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

[Wirbel]

Your response is fine and dandy -- but it ignores one mayor (sic) problem:


1) government operatives and their cronies gain power by claiming to address a need or acting as an advocate for the poor.

And they do.

2) government operative use this need as an excuse to gain power and control over other people's wealth against their will

Lolololololol Social Contract.

3) government uses this power to dole out crumbs to the very people that are suffering, while the bulk of favors and wealth go to their special interests and campaign contributors.

Which is due to the free market producing greedy people.

4) predictably the problem doesnt improve, hence government requires MORE power and money to 'solve' it.

Well yes, that's what taxes are for.

5) the poor are worse off then before, society is more unequal, and politicians and their cronies richer.

All due to capitalism.

Indeed, under obama lobbyists have skyrocketed, banks are making record profits, and not surprisingly poverty and permanent unemployment is at record levels.

Yes, under Obama. He's not the cause. Try again,

Hey, Source it All! If you want me to source my stuff, source YOURS!

[Mavorpen]

Why yes, I know your answer will be, "No, I don't have a source!" That's a good reason to disagree.

The Soviet government once got to big. It had the power to provide everything to it's citizens. But it used that power to take it all away.

Well, it industrialized faster than pretty much any nation in history. But yes, in order to do this famine ensued. I don't see what this has to do with anything.

[Wirbel]

And they do.

Lolololololol Social Contract.

Which is due to the free market producing greedy people.

Well yes, that's what taxes are for.

All due to capitalism.



Yes, under Obama. He's not the cause. Try again,

Hey, Source it All! If you want me to source my stuff, source YOURS!

And, even better, if I feel like your source is biased, I will 100% reject it!

[AuSable River]

No important technology has ever been created or produced by the government!

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

absurd.

government is funded entirely by the free market through taxes, rents, royalities and fees.

which begs the question ----


if government is so magnificent -- why do they require coercive taxpayer plunder to fund their schemes ??

and if government schemes are so beneficial or cost effective --- why dont they just allow the free market to fund it ?

and lastly, if government is so efficient and munificent --- then why dont they compete on a level playing field with free market competitors ???


ponder these points.

[Liriena]

Your response is all fine and dandy...but it ignores one mayor problem:

A) The parents of many children are poor or their salaries are too low. Or there are just no parents.
B) I'll ignore the part between brackets and just respond to the first part: Sometimes people just CAN'T save money for retirement. For example, when your employers pay you barely enough to get buy, and have no labor laws that tells them to maybe do something more than paying the minimum.
C) Please explain to me why, despite record profits in this last period, companies still don't hire works. Sorry, my friend, but sometimes THERE JUST AREN'T ANY JOBS.
D) Look to (C)

Your response is fine and dandy -- but it ignores one mayor (sic) problem:


1) government operatives and their cronies gain power by claiming to address a need or acting as an advocate for the poor.

2) government operative use this need as an excuse to gain power and control over other people's wealth against their will

3) government uses this power to dole out crumbs to the very people that are suffering, while the bulk of favors and wealth go to their special interests and campaign contributors.

4) predictably the problem doesnt improve, hence government requires MORE power and money to 'solve' it.

5) the poor are worse off then before, society is more unequal, and politicians and their cronies richer.


Indeed, under obama lobbyists have skyrocketed, banks are making record profits, and not surprisingly poverty and permanent unemployment is at record levels.

So, your ownly source is your own cynicism?

Well, I would love to hear you explain this (provided nobody else asked already and you failed to answer because...you know...you just couldn't without hurting your own pride and arrogance): Scandinavian nations have what you so pejoratively define as "big government" and their tax rates are huge. Yet...their overall quality of life is better than the American one...and their corruption rates are actually lower than the American one!

[Forster Keys]

Wikipedia is funded by the State. Your argument is invalided evil leftist.

Yes, yes. It floats on donations from the people.

Yeah but it's the same people who keep the State in power. The coffee drinking, transsexual, unemployed, elitist, arts major-taking, academic, conniving liberal hivemind.

[Mavorpen]

absurd.

government is funded entirely by the free market through taxes, rents, royalities and fees.

which begs the question ----


if government is so magnificent -- why do they require coercive taxpayer plunder to fund their schemes ??

Lolnope.

and if government schemes are so beneficial or cost effective --- why dont they just allow the free market to fund it ?

Because they'll fuck it up.

and lastly, if government is so efficient and munificent --- then why dont they compete on a level playing field with free market competitors ???

Because that's not the role of the government.

ponder these points.

I have. They're ignorant.

[Wirbel]

The Soviet government once got to big. It had the power to provide everything to it's citizens. But it used that power to take it all away.

Well, it industrialized faster than pretty much any nation in history. But yes, in order to do this famine ensued. I don't see what this has to do with anything.

More Taxes + Less Spending = More Poverty
Less Taxes + Less Spending = Capitalist Utopia- Well, all the money gets concentrated into a small elite.
Less Taxes + More Spending = Bankrupt Government
More Taxes + More Spending = Communist Utopia- Well, unless some corrupt guy like Stalin ruins it and it gets concentrated into a small elite.

Mixed Economy= It eventually goes in one of the directions (right or left)

[AuSable River]

Your response is fine and dandy -- but it ignores one mayor (sic) problem:


1) government operatives and their cronies gain power by claiming to address a need or acting as an advocate for the poor.

2) government operative use this need as an excuse to gain power and control over other people's wealth against their will

3) government uses this power to dole out crumbs to the very people that are suffering, while the bulk of favors and wealth go to their special interests and campaign contributors.

4) predictably the problem doesnt improve, hence government requires MORE power and money to 'solve' it.

5) the poor are worse off then before, society is more unequal, and politicians and their cronies richer.


Indeed, under obama lobbyists have skyrocketed, banks are making record profits, and not surprisingly poverty and permanent unemployment is at record levels.

So, your ownly source is your own cynicism?

Well, I would love to hear you explain this (provided nobody else asked already and you failed to answer because...you know...you just couldn't without hurting your own pride and arrogance): Scandinavian nations have what you so pejoratively define as "big government" and their tax rates are huge. Yet...their overall quality of life is better than the American one...and their corruption rates are actually lower than the American one!

I have already addressed this scandanvain fallacy in this thread.

go back and read it.

for example, in the 1990's sweden collapsed under the weight of its unsustainable welfare state with 500% interest rates.

since then a center right government has reduced govt spending as a % of GDP, lowered taxes and significantly downsized welfare largesse.

but go back and read my sources in posts earlier in this thread.

[Samuraikoku]

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

absurd.

government is funded entirely by the free market through taxes, rents, royalities and fees.

which begs the question ----


if government is so magnificent -- why do they require coercive taxpayer plunder to fund their schemes ??

and if government schemes are so beneficial or cost effective --- why dont they just allow the free market to fund it ?

and lastly, if government is so efficient and munificent --- then why dont they compete on a level playing field with free market competitors ???


ponder these points.

What does that have to do with my source?

Claim:

No important technology has ever been created or produced by the government.

ENIAC was designed to calculate artillery firing tables for the United States Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory.[4][5] When ENIAC was announced in 1946 it was heralded in the press as a "Giant Brain". It boasted speeds one thousand times faster than electro-mechanical machines, a leap in computing power that no single machine has since matched. This mathematical power, coupled with general-purpose programmability, excited scientists and industrialists. The inventors promoted the spread of these new ideas by conducting a series of lectures on computer architecture.

ENIAC's design and construction was financed by the United States Army during World War II. The construction contract was signed on June 5, 1943, and work on the computer began in secret by the University of Pennsylvania's Moore School of Electrical Engineering starting the following month under the code name "Project PX". The completed machine was announced to the public the evening of February 14, 1946[6] and formally dedicated the next day[7] at the University of Pennsylvania, having cost almost $500,000 (approximately $6,000,000 today). It was formally accepted by the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps in July 1946.

The very computer you're using to post this in, is a step further in the evolution of computers such as ENIAC, funded by the government.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Mavorpen]

More Taxes + More Spending = Communist Utopia- Well, unless some corrupt guy like Stalin ruins it and it gets concentrated into a small elite.

This has nothing to do with communism, but okay.

[Wirbel]

The Soviet government once got to big. It had the power to provide everything to it's citizens. But it used that power to take it all away.

Well, it industrialized faster than pretty much any nation in history. But yes, in order to do this famine ensued. I don't see what this has to do with anything.

Yes. Military Industry, though.

All the money was spent on two things-

Polticians' Lavish Lifestyle
The Military, Used To Kill Others And Steal More Money

[Wirbel]

More Taxes + More Spending = Communist Utopia- Well, unless some corrupt guy like Stalin ruins it and it gets concentrated into a small elite.

This has nothing to do with communism, but okay.

More Taxes + More Welfare Related Spending = Communist Utopia- Well, unless some corrupt guy like Stalin ruins it and it gets concentrated into a small elite.

Corrected.

Everyone is Equal= Communism in Theory
Very Nice Idea But Easily Corrupted = Communism in real life

[Arathian nation]

Liberals are elected to office because they provide everything to their people, they provide healthcare, education, birth control, housing, food, welfare, etc. They push forward big government because they themselves are corrupt. The liberals in this country are to lazy to work to make money, and instead want to receive everything from the government.

[Mavorpen]

I have already addressed this scandanvain fallacy in this thread.

go back and read it.

for example, in the 1990's sweden collapsed under the weight of its unsustainable welfare state with 500% interest rates.

since then a center right government has reduced govt spending as a % of GDP, lowered taxes and significantly downsized welfare largesse.

but go back and read my sources in posts earlier in this thread.

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogs ... ty-in.html

[Liriena]

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

absurd.

government is funded entirely by the free market through taxes, rents, royalities and fees.

which begs the question ----


a) if government is so magnificent -- why do they require coercive taxpayer plunder to fund their schemes ??

b) and if government schemes are so beneficial or cost effective --- why dont they just allow the free market to fund it ?

c) and lastly, if government is so efficient and munificent --- then why dont they compete on a level playing field with free market competitors ???


ponder these points.

a) Because in a capitalist society everything costs money, and the government doesn't really have a magic machine to make it (at least, not without causing serious currency problems)

b) Because the free market as it exists today is an imperfect market and, thus, it would never be efficient enough to provide for the needs of the whole population. Please read some basic economy on the differences between and properties of "market of perfect competition" and "market of imperfect competition".

c) Funny thing...in many countries that actually happens...and it goes rather well.

[Forster Keys]

This has nothing to do with communism, but okay.

More Taxes + More Welfare Related Spending = Communist Utopia- Well, unless some corrupt guy like Stalin ruins it and it gets concentrated into a small elite.

Corrected.

Everyone is Equal= Communism in Theory
Very Nice Idea But Easily Corrupted = Communism in real life

Classless, stateless society = Communist Utopia. Socialism is just a transitional stage.

[Samuraikoku]

a) Because in a capitalist society everything costs money, and the government doesn't really have a magic machine to make it (at least, not without causing serious currency problems)

Come on, you should know better!

[Mavorpen]

This has nothing to do with communism, but okay.

More Taxes + More Welfare Related Spending = Communist Utopia- Well, unless some corrupt guy like Stalin ruins it and it gets concentrated into a small elite.

Corrected.

Still nothing to do with communism.

Well, it industrialized faster than pretty much any nation in history. But yes, in order to do this famine ensued. I don't see what this has to do with anything.

Yes. Military Industry, though.

All the money was spent on two things-

Polticians' Lavish Lifestyle
The Military, Used To Kill Others And Steal More Money

Yeah, no.

[Wirbel]

absurd.

government is funded entirely by the free market through taxes, rents, royalities and fees.

which begs the question ----


a) if government is so magnificent -- why do they require coercive taxpayer plunder to fund their schemes ??

b) and if government schemes are so beneficial or cost effective --- why dont they just allow the free market to fund it ?

c) and lastly, if government is so efficient and munificent --- then why dont they compete on a level playing field with free market competitors ???


ponder these points.

a) Because in a capitalist society everything costs money, and the government doesn't really have a magic machine to make it (at least, not without causing serious currency problems)

b) Because the free market as it exists today is an imperfect market and, thus, it would never be efficient enough to provide for the needs of the whole population. Please read some basic economy on the differences between and properties of "market of perfect competition" and "market of imperfect competition".

I'd say that this is the Malthusian Trap. Even lots of welfare does not care for all of the poor.

c) Funny thing...in many countries that actually happens...and it goes rather well.

[Liriena]

This has nothing to do with communism, but okay.

More Taxes + More Welfare Related Spending = Communist Utopia- Well, unless some corrupt guy like Stalin ruins it and it gets concentrated into a small elite.

Corrected.

Everyone is Equal= Communism in Theory
Very Nice Idea But Easily Corrupted = Communism in real life

Communism 101: In a communist society, there is no government. Period. Stalin and the USSR were not communist. They were either state capitalist, fascist or socialist depending from where you look at them.

[AuSable River]

Well, it industrialized faster than pretty much any nation in history. But yes, in order to do this famine ensued. I don't see what this has to do with anything.

More Taxes + Less Spending = More Poverty
Less Taxes + Less Spending = Capitalist Utopia- Well, all the money gets concentrated into a small elite.
Less Taxes + More Spending = Bankrupt Government
More Taxes + More Spending = Communist Utopia- Well, unless some corrupt guy like Stalin ruins it and it gets concentrated into a small elite.

Mixed Economy= It eventually goes in one of the directions (right or left)

actually, a capitalist economy would have more equality since power and priviledge would be decentralized among myriad industies and companies.

and not a single source --- Washington.

today only big special interests and corporations can find a seat at the table in washington.

hence, when most of societal wealth is controlled in one spot --- wealth tends to concentrate on the few that have access to washington insiders.

[AuSable River]

More Taxes + More Welfare Related Spending = Communist Utopia- Well, unless some corrupt guy like Stalin ruins it and it gets concentrated into a small elite.

Corrected.

Everyone is Equal= Communism in Theory
Very Nice Idea But Easily Corrupted = Communism in real life

Communism 101: In a communist society, there is no government. Period. Stalin and the USSR were not communist. They were either state capitalist, fascist or socialist depending from where you look at them.

communism is a joke anyway

nobody is going to forego personal gain for some freeloader.

it defies human nature

[Mavorpen]

communism is a joke anyway

nobody is going to forego personal gain for some freeloader.

You've never read anything by Marx, have you?

[Liriena]

a) Because in a capitalist society everything costs money, and the government doesn't really have a magic machine to make it (at least, not without causing serious currency problems)

Come on, you should know better!

That's Kirchnerism, Samu. It's on another plane of existence.