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

[Trotskylvania]

If you are concerned about downtrodden workers -- then open your own firm, compete against supposedly evil selfish owners who 'exploit' workers by giving them a paycheck via voluntary and peaceful exchange.

indeed, the greatest service anyone can provide is a sustainable job, when none were available previously by risking capital and foregoing instant gratification to build a viable business.

in sum, most people I have worked for were decent, practical, and hardworking folks who geniunely cared about they workers and paid them as much as was economically feasible to grow a company and make a sustainable profit.

in contrast, most of the Leftists I have met rarely gave to charity because they expected and lobbied for charity to be provided with other people's money against their will.

Indeed, evangelical christians are the most generous chartiable givers:

http://therooftopblog.wordpress.com/200 ... -abc-says/

Not only is such utopianism and voluntarism impossible, the act of giving charity is counterproductive and only serves to perpetuate social evils. The inimitable Oscar Wilde said it best:

Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand ‘under the shelter of the wall,’ as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions. The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism – are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life – educated men who live in the East End – coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.

There is also this to be said. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.

[Helertia]

These threads grow up so fast. *cries*

Yet most of them seem to get stuck in their awkward teenage years.

[Alaje]

As a former Fascist, I'd say Fascism and Socialism (Syndicalism to be specific) are closely related, but definitely not Communism.

No other disputes?

Not really, but I still disagree with AuSable assertions that less regulation = more prosperity. Just because a government has regulations on the economy doesn't make it tyrannical.

[AuSable River]

snip

Awwwww, we sure have missed you!

Incidentally, it was so weird that you stayed away from is thread for a few days. Especially after some people made some fairly strong posts against your case. So just in case you missed them, I'm going to put them here so you can read them.

This one is a meticulously detailed refutation of your silly little FDA is the biggest accidental murderer story. I honestly can't believe Neo Art took the time to compose it because arguing with you is like isometric exercise. It's one little thing but what is shows is how you make claims about things that are very clearly just regurgitations of crap you've heard elsewhere. You think you can come here and parrot these wild assertions that are without merit.

What's funny is that even his own source defeats his own argument:

His claim was "prescription drugs are the highest cause of accidental death in the USA". That's, of course, not true. The own source shows that, in 2008 at least, the highest cause of accidental death was poisoning. Not "prescription drugs". 41,000 deaths, to car accidents' 38,000

Then add this fact: "2008, 89% of poisoning deaths were caused by drugs."

So of those 41,000, 89% were caused by "drugs". Not "prescription drugs", not "legal drugs". Drugs. All drugs. The remaining 11% were from things such as mushroom poisoning, ingestion of chemicals, etc etc.

So, 89% of 41,000 is 36,490. 36,490 accidental deaths in 2008 caused by "drugs" (or we can cite directly the report "Of the 36,500 drug poisoning deaths in 2008..."). How many were caused by car accidents? Right, 38,000.

Funny, I think 38,000 is more than 36,500. That would mean that car accidents caused more accidental deaths than "drugs". Isn't that exactly the opposite of what the OP claimed? Didn't he claim that drugs (not just drugs, but explicitly prescription drugs) were the LEADING CAUSE of accidental deaths in the USA?



Yup.

Oh well, so much for that theory. "drugs" as a catagory doesn't beat car accidents after all, and that's including legal AND illegal drugs.

So what about those illegal drugs hm? Let's see: "Opioid analgesics (note - painkillers) were involved in nearly 15,000 deaths in 2008, while cocaine was involved in about 5,100 deaths and heroin was involved in about 3,000 deaths"

So of those 36,500 deaths, 8,100 were clearly involving illegal drugs, and only 15,000 were attributable to LEGAL drugs. So now we've gone from "41,000 deaths by FDA approved drugs" to "15,000" (which by the way, is less than half that of car accidents, and fewer in number than those that fell to their deaths).

So now we're down to 15,000. So does that mean that 15,000 people died to FDA approved drugs, does that mean that those drugs should have not been approved?

of course not. In fact, from that very same report "misuse and abuse" of drugs has been on the rise. What's that mean? It means that many of those deaths were caused by people not following instructions, either because they didn't know them, or were addicted to them.

So we've gone from "FDA drugs kill over 40,000 people a year because they're unsafe" to "15,000 people died in 2008 due to toxicity caused in part by FDA drugs, the majority of which were caused due to misuse or abuse of that drug".

So here we have deaths caused by drugs that, if not dosed properly, can kill you, and the OP's solution is to...get rid of the organization responsible for ensuring they're labeled properly.

Brilliant!



Now, having taken the OPs advice to:



I have, and upon reflection, have reached a conclusion.

You are HORRIBLY bad at this. Like, stunningly bad. To the point where you are, and I say this without reservation, literally the worst debator on this forum.

You are awful.

Ponder that, if you're able.



Yeah, one would think that, wouldn't one?



To channel the OP's logic - "fuck you, that's how"

If you are going to only read one of these please let this be the one. It is a very earnest detailing of your failings in the realm of logic and rhetoric. Really, it will do you well to read this and take it to heart.

While you should be lauded for actually trying to make an intelligent argument, (even if you are horribly failing in the process) you are, predictably, failing to do so here, I expect because you are trying to imitate the logical arguments you have seen being met with success, without actually understanding how or why a logical, intelligent argument is respected, where the irrational, essentially faith (not in the religious sense) based arguments that seem to have convinced you, typically fail to convince intelligent people, and will generally get you laughed out of the room. So allow me to show you what you did wrong:

First, you start off by essentially saying that all people on the left side of the isles are indoctrinated by the media and popular culture. This is, under the best of circumstances, a reckless opening since you are making a wild claim, that is sure to offend a large part of your audience, liberal and conservative alike. If you will recall your High School writing classes, the introduction to an essay, (which is typically just an extended argument), you are supposed to pull your audience in, not make yourself hostile to them. Now, it is possible, in theory, to get away with such a claim, but you absolutely must immediately follow it, either with a thesis that will prove it as such, or at least strong evidence or logical demonstration of fact, in order to back it up. In this way you win back the audience's attention, even if begrudgingly. You do neither. Your topic is about something else entirely, and you end up just taking this as a given. This means that, as a result, the only people that are going not be offended are essentially those that think this exact thing already, as you have already alienated everyone else. So then why write this? The only people liable to by sympathetic to your writing are those who already think the exact same thing, so clearly they don't need to be convinced. Therefore, unless you are just wanting to sit around wanking off to each other in written form, your argument has already failed.

The second place where you misstep is the third paragraph and onward, your main thesis and body paragraphs to go back to the High School writing courses (which I'm sure you didn't just blow off because you thought it wasn't important, or knew better). You start off by stating that the government is corrupt, then citing the influence of special interest groups and the recent financial crisis in America as evidence. The problem here is that this is not evidence, as you do not say what the logical link is between the two. You don't show how the presence of these special interest groups are corrupting our government, you don't show how the recent financial crisis is evidence of this. It is true that often someone constructing a logical argument might cite a historical or current event as evidence of their position with very little explanation and move on, but the reason they can do this and sometimes get away with it is that it is already commonly accepted that X event is an example of Y. (For instance, the continued aggression of Nazi Germany that eventually lead to WWII being an example of the failure of appeasement, to use a commonly accepted, if not particularly historically accurate, example) Even when people do this, it does not make for a particularly strong argument, and is really only socially allowed to occur because people understand that a person might be rushed for time or space. But in this case, the influence of special interest groups is NOT accepted as always making a government corrupt, and the recent financial crisis is NOT commonly accepted as being evidence of this. Indeed, the general, though by no means uncontested, view in America is that the financial crisis resulted from NOT ENOUGH government regulation of these financial institutions. Therefore, you needed to actually give fairly objective evidence, or a sound explanation of how exactly this is evidence of government corruption, which you don't do. This is echoed over and over again throughout your argument here, such as where you say the purpose of government is just for the material gain of the politicians (for which you give no evidence), that democrats are diverting scare resources (what resources, and how are they scarce) away from important sectors of the economy (what sectors of the economy, and why are they important?) just to bailout reckless firms and individuals (how are all the firms and individuals who benefited from the stimulus reckless?), for which you have also offered no logical proof. So, because you refuse to actually give proof for your claims, there is no reason your audience should accept them as legitimate.

The third problem is that you don't give us an alternative. Sure, your implied alternative is that if big government is bad, smaller, or no government, should be good, but this is not enough because, again, you are assuming most people agree with you, when in fact not even a plurality (read: biggest minority) of people agree necessarily agree with you. You haven't explained how a smaller government would solve these problems, how taking power away from the government would keep the already tremendous power of the special interest from crowding out any ability the government would have to fight back, or even how less government involvement in the affairs of these special interest would decrease their power. I suspect the reason for this is that you don't know yourself, but even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do, you have not given it, so there is no reason your audience should accept your alternative as better than the status quo, when indeed for all they know (since you HAVEN'T EXPLAINED what your alternative is) it is worse.

Your final blunder is simply the fact that you are being petulant and obnoxious. You are using a bunch of words and phrases that people other than yourself have uttered, in much better context and with much better justification, that appear to be intelligent, popular and edgy, with the apparent ability to rile people up (after all, they probably riled you up when you first heard them). For instance, you use "Obama, Bush, and the democrats", since you perceive that all three are unpopular, but without the contextual knowledge to know that, at the very least, Bush, his failures, and his unpopularity, are not allied with the democrats or Obama (or, on a slightly more complex note, that clumping the actions of congressional democrats with Obama is not entirely accurate either). You call this diatribe about how government only exists to benefit the politicians and this cronies the "preamble to Economics 101", as if you are trying to add some academic legitimacy to your work, when really it just ends up making you infuriating to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics, as this has absolutely nothing to do with it, and patronizing to everyone else. You seemingly randomly break up your statement with diatribes against Obama and the democrats, which while in an intelligent discussion or essay might pass as humor, are just as baseless and petty as the rest of your argument, making your argument clunky, and making yourself appear petty and dishonest, as it make the audience question why you taking petty shots at people you don't like instead of explaining your argument, which in turn makes it look like you are trying to pull a fast one on them by insulting people instead of explaining yourself.

So basically, the problem with this topic, and your argument in general comes down to this: it isn't doing anything to make anyone more sympathetic to your position. You, in essence, don't make a case for yourself, you just sit there and throw out words you hope will get people as riled up as they got you. Your topic will not be sympathetic to anyone, except those who already agree with you, which makes it somewhat less useful than preaching to the choir, as in this case you are likely you are likely to alienate some of the choir. So really, I do applaud you for trying to make a logical, sympathetic argument, but this only makes it worse when you fail so horribly. And for the love of God, don't say you didn't fail, you failed to make a logical, sympathetic argument by every definition of the term. This is no reason you shouldn't keep trying, but for the love of God, make sure to learn from the mistakes you made here for next time.

Another good example of someone blowing open the wide gaping holes in everything you say. It is full of facts, logic and empirical evidence which I know you love because you reference them in about one-third of your posts. The problem is all you do is blurt out a series of non-sequiturs. It is a very good rebuttal that any reasonable person cannot dismiss. (BTW that is the word you are looking for-rebuttal-it's a noun. Rebut is the verb form but you keep using it as a noun.)

Let's review what we've seen so far, since we appear to have meandered a bit and the topics have become mixed.

OP Argument 1: Government is always corrupt, and increasing its scale increases the scale of corruption.
I provided three metrics illustrating that no fewer than four first-world, industrialized, globally-trading countries with massive welfare states were nigh unto devoid of corruption. The OP responded to this criticism of Argument 1 by accusing me of comparing apples to oranges, citing the difference in population between these countries and the USA as evidence.

In so doing the OP has failed to realize that this point is absolutely, positively immaterial to the question of whether or not extensive government influence belies extensive corruption. As a consequence, I argue that the OP has failed to actually defend Argument 1 against my criticism and has further failed to provide a metric illustrating a direct, causative relationship between the act of increasing government spending and the increase of corruption, which would actually provide a defense of Argument 1. Another method would be to demonstrate that the governments of those four countries are actually "small" governments (the population is irrelevant to the argument). To take this second route would require quantification of what constitutes a "big" and "small" government, something else we have yet to be provided. Yet a third method would be to substantiate a claim that these four governments are actually very corrupt.

OP, you have to understand that you have made a universal argument. If I can find even one example of a large-scale government which is not rife with corruption your argument loses its quality of being universally applicable. To continue to assert that government is inherently corrupt and becomes more corrupt as its scale increases in spite of this counter evidence (as you have) is logically invalid. You have provided no evidence to substantiate that your claim is universally true and you have not actually defended your argument from my counter examples.

OP Argument 2: The USA bears a higher standard of living and quality of life than Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark thanks to its higher GDP per capita PPP. Furthermore, most US states outperform the GDP per capita PPP of all the Scandinavian states.
First things first: the claim that the USA overall has a higher GDP per capita PPP than all the Scandinavian states is demonstrably false. Simply shrugging one's shoulders and saying "Meh, it's the Norwegians' oil" doesn't invalidate that fact, and such an argument is an act of deflection rather than an act of refutation. It is not a proper defense of the OP's claim therefore.

Let us next address the claim that since the GDP per capita PPP in many US states is higher compared to those of the Nordic countries, the standard of living and quality of life in those states is better. This is a complete misunderstanding of how GDP per capita figures are used to infer standards of living, and in fact it's a failure to even fully grasp what a GDP per capita figure is measuring in the first place.

As I have already said several times, changes in GDP per capita over time are what is used to approximate changes in the standard of living in a given location throughout a given time frame, the figure is not a direct measurement of the standard of living or the incomes of the people in the area of interest. It is therefore absolutely worthless, in the context of a discussion on relative standards of living, to point at a US state's GDP per capita PPP figure for a given year in an effort to assert that the state of interest has a higher standard of living than that of whatever Nordic country you want to compare it to. The best you can do is compare the rates of change in their figures within the same time frame to determine whose standard of living was improving or decreasing more strikingly over that period of time. I have already done this for Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the USA as a whole and illustrated that the standard of living, as inferred by GDP per capita PPP alone, is improving at a much higher rate in Sweden and Finland than in the United States. The standards of living in Norway and Denmark are relatively static, with Denmark's slightly increasing year to year.

In order to more reliably comment on the standard of living you must, in addition to GDP per capita, examine several factors such as per capita income, cost of living, infant mortality rates, literacy rates, proportions of the population completing each level of education, life expectancy, and so forth. You cannot simply rely on GDP per capita PPP figures to make an argument about standards of living and quality of life. These figures are wonderful for an inference about shifts in standards of living, but they are not direct measurements thereof and should thus not be used as the OP has used them.

It is thus that I again conclude that the OP has failed to adequately defend their argument. Argument 2 stands contested.

Argument 3: The United States is doomed to failure thanks to 100+ trillion dollars in debt owed to entitlements.
The OP finally provided a source for this claim, but the source does not say what the OP says. There is not projected, even at current taxation and funding rates, a 100+ trillion dollar entitlement liability by this date in 2015. The OP has miscalculated.

first, I dont have all day to correct the many liberal misconceptions and fallacies, even considering that I enjoy it.

second, neoart is engaged in a futile effort to refute 2012 facts with 2008 fallacies.

note the following link that debunks his entire rant:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-2 ... -says.html

moreover, neoart spends the rest of his diatribe trying to rationalize that the death of tens of thousands from prescription drugs is 'proof' that the government and its agent the FDA is effective and beneficial ???!!!

all the while, with statistics (2012 statistics, not neoarts pre-obama stats) showing conclusively that more Americans die from prescription drugs than die in car accidents.

also, more Americans die from prescription drugs than die from herion and cocaine combined !!!!

yet by neoarts detailed rationalizations --- this is further proof government is not corrupted by big pharma -- because he asserts that the deaths are from 'overdosing' ??!!

bizarre that he would hold the view that those taking illicit drugs that are far more dangerous appear to be dosing more responsibly than those taking FDA approved drugs that are supposedly given a clean bill of health.

in sum, liberals, statists, and crony capitalists will defend govt, no matter how negligent or corrupt. indeed, like pavlov's dog, they will only criticize govt when it is run by those of an opposing party or poltiical affliation, and like clockwork, when their party gains control, like zombies revert to fawning over its supposed efficiencies and benevolence.

[Liriena]

no nation is strictly capitalist --- all have some level of government.

however, those with the least government interference in the economy experience far greater growth and increased standards of living than socialist or crony capitalist nations.

Care to explain the success of Norway and Sweden's economy then?

Don't ask. He's going to rant about how Scandinavian welfare state eventually provoked an economic crisis and everything was solved when a center-right government came along.

[Helertia]

in sum, liberals, statists, and crony capitalists will defend govt, no matter how negligent or corrupt. indeed, like pavlov's dog, they will only criticize govt when it is run by those of an opposing party or poltiical affliation, and like clockwork, when their party gains control, like zombies revert to fawning over its supposed efficiencies and benevolence.

Welcome to politics, may I take your order?

[Valourium]

Well, you see, it's not a bigger government that leftists want, it is more public jobs, because it is more stable than private sector jobs, and improves infrastructure more.

[Trotskylvania]

first, I dont have all day to correct the many liberal misconceptions and fallacies, even considering that I enjoy it.

second, neoart is engaged in a futile effort to refute 2012 facts with 2008 fallacies.

note the following link that debunks his entire rant:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-2 ... -says.html

moreover, neoart spends the rest of his diatribe trying to rationalize that the death of tens of thousands from prescription drugs is 'proof' that the government and its agent the FDA is effective and beneficial ???!!!

all the while, with statistics (2012 statistics, not neoarts pre-obama stats) showing conclusively that more Americans die from prescription drugs than die in car accidents.

also, more Americans die from prescription drugs than die from herion and cocaine combined !!!!

yet by neoarts detailed rationalizations --- this is further proof government is not corrupted by big pharma -- because he asserts that the deaths are from 'overdosing' ??!!

bizarre that he would hold the view that those taking illicit drugs that are far more dangerous appear to be dosing more responsibly than those taking FDA approved drugs that are supposedly given a clean bill of health.

in sum, liberals, statists, and crony capitalists will defend govt, no matter how negligent or corrupt. indeed, like pavlov's dog, they will only criticize govt when it is run by those of an opposing party or poltiical affliation, and like clockwork, when their party gains control, like zombies revert to fawning over its supposed efficiencies and benevolence.

Stop for one damn minute and think about this.

Now, the FDA's job is supposed to be to regulate what food and drugs are available on the market to ensure the health and safety of consumers. But lots of people still die, either because the FDA can only mitigate so much, or because the people they regulate have captured them and ensured that they don't do their job correctly. It really doesn't matter which is true, or what combination of the two is responsible for those deaths, for purposes of your argument.

Now, what exactly do you propose? You apparently blame the FDA for this, and judging by your previous stances, you'd like to just get rid of the FDA. Gread, what is this supposed to accomplish. Regardless of which is true, the best you can hope for is that things stay exactly the same. After all, those firms still have the same market pressures to try to rush drugs to the market, and to keep everyone in the dark about the aggregate costs that their uses have, which can really only be assessed by a transparent, large study on the drug.

What is getting rid of the FDA supposed to do to make prescription drugs in anyway safer. Honestly, the only logical implication of your own argument would be a more effective FDA, either by having tighter regulations, or a ruthless purge of the cronies, and punishing those who tried to corrupt the agency.

[Russograd]

Care to explain the success of Norway and Sweden's economy then?

Don't ask. He's going to rant about how Scandinavian welfare state eventually provoked an economic crisis and everything was solved when a center-right government came along.

Success Breeds Jealousy (1 Samuel 18:5-9)

[Liriena]

in sum, liberals, statists, and crony capitalists will defend govt, no matter how negligent or corrupt. indeed, like pavlov's dog, they will only criticize govt when it is run by those of an opposing party or poltiical affliation, and like clockwork, when their party gains control, like zombies revert to fawning over its supposed efficiencies and benevolence.

You are seriously asking for a flaming war, aren't you?

[Brandenburg-Steinbach]

YOU CONSERVATIVES COMMMIES ARE ALL GOING TO HELL AHAHAHHAHA

[Trotskylvania]

in sum, liberals, statists, and crony capitalists will defend govt, no matter how negligent or corrupt. indeed, like pavlov's dog, they will only criticize govt when it is run by those of an opposing party or poltiical affliation, and like clockwork, when their party gains control, like zombies revert to fawning over its supposed efficiencies and benevolence.

You are seriously asking for a flaming war, aren't you?

You just realized this? This has been his tune since the first post in the thread.

[Khadgar]

You are seriously asking for a flaming war, aren't you?

You just realized this? This has been his tune since the first post in the thread.

And yet, 55 pages later, it's still open. Despite the lack of any evidence, despite the lack of any actual debate.

[Liriena]

YOU CONSERVATIVES COMMMIES ARE ALL GOING TO HELL AHAHAHHAHA

Good thing I'm not a commie.

[Trotskylvania]

You just realized this? This has been his tune since the first post in the thread.

And yet, 55 pages later, it's still open. Despite the lack of any evidence, despite the lack of any actual debate.

A stark refutation of the accusations of leftist mod tyranny.

[Alaje]

You are seriously asking for a flaming war, aren't you?

You just realized this? This has been his tune since the first post in the thread.

He wants to annoy us all til we agree with him. *nods*

[Liriena]

You are seriously asking for a flaming war, aren't you?

You just realized this? This has been his tune since the first post in the thread.

Before I had some hope in that this could be a healthy debate...but his name calling has grown too old and his logic too circular, baseless, cynical and downright delusional that I've almost given up.

[Khadgar]

And yet, 55 pages later, it's still open. Despite the lack of any evidence, despite the lack of any actual debate.

A stark refutation of the accusations of leftist mod tyranny.

Oh it'll happen anyway. Like every time one of Karin's bullshit spamfests got locked. It's always tyranny.

[Magmia]

You just realized this? This has been his tune since the first post in the thread.

He wants to annoy us all til we agree with him. *nods*

Isn't that what NSG is all about?

[Liriena]

A stark refutation of the accusations of leftist mod tyranny.

Oh it'll happen anyway. Like every time one of Karin's bullshit spamfests got locked. It's always tyranny.

Damn mod tyrants! Always trying to preserve the purity of our debates! Why can't we just go at each other's throats like in youtube?! Yes, that's sarcasm.

[Galiantus]

In addition, the right wing tends to be wealthier than the left, so of course they'll be giving more money.

Go find how much money Obama has raised for his caompeign. Then go find how much Romney has raised. Done.

Ok, I did this on my own:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/

..............Barack Obama (D)....Mitt Romney (R)
Raised.....$300,134,364 .........$153,537,758
Spent......$204,901,024 .........$131,044,967
Debts......$2,388,104 ............$0
Cash........$97,536,739 ..........$22,505,830

...............................Obama...........Romney
Small Indiv Contrib.....$121,550,222....$25,524,381
Large Indiv. Contrib....$181,407,165....$128,280,356


Obama has raised nearly 2 times as much money as Romney. He has spent over $70 million more than Romney, and on hand he has over 4x the amount Romney has raised. In the way of large contributions, Romney has raised a higher PERCENTAGE of his money from "large individual contributions", but total Obama has raised over $50 million more in that category. That's assuming those were all rich people, too.

[The UK in Exile]

Go find how much money Obama has raised for his caompeign. Then go find how much Romney has raised. Done.

Ok, I did this on my own:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/

..............Barack Obama (D)....Mitt Romney (R)
Raised.....$300,134,364 .........$153,537,758
Spent......$204,901,024 .........$131,044,967
Debts......$2,388,104 ............$0
Cash........$97,536,739 ..........$22,505,830

...............................Obama...........Romney
Small Indiv Contrib.....$121,550,222....$25,524,381
Large Indiv. Contrib....$181,407,165....$128,280,356


Obama has raised nearly 2 times as much money as Romney. He has spent over $70 million more than Romney, and on hand he has over 4x the amount Romney has raised. In the way of large contributions, Romney has raised a higher PERCENTAGE of his money from "large individual contributions", but total Obama has raised over $50 million more in that category. That's assuming those were all rich people, too.

too bad it doesn't count....

SUPER-PACS!

[Liriena]

Ok, I did this on my own:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/

..............Barack Obama (D)....Mitt Romney (R)
Raised.....$300,134,364 .........$153,537,758
Spent......$204,901,024 .........$131,044,967
Debts......$2,388,104 ............$0
Cash........$97,536,739 ..........$22,505,830

...............................Obama...........Romney
Small Indiv Contrib.....$121,550,222....$25,524,381
Large Indiv. Contrib....$181,407,165....$128,280,356


Obama has raised nearly 2 times as much money as Romney. He has spent over $70 million more than Romney, and on hand he has over 4x the amount Romney has raised. In the way of large contributions, Romney has raised a higher PERCENTAGE of his money from "large individual contributions", but total Obama has raised over $50 million more in that category. That's assuming those were all rich people, too.

too bad it doesn't count....

SUPER-PACS!

Shh! Super-pacs cannot coordinate in any way with candidates

[AuSable River]

I have already addressed this scandanvain fallacy in this thread.

AHEM. No, you haven't addressed Scandinavia and Fennoscandia (Finland isn't Scandinavian). Not adequately enough to believe you've won, you haven't. We're not to the point where you get to call my argument fallacious yet.

go back and read it.

I made a very thorough reply to the "points" you believe you've made. And now I continue to do so. You're drowning in counter arguments, you'd better start addressing them.

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

...this establishes that Sweden's government is corrupt, or that it has a low standard of living (which are the arguments you've made)? No, it doesn't substantiate either point. What do you think you're proving? Well, I'll tell you what you're proving but you won't like it.

That banking crisis that you keep bawking about? It was caused by the pop of a housing bubble which was promoted by Governor of the Central Bank of Sweden Bengdt Dennis' abolition of a slough of financial regulations. That's right: the foolhardy deregulation of credit markets led by Bengdt Dennis led to the bubble, and after it popped Bengdt Dennis was the man who made the final call to set his target rates at 500% (a target which was soon retracted).

So...yeah. Deregulation led to a banking crisis spurred by unregulated credit, baseless property valuations, and irresponsible loans generated by the private sector. Impossible according to you, reality according to history. You just committed suicide by citing that 500%. You probably ought to have looked into it more deeply before bringing it up.

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

Public benefits such as universal healthcare and universal tertiary education still exist in Sweden, as do countless other programs. In fact, the percentage of the Swedish GDP spent on healthcare has been relatively stable since the 1980s, hovering around 9% (recently it was close to hitting 10%), with real terms health spending on the rise at a rate of 3.9% between 2000 and 2009 and 2.0% in 2010. Hate to break your heart, but I have sources to back me on this.

http://www.oecd.org/sweden/BriefingNoteSWEDEN2012.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/sw.html

You lose. Again.

It appears that you have your facts wrong:

amusingly, the Swedish people and its government have adopted the opposite stance from the one you favor:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattkibbe/2 ... ally-work/

sourced from the OECD and US statistical abstract:

http://media.economist.com/sites/defaul ... CIN549.gif --- notice that sweden saw a significant decline in govt. spending as a percentage of GDP

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-EMpadQx4hM/T ... sweden.png

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/Govt%20spending.gif -- notice the steep decline in spending as a % of GDP in sweden

from heritage which rates sweden's economy as largely free from excessive government influences:

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden

in sum, when a socialist nation reduces the size and scope of government -- its economy grows and standards of living improve.

in contrast, when a capitalist nation increases the size and scope of government -- its economy stagnates and standards of living decline.

[Alaje]

He wants to annoy us all til we agree with him. *nods*

Isn't that what NSG is all about?

Pretty much....

I mean, atleast I'm consistent in my general mindset......this guy he's all over the place.