. Apparently they believe government can solve all of societies real and perceived problems. What they conveniently forget is that government doesn’t create wealth, it only confiscates it. In other words to provide for some, government must take (by force) from others. Ultimately people become unwilling pawns in the government’s game of dominance and control. That doesn’t sound like “freedom” does it? Could that be the reason so many Amreicans are so angry now?

I don't believe this guy is a real person. It's someone just trying to piss people off with one straw man after another. Abe has no realistic solutions, and his obsessive focus is social spending which isn't even significant unless you include social security and Medicare.

I don't think he's real because it's impossible for someone to be simultaneously so arrogant and and at the same time so stupid. All I hear is bluster, ego and ignorance.

kentm says

If America, the great bastion of Capitalism, is crumbling and the socialist nightmares like Canada and Norway are doing very well, well what do you conclude?

Now wait there a second.

Canada and the US *DO NOT* have a system that is very different. They spend money on health care, we spend it on the military. The basic, fundamental models are more or less identical. Canada pays for their spending with high taxes, and the US pays for it by borrowing it from China. Unemployment rates are similar (US is currently higher, but historically canada's is much much higher). Canada has less debt, and lower per capita GDP.

Norway is interesting, but hardly something you can model on. They have a state-owned oil monopoly that keeps unemployment low and provides lots of domestic income. You might as well compare the US with Saudi Arabia. Countries without that oil reserve, like France or Germany, have to find other means to pay the bills.

When Norway runs out of oil, they'll be in the same position as any other wealthy European country, all of which have problems easily comparable to those of the US.

marcus says

Abe has no realistic solutions, and his obsessive focus is social spending which isn’t even significant unless you include social security and Medicare.

Have you ever considered the amount of money that is spent, i.e. wasted, on the administrative end of "social spending?" The federal government is the nation's biggest employer, by far, and that doesn't even include the military. In fact, all governments in the USA (city, county, state) employ a huge "work" force that is mainly unproductive and yet receive high salaries and benefits for doing next to nothing. I think that's what Abe and other conservatives on this site complain about; the incredible size and waste that constitutes "government" in all its forms.

Years ago during my idealistic and naïve youth I worked for a consumer protection agency on the local government level. I also served several years as the supervisor of that department. I could probably write a book about the waste that I observed everywhere I looked. Since then, the number of employees has almost doubled and the salaries have sky rocketed! I am totally convinced, having observed it first hand, that there is nothing on planet earth that is more wasteful than government. Why liberals think the expansion of government is a good thing is something that continues to amaze me.

Ray, I read and re-read the last two sentences of your post which is a great summary of reality. Liberals, rather than control spending, prefer to control people.

I told you before the number of people on government payrolls hasn't 'sky-rocketed, it hasn't increased since around 1965. What has sky-rocketed is the number of 'contract' employees on gov payroll, which means PRIVATE companies, which means when you attack the government based on employment rolls you're attacking private companies, which means I have no idea WTF you're talking about other than I think you're confused.

This is actually kind of how I picture you:

> In fact, all governments in the USA
I see we've finally hit at the REAL reason the US economy is in terrible straights - its not the speculative bets and constant leveraging on non-existent financial inventions, its not the excessive military spending, its not the bubble minded build and bust mentality of companies who place short term profit over long term growth & stability, its not the accounting tricks meant to cover years of poor financial policy decisions... its the guys who work at the DMV. Brilliant.

> Waste on social spending...
It depends on what you mean by waste. Is it your aim that EVERY single facet of every single everything in gov services be a gigantic profit generating machine?

In the same vein, have you noticed the latest Republican offering for a budget? It basically comes down to this: "Let the sick and stupid idiots huddle and die in fear while the country burns around them." I'm paraphrasing. By "Sick & stupid idiots" and "them" I mean, you, me and everyone in the US who isn't in the top 5 percent. Is that your ideal?

Kevin says

Now wait there a second.

Canada and the US *DO NOT* have a system that is very different.

Everything you quoted are points that amount to VERY radical differences. Other difference include pretty radical perspectives on regulation and oversight...

Canada's taxes aren't actually all that much higher, and particularly so when you factor in such things that they get for their taxes such as Healthcare, a decent public education system.

Marcus, I'm stupid? At least I know there is no such thing as a "free lunch". At least I know there are consequences to excess spending. At least I understand the law of unintended consequences. At least I know how excess regulations strangle employers and kill jobs. At least I understand a fiat currency ultimately isn't worth the paper its printed on. At least I know 2 + 2 = 4. All that makes me a LOT smarter than YOU.

And FYI, I have 30 or 40 realistic solutions to our countries problems. You won't want to hear them, however, because they require responsible actions from our trustworthy politicians. And by your posts, I can tell you are at least as responsible as our trustworthy politicians, hahaha.

marcus says

I don’t think he’s real because it’s impossible for someone to be simultaneously so arrogant and and at the same time so stupid. All I hear is bluster, ego and ignorance.

I think I agree, 100 percent.

Honest Abe says

And FYI, I have 30 or 40 realistic solutions to our countries problems.

Please, post them!

I don't have the time necessary (I'm at work). So I'll just start out with three:

(1) Put an immediate cap on all spending.

(2) Stop inflating and devaluing the dollar.

(3) Privatize failing government programs.

Thanks, I'm looking forward to the rest of them.

Please define "failing".

Failing = more expense than income. The end result is the loss is forced upon the taxpayer, again and again and again. Clear examples are Amtrak and Fanny Mae.

(I'm still at work)

OK, but I have to point out that by this definition the entire military budget is counted as "failing", you are aware of that, yes?

kentm says

I told you before the number of people on government payrolls hasn’t ’sky-rocketed, it hasn’t increased since around 1965.

You might find dumber comments posted on Patrick.net, but I doubt it. It's really amazing how libs post such idiotic statements as if they can't be easily proven to be totally false. Nice try Kentm. Too bad those facts just keep getting in your way. LOL

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=228

kentm says

Please define “failing”.

Liberals seem to have a problem with defining simple words. Clinton struggled with "it depends what the meaning of the word "is" is," and "it depends on what is meant by "alone."

Kent .... Put your thinking cap on. Here's a hint to help you on the meaning of the word "failing." It's the opposite of "succeeding."

Thanks for the link. I assumed 'government' meant Federal. I should have been clearer. Its hard to know what you two mean, you jump around so much in your posts.

...and facts don't "Keep" getting in my way, I don't think you've shown one - aside from the one above - case where something I've posted has been factually incorrect. I'm usually the one who posts links to facts and you're usually the one with broad blanket statements such as "libs post such idiotic statements".

I'll look into getting some numbers on contract vs. public employees if I can get around to it...

So anyway then since we're discussing both Federal AND local governments, case scenario: consider the salary of the mayor of a town. The mayor does not directly 'bring in' any cashflow to justify their salary. Is this considered a 'failing' position?

RayAmerica says

Kent …. Put your thinking cap on. Here’s a hint to help you on the meaning of the word “failing.” It’s the opposite of “succeeding.”

I could put my thinking cap up my bum and it would help as much with getting to the ideas behind your shifting wordplays and definitions.

I'm trying once again to actually understand what the thought process is behind these continuously angry and aggressive little posts you two make. And when you're talking about something as monstrously broad as "Privatize failing government programs" well then yeah I do need a definition. Because for example is a program considered 'failing' when the program fails to meet its own conceptual mandates or when it fails to meet some arbitrary set of financial standards. Two very different things, right?...

Kentm, maybe I should have been more specific. Rather than saying "privatize failing government programs", I should have stated "privatize failing government run businesses". The federal government has no business being in the railroad/people transportation business (Amtrak) or in the residential loan business (Fannie Mae) ESPECIALLY (yes I'm screaming) when they continue to lose money.

As a direct consequence, the financially strapped taxpayer is forced to make up the loss by our benevolent government. Do you think forcing taxpayers to maintain a failing business is the proper function of our government?

Okay, thanks for the definition.

> Do you think forcing taxpayers to maintain a failing business is the proper function of our government?

Well that depends on the benefits provided to society and the degree of effective public oversight and accountability...

For example, personally I think gov is the best solution for heathcare for the simple reason that I think a human being and the quality of their life should not be considered as simply a resource for generating profit. In this context the government is the only system in our society thats capable of being impartial because profit is not a motive, and that the real need is for public accountability.

'Business' exists for one purpose only and thats to generate profit or consolidate capital.

But anyway I'm at work too, so I don't want to go on right now and I don't want to get into a debate until you post more points... I look forward to the rest of your points.

kentm says

In this case the government is the only system in our society thats capable of being impartial because profit is not a motive, and that the real need is for public accountability.

Pure fantasy. As long as government is made up of human beings, it will never be impartial. As far as "public accountability" is concerned, how did that accountability work out for the "hundreds of billions worth of fraud" that Obama himself said took place in just Medicaid and Medicare alone? The fact is; there is an awful lot that goes on in government that the taxpayers not only don't know about, but the numerous obstacles to finding out real, factual information make finding anything substantial almost insurmountable.

The problem with anti-socialists is, they'd like to abolish all social safety nets, and preferably murder any "weak" elements. The lame, the old, anyone who can't pull the plow every day. Usually they couch this as putting them on the ice floe, or letting them "sink or swim" but the distinction is without a difference. That's the endpoint of being against socialism.

> Pure fantasy. As long as government...

I said "capable of being impartial". Business by design is never capable of it. Ever notice how corporations have manged to teach us to call each other not "human beings" but "consumers". A virus is a consumer, I'm capable of more. Are you?

> how did that accountability work out for the “hundreds of billions worth of fraud” that Obama himself said took place in just Medicaid and Medicare alone?

Probably the same way it worked out for the millions looted via Enron etc... and anyway private business is a HUGE part of medicare/aid... As I said, accountability and oversight is necessary, and in that I mean in both public and private.

You sound like a kid who was beaten up in a sandbox once and is now devoted to denying other kids the fun of playing in the sand.

Anyway, this has been a bit more fun than the usual exchange but its time to go meet my friends for pizza and you're making me sad.

I look forward to those points...

Vicente says

The problem with anti-socialists is, they’d like to abolish all social safety nets, and preferably murder any “weak” elements. The lame, the old, anyone who can’t pull the plow every day.

Interesting comment. Is that why euthanasia, abortion (is the innocent baby ... sorry ... "fetus" a "weak element?) etc. is so popular in socialist societies? Judging from history, I think you need to remove the "anti" in front of your "anti-socialists" quote.

I'm not aware that euthanasia and abortion are socialist inventions. I suppose you classify the ancient peoples as socialists though. We all refer to the Eskimo leaving Granny on the ice, but it predates the Inuit. Ditto for abortion which is hardly a modern invention. In Numbers 5:18 in the Bible seems like it's talking about an abortificant being given to a woman. Modern anti-socialists are far too cowardly for outright euthanasia though, they prefer to hide behind "survival of the fittest" language instead and promulgate a system that ensures medical care goes mostly to the "fittest".

Man I love anti-socialists, for instance they don't like socialist public fire stations. They'd prefer a house burn down because the resident hadn't paid fees in advance:

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/internal?st=print&id=104052668&path=/news/local

Vicente says

Modern anti-socialists are far too cowardly for outright euthanasia though, they prefer to hide behind “survival of the fittest” language instead and promulgate a system that ensures medical care goes mostly to the “fittest”.

"devil take the hindmost" is their ethos