[quote]Christine wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I can’t see the link - someone help me out: is his argument why the Big Three shouldn’t get bailed because they awful, irresponsible choices and they don’t deserve taxpayer bailouts for the excesses?
Because if so, good for him - and that is exactly why I would tell him he doesn’t deserve access to universal health care.
I caught a clip earlier on TV, but was somewhat distracted at the time (on the phone)where he seemed to be saying that Obama will finally usher in the end of capitalism and good riddance to it. All this crisis is making it necessary. I was trying to listen to a customer and him at the same time, a bad habit, so I may have gotten it wrong.
Okay, I listened to the clip again, and he didn’t once say Obama in the link provided.
Perhaps he brought it up elsewhere in the interview?
It is basically a rant of how the big 3 are asking for more money when they horribly mismanaged their companies.
[/quote]
In my post I specified that I was talking about a clip I saw earlier on TV. He was being interviewed in that one.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
His heart’s in the right place. I just wish he had a better grasp of the fact that government is to blame for everything that goes wrong.
[/quote]
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
His heart’s in the right place. I just wish he had a better grasp of the fact that government is to blame for everything that goes wrong.
Yeah, those people in Somalia have got it good.
Think about what you’re saying people.
[/quote]
That is a completely different culture, with or without a government.
Or are you suggesting that Switzerland would go Lord of the Flies if their government magically disappeared?
Knowing that country I´d say they hardly notice for a few months-
[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
His heart’s in the right place. I just wish he had a better grasp of the fact that government is to blame for everything that goes wrong.
Yeah, those people in Somalia have got it good.
Think about what you’re saying people.
That is a completely different culture, with or without a government.
Or are you suggesting that Switzerland would go Lord of the Flies if their government magically disappeared?
Knowing that country I´d say they hardly notice for a few months-[/quote]
The truth is in the middle folks. The fact of the matter is that there is always a point of diminishing return, and in the case of government, that point get’s reached pretty damn quick.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
His heart’s in the right place. I just wish he had a better grasp of the fact that government is to blame for everything that goes wrong.
Yeah, those people in Somalia have got it good.
Think about what you’re saying people.
That is a completely different culture, with or without a government.
Or are you suggesting that Switzerland would go Lord of the Flies if their government magically disappeared?
Knowing that country I´d say they hardly notice for a few months-
The truth is in the middle folks. The fact of the matter is that there is always a point of diminishing return, and in the case of government, that point get’s reached pretty damn quick.
[/quote]
The best example to date is found in our founding documents. We have been in the process for quite a while of trading that for one of the worst. That will be complete before I die if this country does not wake up. People just keep redefining socialism and marxism to mean something other than what’s happening to this country to make themselves feel better.
These rants about government involvement would make a lot more sense if we weren’t in the middle of large crisis.
Short of the “let the bodies fall where they may mentality” there is the notion that the government can be involved to the point of stopping a collapse, and then get the hell back out.
Regulation, for example, such as ensuring that an insurance company takes steps to actually be able to pay up in the event of a claim, is not stifling with respect to choosing who to hire or how to go about running an insurance business.
Government owning or running business, or competing with free enterprise, or directing businesses through central authority, now that would be another story… but I don’t see anyone proposing it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
These rants about government involvement would make a lot more sense if we weren’t in the middle of large crisis.
Short of the “let the bodies fall where they may mentality” there is the notion that the government can be involved to the point of stopping a collapse, and then get the hell back out.
Regulation, for example, such as ensuring that an insurance company takes steps to actually be able to pay up in the event of a claim, is not stifling with respect to choosing who to hire or how to go about running an insurance business.
Government owning or running business, or competing with free enterprise, or directing businesses through central authority, now that would be another story… but I don’t see anyone proposing it.[/quote]
Really?
What about public schools and the plans to socialize health care? Those are major industries.
What about the idea to take over 401k plans.
What about monopolized, central planned fiat money?
Would health care, the school system and the money supply be enough for you or when exactly can we start to talk about socialism?
We can talk about socialism any time you want, but as I said earlier, increasing the tax rate on the highest brackets and the capital gains tax by about 5% does not constitute socialism, and the suggestion that it does is asinine. Sure, you can complain about taxes being too high if you want, but when you say “This is socialism,” then you’re wrong.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
We can talk about socialism any time you want, but as I said earlier, increasing the tax rate on the highest brackets and the capital gains tax by about 5% does not constitute socialism, and the suggestion that it does is asinine. Sure, you can complain about taxes being too high if you want, but when you say “This is socialism,” then you’re wrong.[/quote]
I am saying that nationalizing health care is one big step towards socialism and would have disastrous consequences.
Then, higher taxes and an even higher state quota means a society that moves towards socialism.
Must we wait for him to destroy a whole nation or are we allowed to disagree as long as it still might be preventable?
And again, I am calling fiat money and public education socialism, because that is what they are.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
We can talk about socialism any time you want, but as I said earlier, increasing the tax rate on the highest brackets and the capital gains tax by about 5% does not constitute socialism, and the suggestion that it does is asinine. Sure, you can complain about taxes being too high if you want, but when you say “This is socialism,” then you’re wrong.
I am saying that nationalizing health care is one big step towards socialism and would have disastrous consequences.
Then, higher taxes and an even higher state quota means a society that moves towards socialism.
Must we wait for him to destroy a whole nation or are we allowed to disagree as long as it still might be preventable?
And again, I am calling fiat money and public education socialism, because that is what they are.
[/quote]
The government does not own the education infrastructure outright, though.
[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
We can talk about socialism any time you want, but as I said earlier, increasing the tax rate on the highest brackets and the capital gains tax by about 5% does not constitute socialism, and the suggestion that it does is asinine. Sure, you can complain about taxes being too high if you want, but when you say “This is socialism,” then you’re wrong.
I am saying that nationalizing health care is one big step towards socialism and would have disastrous consequences.
Then, higher taxes and an even higher state quota means a society that moves towards socialism.
Must we wait for him to destroy a whole nation or are we allowed to disagree as long as it still might be preventable?
And again, I am calling fiat money and public education socialism, because that is what they are.
The government does not own the education infrastructure outright, though.
[/quote]
No, a few wealthy people can get a decent education for their kids.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
His heart’s in the right place. I just wish he had a better grasp of the fact that government is to blame for everything that goes wrong.
Yeah, those people in Somalia have got it good.
Think about what you’re saying people.
That is a completely different culture, with or without a government.
Or are you suggesting that Switzerland would go Lord of the Flies if their government magically disappeared?
Knowing that country I´d say they hardly notice for a few months-
[/quote]
This is interesting. So are you saying that libertarian ideal is not a one size fits all solution? That there is no ideal form of government, but rather that the best system depends on the culture?
[quote]Gael wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
His heart’s in the right place. I just wish he had a better grasp of the fact that government is to blame for everything that goes wrong.
Yeah, those people in Somalia have got it good.
Think about what you’re saying people.
That is a completely different culture, with or without a government.
Or are you suggesting that Switzerland would go Lord of the Flies if their government magically disappeared?
Knowing that country I´d say they hardly notice for a few months-
This is interesting. So are you saying that libertarian ideal is not a one size fits all solution? That there is no ideal form of government, but rather that the best system depends on the culture?
[/quote]
Not really, I am saying the more a capitalist free market system has had time to take roots the more people depend on each other and internalize capitalist mores like non violent co-operation and the less they need a government that forces them to be peaceful.
Also, they become wealthy and start to have to much to lose to wage wars.
The best and fastest way to get there is a small government though.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
We can talk about socialism any time you want, but as I said earlier, increasing the tax rate on the highest brackets and the capital gains tax by about 5% does not constitute socialism, and the suggestion that it does is asinine. Sure, you can complain about taxes being too high if you want, but when you say “This is socialism,” then you’re wrong.[/quote]
When those taxes are levied for the purpose of redistribution to other private concerns instead of constitutionally mandated purposes like war or a very limited number of other PUBLIC enterprises it is socialism.
We will take your assets under threat of federal prosecution and give it to somebody else who does not, for whatever reason, have as much as you do.
Legally coerced confiscation and redistribution is tantamount to communal ownership. Especially when the benefited segment of the population has the right to vote the productive segment’s money into their own pockets like has just happened in the most blatant example imaginable.
This serves to create a very powerful and intrusive government where the productive are employees and the beneficiaries are dependents. This is all very bad for everybody except those who make up that government.
Economic and by extension social parity is an impossibility unless the preponderance of the citizens are willing to VOLUNTARILY part with enough of their own assets to aid those with unavoidable reasons for being unproductive.
The quest for this parity in this country has been and will continue to be corrosive to our society until we are finally weakened into a condition where outright despotic tyranny will appear preferable. DC to the rescue. We are seeing it already.
[quote]orion wrote:
vroom wrote:
These rants about government involvement would make a lot more sense if we weren’t in the middle of large crisis.
Short of the “let the bodies fall where they may mentality” there is the notion that the government can be involved to the point of stopping a collapse, and then get the hell back out.
Regulation, for example, such as ensuring that an insurance company takes steps to actually be able to pay up in the event of a claim, is not stifling with respect to choosing who to hire or how to go about running an insurance business.
Government owning or running business, or competing with free enterprise, or directing businesses through central authority, now that would be another story… but I don’t see anyone proposing it.
Really?
What about public schools and the plans to socialize health care? Those are major industries.
What about the idea to take over 401k plans.
What about monopolized, central planned fiat money?
Would health care, the school system and the money supply be enough for you or when exactly can we start to talk about socialism?
[/quote]
Most people who claim to be against wealth redistribution and socialism are actually full of shit. They are really just opposed to the phrase “wealth redistribution” and the word “socialism”, but they support it in practice and would never vote for a politician who is legitimately opposed to it.
Unfortunately I suspect that people throughout the developed world will vote to give more power to their governments in the coming years.
[quote]Christine wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I can’t see the link - someone help me out: is his argument why the Big Three shouldn’t get bailed because they awful, irresponsible choices and they don’t deserve taxpayer bailouts for the excesses?
Because if so, good for him - and that is exactly why I would tell him he doesn’t deserve access to universal health care.
Yes that is what he basically said.
And I agree with your second point.[/quote]
I also agree with that part of the argument. The problem is that he then goes on to say “And I think, really, what we’re seeing now – with them, with the banks – we’re seeing the end of capitalism. The end of capitalism as we know it and I say good riddance. It hasn’t helped the people or the planet”.
To say that capitalism hasn’t helped the people is ridiculously retarded.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
vroom wrote:
These rants about government involvement would make a lot more sense if we weren’t in the middle of large crisis.
Not if you believe that government intervention actually caused the crisis.
[/quote]
This is the mind boggling kicker right here that entirely explains the brazenness of this last campaign.
We have a global disaster and the brain dead sheep hire the the quintessential personification of everything that caused it to fix it.
That’s like the fire department hiring an arsonist.