Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

[United Marxist Nations]

I think we have lost the OP. Damn it! It just doesn't get any easier!

[New Rogernomics]

Do you have a clue why trillions of dollars are never spent on Education, Healthcare and Social Welfare for the American people?

Because lobbyists are assholes that give the government money to make the government give money to them instead of to those categories.

Actually it is full circle: Corporations pay lobbyists to get subsidies/economic benefits -> Corporations get more on the government teat -> Corporations become less competitive and more monopolistic -> Corporations push for more subsidies/economic benefits -> And so on... till which time that the Corporation implodes like Enron.

[Death Metal]

Well it isn't even private enterprise, let alone free enterprise; given that most of the American economy is controlled by Corporate monopolies. I think he/she is cute and fails to realize that in the real world of Corporations alongside small business, you need regulations otherwise you just have criminal gangs outside the law running the country.

So true.

It's ironic how some people love to follow the example of people who write passionately about freedom, but forget that these same people also warn that there is a thing as too much freedom.

[Cannot think of a name]

Why is it that every time I see someone using the 'don't tread on me' flag, the post next to it is silly?

typically your post is an ad hominem devoid of fact, logic and empirical evidence.

but that is expected.

Hey there Summer Time...

...I don't like to get into that notion of 'forum royalties' and badasses and stuff, but there's a specific reason I'm going to break that rule here.

'Cause the guy you just dismissed...now, I preface this by saying that I disagree with this guy on just about everything that isn't a car and have at times referred to him as Dr. Doom...this cat, this cat (to use a horrible cliche) has likely forgotten more stuff about economics than most of us here can hope to understand. He's been here a while like I have and we've watched him go through his education to where he is, he's a pretty bright cat and despite being on the unpopular side of a lot of arguments, is a level headed guy. Even when goaded. I know this, for I have goaded him. I respect the shit out of this cat even though I think some of his economic ideals should be followed by cackling to give their proper gravitas.

Now, why does this matter? Some dude you don't like likes another dude you don't like, big fucking deal, right?

Well, because, really, he's on the side you think you're on. If you're nice, he might explain how you managed to be so wrong being right. (of course, I will continue to maintain that the both of you are wrong, just that only one of you will have been talking out of their ass).

Is there an award for the most backhanded compliment? I think I might be up for a record.

[Zionale]

Oh, great. Another Republican troll thread to lure liberals? Please provide evidence of this supposed corruption that follows with government. By evidence, I mean actual sources to credible websites that show examples of bigger governments (by your definition, places like Canada, UK, all/most of the developed world except US, etc.) equating to more corruption.

uh... A lot of consrvatives (not most or all of them) actually believe that

[Death Metal]

I think we have lost the OP. Damn it! It just doesn't get any easier!

When the going gets tough, the individualist goes running to his friends for help.

[Forster Keys]

You want a question? Here you go: Why do you think insulting your intended audience callously and repeatedly is going to get them to listen to you?

Yeah this.

[Beiluxia]

Oh, great. Another Republican troll thread to lure liberals? Please provide evidence of this supposed corruption that follows with government. By evidence, I mean actual sources to credible websites that show examples of bigger governments (by your definition, places like Canada, UK, all/most of the developed world except US, etc.) equating to more corruption.

uh... A lot of consrvatives (not most or all of them) actually believe that

Just because somebody believes in the spewing vomit Faux News feeds them doesn't make it true. Opinion =/= fact.

[AuSable River]

The OP is full of shit. Let's enlighten him.

(Image)

Another.

(Image)

SInce I have been inundated with numerous responses (most of them spurious ad hominems), I will nonetheless focus on one leftist at a time -- debunk him -- and move on to the next one.

SO hold your posts until I dispatch Mavorpen because his post is the most ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

FOr example, he posts a links to images that purport to show that republicans are the biggest deficit spenders -- including an intellectually dishonest link that fails to show deficit increases under obama (his link mysteriously cuts off prior to 2009 when national debt expanded from $10 trillion to a record $16 trillion in 4 years). Moreover, another intellectually dishonest link begins the obama administration from 2010 instead of 2009 when he pushed through through trillions in new stimulus spending.

In sum, this ideologue is dishonest. His ideological programming allows him to correctly see republican hypocrisy and corruption -- but he is blinded by programming to see at least equally damaging democrat party corruption and waste.

No matter, I will use logic to destroy him starting with the following questions:

1) how can this ideologue explain how bankers earned more profit in 2 years under obama, pelosi and reid then the previous eight years under bush ? And is this any surprise when wall street players dominate the obama cabinet ? (from the leftwing huffpo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... 79482.html)

2) if the obama administration is not corrupt -- then explain why lobbyist spending reached record levels in the immediate two years after he gained power ?? And is Mavorpen surprised that from 2008 to 2010, washington was 'open for corruption to the highest bidder' (from a leftwing thinktank: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/1 ... ?mobile=nc)

3) And lastly, are you so deluded that you think that only republicans are corrupt ?

I will deal with this leftist mavoren and his offensive attitude and move on to the next leftwinger.

[New Rogernomics]

Well it isn't even private enterprise, let alone free enterprise; given that most of the American economy is controlled by Corporate monopolies. I think he/she is cute and fails to realize that in the real world of Corporations alongside small business, you need regulations otherwise you just have criminal gangs outside the law running the country.

So true.

It's ironic how some people love to follow the example of people who write passionately about freedom, but forget that these same people also warn that there is a thing as too much freedom.

I wouldn't say I enjoy watching businesses implode from being uncompetitive and inefficient after years of lobbying the government for money; but it is slightly amusing to see people advocating that the very economic forces that rely on the government to sustain them, could run the country effectively. Far more likely after years of being uncompetitive, inefficient and monopolistic they would implode from foreign competition. The average American wouldn't notice much though, as most US Corporations have a set agenda about shutting down production and moving it all to China.

[AuSable River]

and i see that mavoren is online, so please respond to my challenges in the preceding post.

[Death Metal]

uh... A lot of consrvatives (not most or all of them) actually believe that

Just because somebody believes in the spewing vomit Faux News feeds them doesn't make it true. Opinion =/= fact.

I think the OP is an Infowars reader actually. Notice the passive-agressive trolling, the "I'm not a sheep like you, I'm a total nonconformist and you should all be just like me!" attitude. You don't get that from Hannity, you get that from the hard, uncut bullshit.

[Forster Keys]

I will deal with this leftist mavoren and his offensive attitude and move on to the next leftwinger.

I love the rhetoric mate. Just like what I was talking about in the "Lord of the Rings mentality" post that you never answered.

[AuSable River]

Just because somebody believes in the spewing vomit Faux News feeds them doesn't make it true. Opinion =/= fact.

I think the OP is an Infowars reader actually. Notice the passive-agressive trolling, the "I'm not a sheep like you, I'm a total nonconformist and you should all be just like me!" attitude. You don't get that from Hannity, you get that from the hard, uncut bullshit.

dude, I am here to debunk big government types who are clueless to the fact that poltiicans and their cronies in the private and public sector are using government to further their own interests at the expense of societal health and well being.

ANd I am waiting for mavoren to respond.

[United Marxist Nations]

Just because somebody believes in the spewing vomit Faux News feeds them doesn't make it true. Opinion =/= fact.

I think the OP is an Infowars reader actually. Notice the passive-agressive trolling, the "I'm not a sheep like you, I'm a total nonconformist and you should all be just like me!" attitude. You don't get that from Hannity, you get that from the hard, uncut bullshit.

He has probably also orderd GBTV on his cable.

[New Rogernomics]

I think the OP is an Infowars reader actually. Notice the passive-agressive trolling, the "I'm not a sheep like you, I'm a total nonconformist and you should all be just like me!" attitude. You don't get that from Hannity, you get that from the hard, uncut bullshit.

dude, I am here to debunk big government types who are clueless to the fact that poltiicans and their cronies in the private and public sector are using government to further their own interests at the expense of societal health and well being.

ANd I am waiting for mavoren to respond.

And I am here to advocate for correct grammar and spelling, and the reality that 'leftist' makes as much sense as 'rightist' i.e. not at all.

[Death Metal]

The OP is full of shit. Let's enlighten him.

(Image)

Another.

(Image)

SInce I have been inundated with numerous responses (most of them spurious ad hominems), I will nonetheless focus on one leftist at a time -- debunk him -- and move on to the next one.

SO hold your posts until I dispatch Mavorpen because his post is the most ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

FOr example, he posts a links to images that purport to show that republicans are the biggest deficit spenders -- including an intellectually dishonest link that fails to show deficit increases under obama (his link mysteriously cuts off prior to 2009 when national debt expanded from $10 trillion to a record $16 trillion in 4 years). Moreover, another intellectually dishonest link begins the obama administration from 2010 instead of 2009 when he pushed through through trillions in new stimulus spending.

In sum, this ideologue is dishonest. His ideological programming allows him to correctly see republican hypocrisy and corruption -- but he is blinded by programming to see at least equally damaging democrat party corruption and waste.

No matter, I will use logic to destroy him starting with the following questions:

1) how can this ideologue explain how bankers earned more profit in 2 years under obama, pelosi and reid then the previous eight years under bush ? And is this any surprise when wall street players dominate the obama cabinet ? (from the leftwing huffpo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... 79482.html)

2) if the obama administration is not corrupt -- then explain why lobbyist spending reached record levels in the immediate two years after he gained power ?? And is Mavorpen surprised that from 2008 to 2010, washington was 'open for corruption to the highest bidder' (from a leftwing thinktank: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/1 ... ?mobile=nc)

3) And lastly, are you so deluded that you think that only republicans are corrupt ?

I will deal with this leftist mavoren and his offensive attitude and move on to the next leftwinger.

From the Huffington Post article:

But the discrepancy is in large part due to the $24.75 billion loss within the securities industry during the financial crisis of 2008 -- the last year of Bush's Presidency -- followed by a gain of $49.53 billion during the country's first year under Obama. That was a period when banks felt pressure to pay back bailout money, according to Gerard Cassidy, a banking analyst at RBC Capital Markets, in a 2009 interview with Bloomberg News.

In other words, they're being profitable because they're being successful, as opposed to a period where they were not being successful.

And your bullshit is proven false.

[Mavorpen]

FOr example, he posts a links to images that purport to show that republicans are the biggest deficit spenders -- including an intellectually dishonest link that fails to show deficit increases under obama (his link mysteriously cuts off prior to 2009 when national debt expanded from $10 trillion to a record $16 trillion in 4 years).

Lolwhut? Only one of the links leaves out Obama. The other two include him. Also, I'm tired of the right saying that Obama increased the debt by $5 trillion. No, he did not. It increased UNDER him, not because of him. Here, more evidence you're full of shit:

http://gooznews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/changes_deficit.jpg

Moreover, another intellectually dishonest link begins the obama administration from 2010 instead of 2009 when he pushed through through trillions in new stimulus spending.

2009 was Bush's fiscal year.

In sum, this ideologue is dishonest. His ideological programming allows him to correctly see republican hypocrisy and corruption -- but he is blinded by programming to see at least equally damaging democrat party corruption and waste.

No, it's not. You just don't like facts. I've shown that liberals aren't the ones that make government bigger. You've given no evidence otherwise.

No matter, I will use logic to destroy him starting with the following questions:

1) how can this ideologue explain how bankers earned more profit in 2 years under obama, pelosi and reid then the previous eight years under bush ? And is this any surprise when wall street players dominate the obama cabinet ? (from the leftwing huffpo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... 79482.html)

It doesn't. My whole post was about how you're full of shit claiming that liberals want to make government bigger. I agree Obama has been shit when it comes to not giving in to corporations.

2) if the obama administration is not corrupt -- then explain why lobbyist spending reached record levels in the immediate two years after he gained power ?? And is Mavorpen surprised that from 2008 to 2010, washington was 'open for corruption to the highest bidder' (from a leftwing thinktank: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/1 ... ?mobile=nc)

What am I surprised about? Enough with the straw men.

3) And lastly, are you so deluded that you think that only republicans are corrupt ?

Nope, but nice straw man.

I will deal with this leftist mavoren and his offensive attitude and move on to the next leftwinger.

You've dealt with nothing, you've dodged everything and refuse to give any evidence.

[Meryuma]

Establishment liberals such as Obama aren't even leftists.

Also, as a leftist, I oppose the existence of the state.

[Forster Keys]

I think the OP is an Infowars reader actually. Notice the passive-agressive trolling, the "I'm not a sheep like you, I'm a total nonconformist and you should all be just like me!" attitude. You don't get that from Hannity, you get that from the hard, uncut bullshit.

dude, I am here to debunk big government types who are clueless to the fact that poltiicans and their cronies in the private and public sector are using government to further their own interests at the expense of societal health and well being.

ANd I am waiting for mavoren to respond.

You posted four minutes ago.

[United Marxist Nations]

I think the OP is an Infowars reader actually. Notice the passive-agressive trolling, the "I'm not a sheep like you, I'm a total nonconformist and you should all be just like me!" attitude. You don't get that from Hannity, you get that from the hard, uncut bullshit.

dude, I am here to debunk big government types who are clueless to the fact that poltiicans and their cronies in the private and public sector are using government to further their own interests at the expense of societal health and well being.

ANd I am waiting for mavoren to respond.

Well, since he hasn't responded, respond to our posts.

[Jenrak]

AuSable River, I should probably warn you that the tone of your methods of argumentation sound incredibly condescending, so it makes it hard for people to empathise with your points when you look down upon people, even if you claim not to.

On that note, I want to address a few critical points that, for whatever reason, have not been addressed. On a whole, I do tend to agree with you that the current apparatus of government in the United States economy is somewhat bloated, and could definitely go through shrinkage. There are some fairly hefty and sizable budgets (the Department of Defense, famously) that could do with a bit more trimming.

But, let's address your points with as much fairness and what I do know, versus what I don't know. First off, let's immediately get rid of this label of 'left' and 'liberal', because when we use those terms in the debate of American politics (which I assume is your major point of interest), we want to get rid of loaded terms like those. There are very, very little outlets in the American media right now that don't have a view that are completely neutral, and so we need to be careful about who is 'left' or who is 'liberal', because those are relative terms: they denote someone from a centrist position. American politics are usually on average a bit more to the right, conservative side than the rest of global politics, so we shouldn't be looking at people as 'left' or 'liberal', but rather on specific issues and grounds. Pro-choice, pro-life, pro-gun regulation, anti-gun regulation, pro-bailout, pro-stimulus, anti-stimulus, etc., those are all more accurate and fair labels to be applied to people. To say that someone is left or liberal doesn't give us much leeway in deciding or defining what they actually are.

The goal of government - overarching government - is to provide public goods, minimise negative externalities, and act as an implementing tool in social change. Governments across nations do that to varying degrees of efficacy. On the bare basics, yes, I will concede that governments are naturally inefficient, large, and bureaucratic, and distinguish a unique power position that would otherwise not be afforded in a flexible marketplace. However, that's not necessarily a bad thing: the provision of goods, infrastructure, and planning and defense of a people within a given territory needs to be managed by an organization that would naturally be considered a purveyor of inefficient goods. Subsidies, non-income goods, environmental degradation, education, long-term investments, amiable market climates, criminal curbing, moral application, and security are all examples where governments are required because these products and values would not yield sufficient short-term (or even long-term!) benefits to a society.

Why then, do we not just stick to those values and leave it at that? Why must governments sometime become larger? The trick is not necessarily in the nature of government itself: that's a cyclical argument. The problem is that government is reflective of the managing structures of power, and those that supply power in a government thereby have a hand in its formation of the country. The problem this has is therefore governments are naturally ineffective at knowing what is needed, what isn't needed, and will be needed as components of government provision. In other words, it has difficulty figuring out what should be government run or market run. This falls down to all theorists, bankers, salespeople, trade economists, political scientists, etc. The challenge is exactly what government should provide. Unfortunately, the problem is that government is a multi-tendril organization that has ties to a wide variety of interests, and therefore ends up having to cater to a whole bunch of them.

Now then, how can we account for government and your argument of it being corrupt? You're using the 2008 financial crisis, so I will use the same crisis to posit a (hopefully) reasonable counterargument. The reason why the United States government had to bail out the various banks in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis is because there was no alternative. Global finance is dependent on the United States having access to cheap credit to both consume and innovate goods around the world, and therefore it works along the lines of a sort of 'credit black hole', where it is in the position where it needs to continuously be supplied cheap credit. We can easily see this in the case of countries such as Saudi Arabia and China providing cheap credit to the United States, so that credit can be cheaply loaned out to people who can then use that money to buy stuff, fund businesses, or invest in new startups and businesses. The act of government to provide a massive stimulus is because the banks that were on the verge of collapse were in such dire positions and would leave such financial catastrophe behind that there was little alternative to the situation: you couldn't leave the problem up to the market because there would be very little of a financial market left behind.

The bailout, in other words, became a necessary evil to mitigate the disasters of the financial recession. The decision to provide a bailout to these banks was not simply because these politicians were told they had to by bankers, elitists, or what have you, but because the wake of groups collapsing such as Merrill Lynch or the American International Group, many people lost homes, lost loans, got mistaken for other people, and / or acquired loans they never took on. In other words, it became a complete nightmare. The ability for banks to act in such a manner was precisely because of the slow diminishing of government intervention due to acts such as Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which repealed parts of government-introduced acts such as Glass-Steagall and reduced government efficacy. We also have to be careful and remember that the ability for banks to loan such large amounts of money to people was partly due to the artificially low interest rates due to the Federal Reserve, which functions as a sort of eclectic mix of private and public organizational structures.

So, to directly address your argument, I believe you're oversimplifying the nature of government. Government is meant to be reflective of a people's capability and will, but usually has difficulty because of its unique position in acquiring and accruing inefficiencies that would otherwise be unable to flourish in a more open market. The financial crisis of 2008 is a clear case of the need for communication between markets, as well as a strong case arguing for government, in fact. There is a disconnect in the costs versus benefits due to the structure of the collateralized debt obligations, where each actor in the case of a bad loan only accrued a small amount of the cost, thereby leading to more and more reckless loaning, consolidating, and incredibly shoddy paperwork. Had government been more active, arguably we would have been in a better position to react and stop this irrational exhuberance.

What about the private firm, then? Could the private firm be a sufficient means of management of the market? To be honest, not really. Y'see, theoretically we can say that a private firm would run more effectively than government because they can absorb all components of a competitive, 'cutthroat' market which provides highest quality at lowest prices, thereby increasing the effectiveness of all people involved. The problem in that is that the argument is highly overarching. Private firms are good, yes, and private markets are good, don't get me wrong. But there are some critical problems that we have to address.

There is a difference between a free market and an open market. We use the term free market a lot, but that's actually somewhat misleading. A perfectly free market is a market without any and all regulation, and markets of relative freedom have varying levels of regulation. A free market is bad. The reason is because not all products, services, and goods are created or provided equally. For example, not just anyone can up and start a bank. You need credit, you need backing, and you need trust of a solid community. Therefore, if I'm a meth addict who's recovering and decide I want to be a banker, I can't do that. I need money, I need people willing to trust me with their money, and I need backing. In that case, the free market has failed me, because it doesn't matter if I have the best damn idea for derivatives formula in my head: nobody's going to hire me based on variables that are now outside of my control. We see this problem precisely in the financial crisis in 2008: credit rating agencies provided bloated ratings for otherwise mediocre or bad loans, mortgage issuers give mortgages out for blatantly bad loan borrowers, and investment banks were consolidating faulty loans with good ones. In that case, a free market is ineffective because all involve actors deal with good and services that cannot easily be negated or combated even by a rational populace, because these large firms retained one-sided information silos.

What we need, instead, is an open market. Governments are key to open markets, because they define the rules upon which the market conducts itself. We don't need a 'free' market - instead, we want an orderly market, defined by rules which can then dictate the degree of fairness upon which things can happen. For that reason, I believe that it was the right decision for them to have bailed out the financial firms in 2008, even though there was an unfortunate lack of intensive investigation and disciplinary action, simply because it was a means of enforcing the right and fair rules that needed to be upheld in a time where a free market system has failed. So I guess, to argue directly to your claim that government is a means for your local public politician to 'game' the system, I would like to counterargue by saying that if you talk to them directly, either through an interview or an appointment-made discussion (try it - they're easier to get in contact with than you'd think!), they get into office and stay in office based upon concurrent social, political, and financial issues. Though there are people who go in there to 'game' the system, we also have to remember that many - many - politicians start their public careers after a quite successful private one, and the incentive for them to get into government is unlikely for them to benefit at the behest of a populace.

Do I think that corruption doesn't exist in the United States government? Of course it exists. It exists in all governments, to a varying extreme. But to replace it with a 'free market' is a misleading and highly ineffective idea, because this 'free market' is nowhere near being transparent, non-corrupt, or driven by a survivalist economic attitude. There are nexuses of power within the free market, just as there is in government, and these nexuses of power I would argue are just as bloodthirsty as the government officials you claim to be heading offices right now, perhaps even moreso. The benefit is that a president is actual at the behest of a 4 year term, whereas a private organization is determined by a nondemocratic board of members and a detached shareholder base.

I hope that clears up any questions or thoughts.

[Mavorpen]

dude, I am here to debunk big government types who are clueless to the fact that poltiicans and their cronies in the private and public sector are using government to further their own interests at the expense of societal health and well being.

ANd I am waiting for mavoren to respond.

You posted four minutes ago.

He apparently thinks I'm the Flash.

[Death Metal]

I think the OP is an Infowars reader actually. Notice the passive-agressive trolling, the "I'm not a sheep like you, I'm a total nonconformist and you should all be just like me!" attitude. You don't get that from Hannity, you get that from the hard, uncut bullshit.

dude, I am here to debunk big government types who are clueless to the fact that poltiicans and their cronies in the private and public sector are using government to further their own interests at the expense of societal health and well being.

ANd I am waiting for mavoren to respond.

And I'm here to debunk your complete nonsense, and to point out, for the 100th time, thatThe private sector are MUCH worse

Stop badmouthing the prodigal son while championing Cthulhu.

[AuSable River]

to the leftist zombie mob, kindly withhold comments until I deal with malvoren -- as I stated in a previous post it is impossible to deal with myriad zombies all at once, it would be easier and more informative to deal with one at a time.

I am calling mavoren out -- I challenged your BS in an earlier post -- please respond if you have the wherewithal.

If not then I will pick another big govenment type to debunk.

I will give you 5 minutes dude.