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

[Occupied Deutschland]

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!

If you're actually interested.

I know I'M not doing any of the number-crunching on that one though.

[Silent Majority]

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.

I'm not sure I'd call Goldman Sachs, and other corporate donors for Obama "the left". If you subtract those, Romney is likely ahead.

[AuSable River]

I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.

[The UK in Exile]

too bad it doesn't count....

SUPER-PACS!

If you're actually interested.

I know I'M not doing any of the number-crunching on that one though.

I can spot one pertinent point, the number one fundraisng PAC supports Mitt romney and it has twice the cash of the number two. which is also republican.

between the two they have six times what Obama's PAC has.

[Mavorpen]

I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.

Says the person who never actually addressed everything in the post he was replying to.

[Liriena]

I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.

A) Have some manners.
B) Don't be an arrogant prick.
C) Don't generalize or insult your opponents with every breath and then expect them to treat you with any respect or seriousness.
D) Go to college and read some fricking Economy, Philosophy and History books.
E) Grow up.
F) Fuck you.

MODS, please be so kind to forgive my language and manners. There is only so much my highly-tolerant-to-offense mind can take.

[The UK in Exile]

I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.

A) Have some manners.
B) Don't be an arrogant prick.
C) Don't generalize or insult your opponents with every breath and then expect them to treat you with any respect or seriousness.
D) Go to college and read some fricking Economy, Philosophy and History books.
E) Grow up.
F) Fuck you.

ah go easy on him, liriena.

I can't think of a good reason why, but still......

[Russograd]

I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.

See, we discredit you partly due to your arrogant, egotistical pig attitude. No matter how many true facts we feed you, you will ignore them and denounce them all under the, "Oh you're liberal, you're just a statist zombie" excuse.

had fun, but still not impressed.

Okay, cool. However, We didn't give you solid facts and testimonies just to "impress you".

Face it. You came here with a set opinion of far right conservatism with no intentions of being persuaded otherwise.

[Galiantus]

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!

$811,681 is just barely more than 0.5% of the total amount of money Romney has raised. I don't see how that is such a big statistic.

[EDIT: I see what you mean. I am doing more number-crunching]

[Silent Majority]

too bad it doesn't count....

SUPER-PACS!

$811,681 is just barely more than 0.5% of the total amount of money Romney has raised. I don't see how that is such a big statistic.

Actually the money raised by Romney's super-PAC is closer to $82 million

[The UK in Exile]

$811,681 is just barely more than 0.5% of the total amount of money Romney has raised. I don't see how that is such a big statistic.

Actually the money raised by Romney's super-PAC is closer to $82 million

yeah, his figure is for romney campaign contributions TO super-pacs.

he figured it out before you prompted him.

[Ryan12]

I am a "liberal". I was unaware I wanted a "bigger govt". Thank you for educating me.



I do like how you make try and effort to exclude conservatives so as to not have your argument, such as it is, fall to pieces (it doesn't work).

I include anyone in government -- government is a market for corruption, hence if someone labels themselves liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, et al

Are you happy now ?

can we proceed? since it is apparent that we all agree that government is corrupt irrespective of whether it is conservative or liberal.

i can assume that you believe the government has been corrupt since obama won the elections

[Liriena]

I include anyone in government -- government is a market for corruption, hence if someone labels themselves liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, et al

Are you happy now ?

can we proceed? since it is apparent that we all agree that government is corrupt irrespective of whether it is conservative or liberal.

i can assume that you believe the government has been corrupt since obama won the elections

Who knows....maybe a miracle will take place and he'll say Bush was corrupt as well...maybe even tax-raising, debt-increasing Reagan!

Then again...reality has a liberal bias, so he will probably dismiss such claims.

[Goodclark]

Okay, government is corrupt. You don't want to see it bigger.

So. What's your plan? To reduce it? By how much? How will you know when it's just big enough, and still not too big, or then too small?

And if government is too big and corrupt, why not massively curtail the biggest of departments - the Armed Forces?

Slash their budget, and the size of the army, and surely that'd cut down on massive waste and abuse?

EDIT: Op, you should change the title of this piece: HUMANITY is corrupt.

Period.

true dat. NOTHING will stop corruption in the world.

[Silent Majority]

I include anyone in government -- government is a market for corruption, hence if someone labels themselves liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, et al

Are you happy now ?

can we proceed? since it is apparent that we all agree that government is corrupt irrespective of whether it is conservative or liberal.

i can assume that you believe the government has been corrupt since obama won the elections

In all fairness, this guy seems more like a minarchist than a conservative, given that the point of this thread seems to be him going on about how liberals should really become libertarians.

[Liriena]

i can assume that you believe the government has been corrupt since obama won the elections

In all fairness, this guy seems more like a minarchist than a conservative, given that the point of this thread seems to be him going on about how liberals should really become libertarians.

Thomas Hobbes' words were in vain, then.

[Zaharawi]

With solid foundation to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure for democracy, I will say that government, regardless if liberal or conservative, can be transparent and accountable. If there is any ideology that is more reckless in their thinking, it is the idea that individuals should take control of running the economy of the entire country. This is a recipe for disaster.

[Mosasauria]

Okay, government is corrupt. You don't want to see it bigger.

So. What's your plan? To reduce it? By how much? How will you know when it's just big enough, and still not too big, or then too small?

And if government is too big and corrupt, why not massively curtail the biggest of departments - the Armed Forces?

Slash their budget, and the size of the army, and surely that'd cut down on massive waste and abuse?

EDIT: Op, you should change the title of this piece: HUMANITY is corrupt.

Period.

Ain't that the damned truth.
Or, at least, that's my way of thinking when I'm in my more misanthropic moods.

[Liriena]

With solid foundation to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure for democracy, I will say that government, regardless if liberal or conservative, can be transparent and accountable. If there is any ideology that is more reckless in their thinking, it is the idea that individuals should take control of running the economy of the entire country. This is a recipe for disaster.

Consider yourself lucky that the OP is temporarily gone. Otherwise, he'd be foaming at the mouth and spewing insults against you right now.

[Miss Defied]

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.

I would start by saying that you really should be embarrassed for yourself but since your arguments lack a hint of the observation that would necessitate that conclusion, I guess that is as fruitless as my trying to trudge through your bellicose, repetitive and nauseating rhetoric.

Just because something is written in 2012, doesn't mean it is using data from 2012. That Bloomberg article that you referenced above, you know the one you say debunks Neo Art's post? See it doesn't do that at all. What it does is corroborates it. That article references a study that uses statistics from between 2007-2009, right around the time of what you call 2008 fallacies. From YOUR SOURCE

Nationwide, 13.3 people per 100,000 died from poisoning between 2007 and 2009, compared with 12.4 from motor-vehicle accidents during the same period, the report found. More than 90 percent of unintentional poisoning deaths in 2007 were caused by drugs and medicine, the report said.

So you see, your "2012 evidence" is using data from, quite frankly, the CDC report that I sourced and Neo Art referenced.

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

Fixed
No, he wasn't rationalizing anything. He was pointing how how weak your arguments are. And how they fail so utterly to reflect even the slightest sense of comprehension and analysis on your part.

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

Fixed again.
Again, since you have failed to provide any 2012 stats you are completely and totally, without question, INCORRECT.

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' ??!!

Because, yes, according to the CDC most of the poisoning deaths that are due to prescription medications are the result of not taking them as prescribed. i.e. overdosing.

[Mosasauria]

With solid foundation to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure for democracy, I will say that government, regardless if liberal or conservative, can be transparent and accountable. If there is any ideology that is more reckless in their thinking, it is the idea that individuals should take control of running the economy of the entire country. This is a recipe for disaster.

This is the point I've been trying to make, albeit much more eloquent and simple then I can put it.

[Socialdemokraterne]

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/

Anders Borg has been the finance minister only since 2006. And yes, he (in the spirit of a member of a right-wing coalition's cabinet) is well-known for his intentions to slash welfare benefits. But you're really exaggerating his impact, and you'd know that if you looked at the figures, which I will present to you throughout this post.

When I compare the GDP growth rates sure, Sweden comes out on top of the five. But not by a remarkable margin (Sweden only beat Finland by 1.1%, and it's actually down by a full 1.8% from 2010). Also, you might want to stop plugging your ears and closing your eyes whenever someone brings up a country's unemployment rate. Sweden's is tied with Finland's for the third worst (or second best, if you like) out of the five countries I've been comparing. The winner is Norway.

GDP growth rates compared between Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and the USA

Finland: -8.4% (2009), 3.7% (2010), 2.9% (2011)
Norway: -1.7% (2009), 0.7% (2010), 1.7% (2011)
Sweden: -4.8% (2009), 5.8% (2010), 4% (2011)
Denmark: -5.8% (2009), 1.3% (2010), 1.1% (2011)
USA: -3.5% (2009), 3% (2010), 1.7% (2011)

Unemployment rates compared between Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and the USA
Finland: 8.4% (2010), 7.8% (2011), 7.5% (Current)
Norway: 3.6% (2010), 3.3% (2011), 3% (Current)
Sweden: 8.4% (2010), 7.5% (2011), 7.5% (Current)
Denmark: 6% (2010), 6% (2011), 7.8% (Current)
USA: 9.6% (2010), 9% (2011), 8.4% (Current)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/us.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/da.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/sw.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/fi.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/no.html

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

I see your magazines and blogs (secondary sources) and raise you data straight from the European Commission (a primary source):

Swedish Government Expenditures as a % of GDP (their code is SE)
2005 - 53.9%
2006 - 52.7%
2007 - 51.0%
2008 - 51.7%
2009 - 55.2%
2010 - 53.0%

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statis ... 1006133248

Your man, Borg, he became the finance minister after the 2006 election. He took office on Oct. 6, 2006. What happened to the numbers after he and the rest of the Alliance for Sweden took office? Hmmm. You might consider new reading material, because Sweden has INCREASED its government expenditures as a % GDP in nearly every year since they took office, and the lowest they've ever sunk beneath the numbers for the two years prior to their reign's initiation was a paltry 1.7%. The contraction that your Economist article (which is 8 years old, by the way) points out? It stopped.

Also, here's the table in general:



Notice that Sweden is actually among the highest spending countries in all of Europe, even after the contraction. That should tell you something, perhaps that the Swedish welfare state is still alive even if slashes to some programs have been made? Or maybe that the benefits package that Swedes enjoy is still relatively large? After all, I did show you that universal tertiary education and healthcare still exist, and that healthcare expenditures as a proportion of GDP have remained fairly steady over the last 3 decades.

Now, for the final nail in your argument's coffin. Hang on to your hat:

% GDP in Sweden Devoted To Social Protection
2005 - 23.0%
2006 - 22.2%
2007 - 21.1%
2008 - 21.1%
2009 - 23.0%

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statis ... 1006134357

Notice the absence of a dramatic decline in that percentage, even after the Alliance for Sweden came into play and Borg became the finance minister?

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

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

Read your sources before you post them. You just helped me a lot. If you look at Sweden's 2012 "Government Spending" score of 8.8/100 under "Limited Government" (down from a two-year high of only 17.3/100), you'll see that you just shot yourself in the foot. Also, read the paragraph underneath the table and you'll find this:

Sweden’s respect for the concept of limited government has not been particularly strong. Government spending has been expansive. The overall tax regime needed to finance the ever-growing scope of government has become more burdensome and complex, although such institutional assets as high degrees of business efficiency and regulatory flexibility have counterbalanced some of the shortcomings of heavy social spending.

Thought I'd highlight a few key parts for you since you're not in the habit of actually reading things. And here's a pretty picture for you to look at:

http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize ... den&type=4

See the black line? That's the world average score for government spending (the higher it is, the smaller the government). See the orange line? That's Sweden's score.

Oh, and one more thing. See how in spite of all this, Sweden scores a solid 92/100 for freedom from corruption? Yeah. You lose yet again.

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.

First of all, not a single one of the Nordic countries is a socialist system. So I'll just go ahead and stop you there on that point. Second, you've done NOTHING to illustrate that Sweden is actually reducing the size and scope of its government since the Alliance for Sweden took command (indeed, the contraction stopped well before they ever got elected and never resulted in anything even close to a "small" government). I just showed you twice that it has been increasing instead (once with your own damn source, for Heaven's sake!) Finally, the assertion highlighted in red (which is the only one which is relevant since the Nordic countries are all mixed economies) is in conflict with the GDP per capita PPP and unemployment data.

[SaintB]

Western Corruption is more efficient because it takes place in the form of siphoning off people's tax money.

Fascinating. You do realize America has some of the lowest taxes in the first world?

its extraordinarily efficient corruption

[AuSable River]

I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.

A) Have some manners.
B) Don't be an arrogant prick.
C) Don't generalize or insult your opponents with every breath and then expect them to treat you with any respect or seriousness.
D) Go to college and read some fricking Economy, Philosophy and History books.
E) Grow up.
F) Fuck you.

MODS, please be so kind to forgive my language and manners. There is only so much my highly-tolerant-to-offense mind can take.

Do you have a substantive, factual, empirically supported or logical question or comment ?

I didn't see one in your post -- perhaps I missed it.

[The UK in Exile]

A) Have some manners.
B) Don't be an arrogant prick.
C) Don't generalize or insult your opponents with every breath and then expect them to treat you with any respect or seriousness.
D) Go to college and read some fricking Economy, Philosophy and History books.
E) Grow up.
F) Fuck you.

MODS, please be so kind to forgive my language and manners. There is only so much my highly-tolerant-to-offense mind can take.

Do you have a substantive, factual, empirically supported or logical question or comment ?

I didn't see one in your post -- perhaps I missed it.

wouldn't be the first time....