patrick.net

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

Honest Abe says

At least I know...

You and I both know our economy and our government are seriously messed up. The difference is you think you have all the answers. And you repeatedly claim one overly simplistic mantra, that it's the fault of liberals and their policies. You know,... the policies that might not benefit your corporate overlords.

By corporate overlords, I mean the entities that indirectly or directly pay the people who have conned you and programmed you with all of your anti liberal hysteria.

Honest Abe says

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

In the case of Chrysler back in the early 80s, and GM in 2008, definitely. IF they hadn't bailed GM out, Ford might have been gone too, because of the supply chain failing (due to all the money GM owed them - I know Ray disagrees about Ford, but we had that argument before. I and others showed him quotes right and left, and data, but he put his fingers in his ears and said, "I can't hear you la la la la la la la la la la." And then he repeated a few more times that the government didn't bail Ford out).

The best proof was the price of Ford's stock, and Fords suppliers stock before the government bailed GM out.

So, yeah, I guess when American car companies are totally back up and doing great, you and Ray can talk about how there shouldn't be any American car companies anymore, except for the branches of Toyota, Honda, Hyunda, etc.

Honest Abe says

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

Another way of framing it:

I thank my government for making such an excellent investment on my behalf. Thank goodness they were able to do it. Not just for the awesome financial return it will provide, but also because I like the continued existence of american car manufacturers.

http://www.chevrolet.com/vehicles/2011/camaro/overview.do?seo=goo_|_2008_Chevy_Retention_|_IMG_2009_Chevy_Camaro_|_Camaro_2011_|_2011_camaro

There aren't all that many cool cars under $30K anymore. I have to say, this is a very cool car. Although to be honest, I don't know anything more than how it looks.

^ as a Miata owner I approve :) It was getting so hot here I actually pulled the hardtop off this August, first time since 2002 I've driven with the top down.

Honest Abe says

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.

I agree. Lets start with the military.

(2) Stop inflating and devaluing the dollar.

Already done.

(3) Privatize failing government programs.

Already done. Why do you think there are so many mercenaries being employed in Afghanistan?

marcus says

I know Ray disagrees about Ford, but we had that argument before. I and others showed him quotes right and left, and data, but he put his fingers in his ears and said, “I can’t hear you la la la la la la la la la la.” And then he repeated a few more times that the government didn’t bail Ford out).

The Gray Lady disagrees with Marcus. One Lib source against another Lib source. Who is right? The New York Times or Marcus? LOL

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/ford_motor_company/index.html

marcus says

So, yeah, I guess when American car companies are totally back up and doing great, you and Ray can talk about how there shouldn’t be any American car companies anymore, except for the branches of Toyota, Honda, Hyunda, etc.

Never said that and neither did Abe, so the question is, why are you lying?

Honest Abe says

The federal government has no business being in the railroad/people transportation business (Amtrak)

Interesting, should the government also get out of subsidizing the highway and air travel business? How about the internet business? How about electricity? Or is it only the things you don't personally use that the government should get out of?

Kevin - OMG, what factual information do you have that shows the government is NOT inflating our currency and devaluing the dollar? There is no such information. and you are simply WRONG.

Next, what factual information do you have that shows the government is privatizing failing government businesses?

You simply don't understand the difference between "privatize"and "socialize". Why not look them up? I also recommend you go to these sites: Dollar Collapse and 321 Gold. Look around and read a variety of the posts - you'll learn a lot.

BoB - "Centralization of the means of TRANSPORTATION in the hands of the State" is part of the COMMUNIST MANEFISTO. How can you denounce communism and support it at the same time? I know the answer - you sir, and those like you, support socialism, communism, the nanny state, soft tyranny, the road to serfdom, and government control of everything.

If you owned a rental house that lost money each and every month wouldn't you want to sell the house to end the losses? Or are you just stupid?

What you cannot accept is the fact that honest, hardworking taxpayers should NOT BE FORCED by the government to support ANY failing business. Government force - against the will of the people - is tyranny.

RayAmerica says

The Gray Lady disagrees with Marcus. One Lib source against another Lib source. Who is right? The New York Times or Marcus? LOL

Wow, you found an article about Ford. You've gotten pretty good with this whole internet usage Ray.

I'm not going to repeat an argument we had before. Besides for you arguing is all about not hearing what the other person says anyway.

RayAmerica says

Never said that and neither did Abe, so the question is, why are you lying?

Not going to try to help you understand how logic works either. You've made it quite clear that it's not your thing. But for the other readers:

When Abe and Ray object to government temporarily involving itself in business, including bailouts of Chrysler and GM, this is no different than saying that you don't want any American car companies to exist anymore.

marcus says

When Abe and Ray object to government temporarily involving itself in business, including bailouts of Chrysler and GM, this is no different than saying that you don’t want any American car companies to exist anymore.

Funny little thing I noticed; you didn't include "Ford" in your bailout comment. I guess you're beginning to see the light. There's hope for everyone. LOL !

Honest Abe says

Kevin - OMG, what factual information do you have that shows the government is NOT inflating our currency and devaluing the dollar? There is no such information. and you are simply WRONG.
Next, what factual information do you have that shows the government is privatizing failing government businesses?
You simply don’t understand the difference between “privatize”and “socialize”. Why not look them up? I also recommend you go to these sites: Dollar Collapse and 321 Gold. Look around and read a variety of the posts - you’ll learn a lot.
BoB - “Centralization of the means of TRANSPORTATION in the hands of the State” is part of the COMMUNIST MANEFISTO. How can you denounce communism and support it at the same time? I know the answer - you sir, and those like you, support socialism, communism, the nanny state, soft tyranny, the road to serfdom, and government control of everything.
If you owned a rental house that lost money each and every month wouldn’t you want to sell the house to end the losses? Or are you just stupid?
What you cannot accept is the fact that honest, hardworking taxpayers should NOT BE FORCED by the government to support ANY failing business. Government force - against the will of the people - is tyranny.

Inflation is near zero right now.

Most medicare and military spending goes to private companies.
Socialism is government ownership of resources. You can argue that our ownership of gm is socialist. Paying privat military contractors is not socialism, its just fucked up.

Oh, and I do agree that the corporate welfare that we give to military contractors and health care providers in the form of medicare I outrageous.

Its absurd to cry foul over loans made to gm while ignoring the trillions going to defense contractors and doctors though.