Words of Wisdom.....

[Peter_Puget]

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]yxloUBCYuFM

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]VVi-Hr5noKU

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]w30ZlGiZRIo

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]WqOcGx83nFY

[olyclimber]

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

 

So John D. Parsons works for the government?

[STP]

Way to wiggle out of a higher moral responsibility, politicians.

 

Heh, he reads Nietzsche? Paraphrase: He who cannot command himself cannot command others.

[olyclimber]

but yeah, experts see to agree, the free market should have been allowed to work out the crisis. there was no need for the 50 gazillion dollar bailout with little or no oversite.

[tvashtarkatena]

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

 

PP: What key words did you input on rhetoricagenerica.com to create this hard hitting paragraph?

[Peter_Puget]

Reagan Revolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[billcoe]

"Why Big Government Is Still the Problem

 

By Dinesh D'Souza

 

Is the era of big government really over? In a word, hardly. By Hoover fellow Dinesh D’Souza.

 

The recent corporate scandals have given some people the impression that the big corporation, not big government, is the main threat facing the American people. Indeed liberal Democrats assert, with renewed confidence, “Big government is necessary to counter the influence of big business.”

 

Yes, the corporate crooks should be punished, and it may take agents of the government, namely cops, to lead them off to jail. But the broader lesson that some people are drawing from these scandals is entirely wrong. Big business in general poses little danger to the freedom or welfare of Americans. The problem is still one of big government.

 

However big the business, its power over the average American is quite limited. Consider the computer tycoon Michael Dell. What power does he have over me? He must buy expensive ads on TV and in magazines. He must convince me to call up and order a Dell computer and give the Dell people my credit card number. Now I would never do this unless I was convinced Dell’s computer was worth that money. In short, Mr. Dell must win my consent before he can get a single dollar out of me.

 

But this is not true of big government. Let me illustrate with an example, which I have drawn from economist Walter Williams. The federal government has a program called Social Security that is intended to help me save for my retirement. What if I were to say: “I appreciate the gesture, folks, but no thanks. I don’t want to be part of this program. I am not going to pay any Social Security taxes, and I forgo any future claim on benefits. When I am old and cannot support myself, I will draw on my private savings, or rely on relatives and friends, or appeal to private charities. And if all of these measures fail, I will endure my fate.” How would the government respond to this?

 

The government would, of course, respond by killing me. This may seem like paranoid speculation on my part, so let’s explore the hypothesis further. I refuse to pay Social Security taxes. The government sends me notices and imposes fines. I ignore the notices and refuse to pay the fines. Federal agents then come to seize my property. I, taking my gun out of my desk drawer, make whatever attempts I can to protect what is mine. Since I am a poor shot and there are many more of them, the outcome can be told in advance. They will win, and I will be dead.

 

The purpose of this anecdote is to show that what distinguishes the government from the private sector is the power of coercion. In some ways the most insignificant government bureaucrat—the parking meter attendant, the IRS examiner, the guy at the Department of Motor Vehicles, the immigration official—has more power over me than the CEO of Dell Computer or General Electric. And this power of coercion, which is inherent in the nature of government, fundamentally undermines the claim that the government is doing a moral thing by helping people.

 

Let me show why this is so. I am walking down the street, eating a sandwich, when I am approached by a hungry man. He wants to share my sandwich. Now if I give him the sandwich, I have done a good deed, and I feel good about it. The hungry man feels grateful to me, and even if he cannot repay me for my kindness, possibly he will try to help someone else when he has the chance. So this is a transaction that benefits both the giver and the receiver.

 

But see what happens if the government gets involved. The government takes my sandwich from me by force. Consequently, I am a reluctant giver. The government then bestows my sandwich on the hungry man. Instead of being thankful to me, however, the man feels entitled to this benefit. In other words, the involvement of the state has utterly stripped the transaction of its moral value, even though the result is exactly the same.

 

Now let’s keep the same scenario but change the outcome. I am approached by the hungry man, as before, but this time, instead of agreeing to share my sandwich, I refuse to do so. Along comes a third man, who pulls out a gun, points it at my head, and forces me to hand over my sandwich to him, upon which he gives it to the hungry guy. What is the moral quality of the gunman’s action? I think most people would consider him an unscrupulous thug who should be apprehended and punished. Yet when the government does precisely the same thing—forcibly seizing from some in order to give to others—the liberal insists the government is acting in a just and moral manner. This is clearly not true.

 

“The era of Big Government is over,” Bill Clinton assured us. Although the welfare state has lost some of its legitimacy, the federal government is still too large and overbearing. Unlike big corporations, the federal government has the coercive power to confiscate our earnings and control our lives. Over the past few decades, the expansion of government has led to a diminished sense of freedom and personal responsibility. We must continue to work to limit the size of government. Ronald Reagan’s dictum remains pertinent: Big government is not the solution; big government is the problem. "

 

http://www.hoover institute.org

[j_b]

Dinesh D'Souza is a liar. Liberals never said “Big government is necessary to counter the influence of big business.” Liberals say that government by the people and for the people is necessary to prevent the take over of government by big business. There is no bigger government than that of Georges Bush (in term of expenditures but also intrusion in private lives), yet the demagogues keep insisting that "government is the problem" when the problem is a corporatist government. An appropriate analogy would be to put the wolf in charge of the flock of sheep, then claiming that guard dogs are not necessary and bad because they eat sheep.

[billcoe]

Dinesh D'Souza is a liar. Liberals never said “Big government is necessary to counter the influence of big business.” Liberals say that government by the people and for the people is necessary to prevent the take over of government by big business. There is no bigger government than that of Georges Bush (in term of expenditures but also intrusion in private lives), yet the demagogues keep insisting that "government is the problem" when the problem is a corporatist government. An appropriate analogy would be to put the wolf in charge of the flock of sheep, then claiming that guard dogs are not necessary and bad because they eat sheep.

[billcoe]

I don't ever really recall anyone ever saying anything like that. No person has run under the "We need big government and more of it" platform have they?

 

Check this out though: Link

 

Message of Pessimism, Not Hope

 

Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama is very gloomy about America, and he's aligning himself with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in hopes of coming to the nation's rescue.

 

What is his proposal? Big-government planning, spending and taxing-exactly what the nation and the stock market don't want to hear.

 

Plans to Expand Spending and Regulations

 

Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin last week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to "reopen" trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade.

 

He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit and triple the benefit for minimumwage workers.

 

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth.

 

This isn't free enterprise. It's old-fashioned-liberal tax and spend and regulate. It's plain old big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.

 

Second Coming of Jimmy Carter

 

Obama would like voters to believe that he's the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new government agency proposals, he's looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. His is a "Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan," and it's totally at odds with investment and business.

 

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop "shipping jobs overseas" and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states, he'd be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn't he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It's simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

 

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6% personal income tax, a 52.2% combined income and payroll tax, a 28% capital-gains tax, a 39.6% dividends tax and a 55% estate tax.

 

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he's also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

 

Doesn't Understand Capital

 

Doesn't Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn't he understand that without capital, businesses can't expand their operations and hire more workers?

 

Dan Henninger, writing in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal, notes that Obama's is a profoundly pessimistic message. "Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message, and what you find is not only familiar," writes Henninger. "It's a downer."

 

Obama wants you to believe that America is in trouble, and that it can be cured only with a big lurch to the left. Take from the rich and give to the non-rich. Redistribute income and wealth. It's an age-old recipe for economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses and investors.

 

Harming Middle-Class Workers

 

You can't have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors. This will only harm, and not advance, opportunities for middle-class workers.

 

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade and regulation, Obama's program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years.

 

It would be quite an irony. While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital-and reaping the economic rewards-Obama would raise them. Low-rate flat-tax plans are proliferating around the world. Yet Obama completely ignores this. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity and real wages.

 

Message of Pessimism

 

Imitate the failures of Germany, Norway and Sweden? That's no way to run economic policy.

 

I have so far been soft on Obama this election season. In many respects, he is a breath of fresh air. He's an attractive candidate with an appealing approach to politics. Obama is likable, and sometimes he gets it-such as when he opposed New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton's five-year rate freeze on mortgages.

 

But his message is pessimism, not hope. And behind the charm and charisma is a big-government bureaucrat who would take us down the wrong economic road.

 

Mr. Kudlow hosts CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" and is a nationally syndicated columnist.

[billcoe]

The date on that was Mar 3, 2008 btw.

[j_b]

I don't ever really recall anyone ever saying anything like that. No person has run under the "We need big government and more of it" platform have they?

 

Precisely! So you agree with me that D'Souza is a liar when he claims that liberals say they want "big government". Anyway, who cares what pols say, just watch what they do. When you do that you realize that republicans always commit to huge public expenditure in order to benefit crony capitalism, intrusion into private lives, etc .. Facts don't lie but pols lie routinely.

[prole]

The date on that was Mar 3, 2008 btw.

 

 

 

[j_b]

"Small" government according to the demagogues:

 

The cost of boots on the ground in Iraq

By John Basil Utley

 

It takes half a million dollars per year to maintain one sergeant in combat in Iraq. Thanks to a senate committee inquiry, an authoritative government study finally details the costs of keeping boots on the ground. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in its report "Contractors' Support of US Operations in Iraq", compared the costs of maintaining a Blackwater professional armed guard versus the US military providing such services itself. Both came in at about $500,000 per person per year.

 

News reports of the study have largely focused on the total cost of US contractors. The 190,000 contractors in Iraq and neighboring countries, from cooks to truck drivers, have cost US taxpayers $100 billion from the start of the war through the end of 2008. Overlooked in this media coverage has been the sheer cost per soldier of keeping the army in Iraq. This per-soldier cost is more comprehensible and alarming than the rather abstract aggregate figure.

 

Whether in maintaining US soldiers or private-sector contractors, the costs of occupation are enormous. With no end in sight, unending foreign wars do have one clear consequence: the eventual bankruptcy of the United States.

 

Breaking down the costs

The cost of a sergeant is complicated to calculate. His or her actual cash pay is $51,000-$69,000 per year, which puts sergeant pay in the middle of the pay grade, according to another CBO report, "Evaluating Military Compensation. Non-cash benefits - pensions, medical care, child care, housing, commissaries - likely double this amount, even during peacetime. Pensions are the biggest ticket item. The average retirement benefit for a soldier or sailor who stays in for 20 years equals $2.6 million, if he or she lives to the age of 77 (though most soldiers don't stay in the service long enough to get this benefit).

 

A major portion of the $500,000 figure comes from the "support staff" and rotation system that allows for recuperation, training and accumulated vacations after each year in combat. It's allocated on the basis of one or two sergeants in the United States backing up each one overseas. The CBO report does not, however, factor in bonuses for re-enlistment, which offers tens of thousands of dollars for soldiers with special skills. Nor does the report calculate operating or equipment costs per soldier. The $500,000 figure applies to personnel costs alone.

 

"Support staff" refers to headquarters management and specialized skills supervising the enlisted men. To make the comparison the CBO identified a hypothetical army unit that could deliver roughly the same caliber of men as the Blackwater guards. This "would require about one-third of an army light infantry battalion - a rifle company plus one-third of the battalion's headquarters company". This support staff would "include not only command elements, but also medics, scouts, snipers and others who functionally correspond to some of Blackwater's supervisory and specialized personnel".

 

Contractors, meanwhile, are increasingly filling the roles once played by US Army personnel. In terms of total costs, the CBO points out that there are about an equal number of contractors as soldiers, the highest proportion for any war in American history. However, only 20% are US citizens. And most contractors, for example kitchen personnel, are paid much less than the guards who earn $1,222 per day. The report also notes that their contracts allow for much more flexibility and shorter assignments than what regular army soldiers cost the government.

 

Thousands, not billions

The studies are only for personnel. They don't include the long-term costs of care for disabled and handicapped veterans. They don't include the costs of replacing or maintaining equipment. Nor do they factor in the costs for allies' supplies and training or the cost of interest on all the borrowed billions used to fight the war.

 

That's how Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes reached the astronomical cost estimate approaching $3 trillion for Iraq and Afghanistan. That study estimated actual yearly cost per soldier in the field at $400,000, a number comparable to the CBO estimate for sergeants.

 

Perhaps the accountants who did the CBO study were themselves surprised at the costs of fielding an American army. Their objective was only to analyze the costs of hiring guards at $500,000 a year, compared to fielding soldiers. The study only incidentally shows the individual costs of American occupation forces facing resistance.

 

Given these costs, which are only part of a military budget and other defense expenditures that approach a trillion dollars, it's easy to see how the wars are bankrupting America. Washington has borrowed the money, and the impact can already be felt in the dollar's declining value and America's deteriorating infrastructure. The national debt, since the war started, has increased from $6 trillion to $9 trillion. Ancient Rome simply taxed its citizens into ruin and clipped the coinage to pay for its armies. Higher taxes, a lower standard of living and unending wars will drive the US to the same end.

 

 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JJ02Ak01.html

[j_b]

After 30 years of rhetoric against "big" government by conservatives in control of all key institutions including the media, corporate welfare (which has always been huge) has reached unprecedented levels, and has bankrupted the nation. The same people certainly have no credibility on that topic today.

[Peter_Puget]

Balh blah blah J_B. The truth of the matter is Obama's plan right now has 300 billion in tax cuts. Over time tax cuts have become a larger slice of the Obama "recovery" pie while government spending is shrinking.

 

 

Viva Le Revolucion!

 

[billcoe]

I don't ever really recall anyone ever saying anything like that. No person has run under the "We need big government and more of it" platform have they?

 

Precisely! So you agree with me that D'Souza is a liar when he claims that liberals say they want "big government".

 

No, I do not agree with you at all. D'Sousa is spot on the money. Please see my second post re: Barak. He didn't ever SAY he was a big tax and spend liberal.

 

Anyway, who cares what pols say, just watch what they do.

Please see my second post re: Barak. He didn't ever once actually SAY he was a big tax and spend liberal, from his budget and spending proposals that is what he is though. Shall I post what he has proposed or have you been reading the news?

 

BTW JB, IMO Tax and spend conservatives are even worse than Tax and spend liberals. I'm not picking a side here. Tax and spend is Tax and spend is tax and spend. At least the liberals are honest about it and stay the hell out of your personal life...generally. Shit, the tax and spend conservatives want to regulate your sex life, record your phone calls, be able to lock you up without a trial, and just generally stick their noses where it's not needed nor wanted. (Reagan, Bush and Bush for instance) Of course, Hoover tried keeping gov't small in 1929/1930 and we all know how that turned out......in the shoals of uncharted waters, the Captain has to make a choice, I'm glad still it's Barak and not McCain with the hand on the tiller. But what D'Sousa says is right on.

 

 

[j_b]

Balh blah blah J_B.

 

This is indeed the level of your discourse. YOU and other conservatives, supposedly "small government types", own this unprecedented economic fiasco fair and square. YOU supported all of Bush's "big" government policies, so don't come whining now about spendings.

 

The truth of the matter is Obama's plan right now has 300 billion in tax cuts. Over time tax cuts have become a larger slice of the Obama "recovery" pie while government spending is shrinking.

 

Which points to the propaganda you have been spewing about Obama. I never said Obama wanted to redistribute wealth, you and your pals did. Opportunist jackass who says everything and its opposite without missing a beat.

 

 

Viva Le Revolucion!

 

If anyhting that was a counter-revolution and Reagan, the GE spokeperson, senile B-movie actor, certainly didn't have a hand in formulating the propaganda he spewed, conservative think-tanks did. Get off whatever you are smoking.

[billcoe]

After 30 years of rhetoric against "big" government by conservatives in control of all key institutions including the media, corporate welfare (which has always been huge) has reached unprecedented levels, and has bankrupted the nation. The same people certainly have no credibility on that topic today.

 

Huh? You talkin' conservative like the New York Times and the Detroit Free Press....it's pretty much a liberal media world once you get off AM radio my friend.

[billcoe]

Balh blah blah J_B.

 

This is indeed the level of your discourse. YOU and other conservatives, supposedly "small government types", own this unprecedented economic fiasco fair and square. YOU supported all of Bush's "big" government policies, so don't come whining now about spendings.

 

The truth of the matter is Obama's plan right now has 300 billion in tax cuts. Over time tax cuts have become a larger slice of the Obama "recovery" pie while government spending is shrinking.

 

Which points to the propaganda you have been spewing about Obama. I never said Obama wanted to redistribute wealth, you and your pals did. Opportunist jackass who says everything and its opposite without missing a beat.

 

 

Viva Le Revolucion!

 

If anyhting that was a counter-revolution and Reagan, the GE spokeperson, senile B-movie actor, certainly didn't have a hand in formulating the propaganda he spewed, conservative think-tanks did. Get off whatever you are smoking.

 

I'm not sure PP has that quote right up there.

[STP]

Oh give it up! Can't you see you've been trolled? It wouldn't truly be a reprise unless massive deregulation also occurred.