Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

DaretothREdux (41.72)

Bet On RED!

Recs

19

April 16, 2009 – Comments (35) | RELATED TICKERS: GAM , E

The Great Communicator (as the Ministry of Propaganda has dubbed him) gave a speech a couple of days ago explaining in very simple terms why we need bailouts and stimulus. And I paraphrase:

People are cutting back because they are afraid they will lose their jobs, and so no one is buying stuff, and when no one buys stuff, businesses cut back on the workforce, and this causes more people to cut back and buy less stuff and save more which is alright unless everyone is doing it at the same time because then there are no customers. SO the government has to buy stuff for you while we wait for the economy to turn around and everyone starts buying again.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank President Obama for explaining this complicated macro-economic event in terms simple enough that a fifth grader could understand: Unless we buy more crap, the economy will suffer so the government must buy crap for us.

That’s the President’s bold economic solution in a nutshell. It’s so stupid it’s brilliant. It’s stupid because it’s exactly what caused the crisis in the first place (too much borrowing and spending…blah blah blah you all have heard it before).

But wait…it’s also brilliant! Because inevitably it will strengthen the power of the U.S. government even more then Bush managed to in the last 8 years. Obama already renewed the Patriot Act, and so the only way to consolidate even more power to the government is to take away our right to property…but in a very sneaky sort of way.

I mean if the government simply raised taxes to 100% and brought out the military to collect everything we make then people might notice they were being stolen from on a massive scale. But make no mistake; every dollar printed is a fraction of a dollar stolen from your savings. Every dollar given to a “Too-BIG-Succeed” insolvent bank/corporation is more of your savings stolen.

But really you have no one to blame but yourself America. How dare you save when the economy is struggling? People are being laid off from their jobs because you wont continue to borrow money and spend beyond your means to pay it back. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

The government didn’t want to have to step in and spend your money for you (they are really reluctant heroes in all this), but you give them no choice. And they have no problem spending money they don’t have. After all, it’s not their money, it’s yours…

And finally for any true patriot out there who would like to help America but just can’t bring themselves to spend their own money, you can send me a check with the balance of your life savings or just mail me all your credit cards. I will be taking a trip to the casino soon and I am one crazy gambler when it’s not my money

So, anyone who thinks the government has the right idea send your money on to me. And don’t worry about it, I will simply be practicing the same theory of economics they practice…except I’m asking politely first (after all it’s for the good of the country), instead of just stealing it from you.

P.S. I’m going to put it all on Red (cause that’s what the banks bet on),

Dare

35 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 16, 2009 at 5:51 AM, DaretothREdux (41.72) wrote:

Devoish,

If you are reading this, then I have a response for your last comment on my last blog.

I didn't write it, but it's exactly what I have been trying to get people to understand and it needs way more recs than 3.

It can be found here.

Highly reccommended reading for anyone else who agrees with the ideas I present.

Report this comment
#2) On April 16, 2009 at 6:10 AM, whereaminow (45.39) wrote:

Great post Dare.

I sent an email to a very close friend that suports Obama after the speech.  I said, "how do we solve a problem of too much debt and spending, with more debt and spending?"  His response, no shit, was "the dollar has to be toast pretty soon right?"

Most are waking up.  The people I talk to know that I hated Bush, so they can't hide behind the "you're just a disgruntled Republican" line.  They have to face facts.  They admit to me that Obama isn't solving anything.

But they can't say it in public.  They can't present themselves as having any problem with his policies at all.  If they do, they're afraid another Bush-type will get elected in 2012.  

I can't say that I blame them for that. 

David in Qatar     

Report this comment
#3) On April 16, 2009 at 6:27 AM, DaretothREdux (41.72) wrote:

David,

People will do anything due to irrational fear. But (being a fellow Bush haters) I would ask those people who are scared: What's really better?

A. Having an cowboy in the White House you makes decisions based on his gut alone.

B. Having an very educated man in the White House who makes terrible decisions but for well-intentioned reasons.

The answer is neither. They both suck, and honestly the second scares me more because people can convince themselves for longer that he is doing the right thing based on his intelligence...and he is smart enough to keep the charade going...barring a total collapse of the system...or grass roots efforts waking up the masses (I hope for the second).

Report this comment
#4) On April 16, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Mary953 (72.80) wrote:

I worry about anyone who has the ability to convince himself that he is correct and then pursue that path with executive orders in order to circumvent the checks and balances of the Constitution.  Those Presidents that have fit this model have seldom been a comfortable fit for the nation. 

Some things were perfectly clear,
seen with the vision of youth
No doubts and nothing to fear,
I claimed the corner on truth
These days it's harder to say
I know what I'm fighting for
My faith is falling away
I'm not that sure anymore

Shades of grey wherever I go
The more I find out the less that I know
Black and white is how it should be
But shades of grey are the colors I see

Now with the wisdom of years
I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear
are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men,
and all the causes they're for
I won't be righteous again
I'm not that sure anymore

Shades of grey are all that I find
when I look to the enemy line
There ain't no rainbows shining on me
Shades of grey are the colours I see

Shades of Grey by Billy Joel

Report this comment
#5) On April 16, 2009 at 7:38 AM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

Ok , boys, I asked you once before and I will ask you again.

What country is your model for small Gov't? Somalia? Nigeria?

Report this comment
#6) On April 16, 2009 at 8:02 AM, DaretothREdux (41.72) wrote:

devoish,

How about the USA pre-income tax? Heck, I'd even go back to the Articles of Confederation, but honestly I would like to see more of a Ron Paul-Sized Gov't and it would be nice if we would pay attention the document that made this country great, instead of just paying lip service to it all the time (or completely ignoring it...).

Report this comment
#7) On April 16, 2009 at 8:06 AM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

But really you have no one to blame but yourself America. How dare you save when the economy is struggling? People are being laid off from their jobs because you wont continue to borrow money and spend beyond your means to pay it back. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Ok dare, I know I have YOU suggesting the President said that, but where in the speech did President Obama say you should be ashamed for saving?

I seems to me he is aware of the fact, and expressed it.

And it seems to me you are completely misrepresenting the President of the United States.

Report this comment
#8) On April 16, 2009 at 8:21 AM, DaretothREdux (41.72) wrote:

devoish,

I made no claim that the President said that...in fact he didn't say that. That part was sarcasm...as is much of what I write. I paraphrased what he did say though. And if you want I will get the video/transcript and show you exactly where he basically said: people aren't spending, so the government has to...

The problem I have is the assumption that someone "has" to spend. Cause that's a total lie, but he's selling that bridge nevertheless.

I have a question for you: how much gov't is enough? And how many freedoms are you willing to sacrifice to acheive your goals?

Report this comment
#9) On April 16, 2009 at 8:21 AM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

You would return us to How about the USA pre-income tax? Heck, I'd even go back to the Articles of Confederation, the land before time?

 I too would like to have vast tracts of unexplored land waiting to be homesteaded. Fertile lands in a temperate climate. A Mississipi river only a few thousand had even seen. Herds of Buffalo that blackened the plains.

Good plan.

Report this comment
#10) On April 16, 2009 at 8:27 AM, DaretothREdux (41.72) wrote:

devoish,

I too would like to have vast tracts of unexplored land waiting to be homesteaded. Fertile lands in a temperate climate. A Mississipi river only a few thousand had even seen. Herds of Buffalo that blackened the plains.

Yes. That's clearly what I meant. The world has changed so much that it's now impossible to have a small gov't once again? Is that your argument?

Oh and the income tax was created in 1913...the world was not so different then. Different yes. But no where near what you so mockingly described.

Report this comment
#11) On April 16, 2009 at 9:26 AM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

Oh and the income tax was created in 1913

A quick trip to wikepedia suggests there was a federal income tax during the civil war and again in the1890's.

Yes. That's clearly what I meant. The world has changed so much that it's now impossible to have a small gov't once again? Is that your argument?

Are you suggesting we can return to the conditions that made that era possible?

In the first response you challenged me to read an article that was based upon the question; "Just because we should, doesn't mean we can". Perhaps we should ask that same question of a more unattainable plan to return to an era long gone.

I asked you once before and I will ask you again.

What country is your model for small Gov't? Somalia? Nigeria?

 

Report this comment
#12) On April 16, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Gemini846 (65.28) wrote:

Every great power is in some way affected by the Deuteronomic Cycle.

Bondage leads to Faith > Faith leads to Prosperity > Prosperity leads to Complacency > Complacency leads to Apathy > Apathy leads to Dependence> Dependence leads to Bondage.

I present to you that we have turned the corner or are rapidly turning the corner from Apathy to Dependence. With each step power becomes more centralized, the excess and contractions get stronger until eventually one society gives birth to another.

Report this comment
#13) On April 16, 2009 at 9:51 AM, outoffocus (23.12) wrote:

Gemini846

You hit the nail right on the head.  "The Deuteronomic cycle." I'll have to use that one when I'm discussing why the US will lose its superpower status.

Report this comment
#14) On April 16, 2009 at 11:20 AM, PrestonCheek (32.37) wrote:

Dare, keep up the good work my friend, and don't forget I like the sarcasm.

Thats is really what OB was saying I don't care how people do not like to believe it, hell even his biggest supporter Buffet said the same thing. Too many people saving and not enough spending, what do you expect with the media, who is in OB back pocket, keeps shouting depression and doom and gloom, hell I started saving more too!!!!

What's so bad about it, I go to the malls with my son and see so many people shopping and I really just want to walk up to them and say, hey dude, where the hell you getting the money for this. So am I part of the problem and dude was part of the solution, no, again we shouldn't have to rely on the American people living in debt to support our empty economy, but big brother is going to ensure thats excactly what we do. Then they can continue to make more and more people rely on them.

Eventually more and more people will just throw their hands up and say hell I give up, I have no house, no savings, no job, please send me everything that you can give me big brother you were right all along, I really do need you more than you need me. Lets let the top 2 percent in this country pay all the taxes and 40 percent of the people that don't even pay taxes get tax breaks for money that I made and gave them, now that makes sense. Damn I need to learn how to operate the real American way.

Sorry about that Dare, that turned into a rant and some people will exploit that and turn it into hate. I do not hate this country nor no one in it, but sometimes it's very hard to look and see where we are going and the milestones that we have already crossed. Sad thing is most people think it's normal and are getting dependent on the government and will never look back.

The stealfromus package, I mean Stimulus package is the biggest form of welfare this country has ever seen.

Report this comment
#15) On April 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM, whereaminow (45.39) wrote:

Devoish,

I do have an example of limited government.  Qatar and the UAE, where individual income taxes are 0%. The corporate tax rate is 10-12%.  There is no police state.  There is no welfare state.  There is no religious persecution.  Women face no discrimination, only religious traditions of certain local sects enforce customs that we consider to be discrimination.  But it does not apply by law.  The standard of living is significantly higher than in the U.S.  The population is 75% non-Qatari/UAE.  The poorest worker here lives better than in 99% of the world.  

We have limited government, but not because our society is simple.  In fact, the market here is much more robust, diverse, and booming than in America.  There's no robber barons.  There's no fertile lands to homestead.  It's not because the countries are small and it's not solely because these countries have oil.  Oil wealth never accompanied a rise in the standard of living of the masses, unless accompanied by a policy of laissez-faire.  All other oil-rich countries have confiscated that wealth for the government and ruling families.  Their people are still destitute.

You're just flat wrong about everything you think you know.

David in Qatar     

 

 

 

Report this comment
#16) On April 16, 2009 at 2:38 PM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

David in Qatar,

Just on the off chance that Qatar is a benvolent kingdom that redistributes some of the wealth of oil resources to its citizens through Government handouts and spending programs..

Do you got anywhere else?

Lets learn about Qatar!

Report this comment
#17) On April 16, 2009 at 2:50 PM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

 http://www.state.gov/p/nea/ci/77575.htm 

Qatar is a destination country for men and women from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, the Philippines, and Indonesia who migrate willingly, but are subsequently trafficked into involuntary servitude as domestic workers and laborers. The problem of trafficking of foreign children for camel jockey servitude in Qatar — which has been highlighted in previous Reports — was thoroughly addressed by Government of Qatar action over the last year, though independent confirmation of the problem's complete elimination is not yet available.

Slaves are good for an economy. Are you promoting the return of slavery to the US?

Prevention
Qatar’s efforts to prevent abuse of foreign workers have not improved considerably over the evaluation period. Although it publicized the opening of the shelter and hotlines for trafficking victims, the government has not pursued broad information campaigns to increase the public’s awareness of trafficking. The government published some pamphlets on worker’s rights in English and Arabic to distribute to incoming employees and monitors immigration patterns for evidence of trafficking
.

 

Report this comment
#18) On April 16, 2009 at 3:13 PM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

 http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/QATAR-GENERAL-PETROLEUM-CORPORATION-Company-History.html

Qatar is kind of more like Venezuela, than the free market economy you boys have been promoting. seems the Gov't took over the largest industry in the country and runs it as a family enterprise.

It was against the background of the 1973 oil price shock, when the 13 members of OPEC sought to increase their power relative to that of the oil majors, that the Qatar General Petroleum Corporation came into being. The formation of QGPC became necessary following the government's decision to assume full control of the country's oil industry. In 1973, the state took a 25% stake in the onshore concessions of QPC and the offshore concessions of SCQ. Early in 1974, the year of QCPC's formation, the state increased its share in both companies to 60%. In 1976, QGPC took total control of QPC's onshore concessions and took similar action in relation to SCQ's offshore activities the following year.

Although a state company, QGPC--in terms of the composition of the board of directors--resembles a family firm. Half of the current eight-member board is composed of members of the ruling al-Thani family. The first--and so far only--chairman of QGPC is Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Khalifa al-Thani, minister of finance and petroleum and second son of the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Khalifa bin Hamad al-Thani. In 1989 Qatar's Council of Ministers underwent a substantial transformation when several of the older members were retired and new ones, largely from the l,500-strong male side of the al-Thani family, were introduced into the government. Sheikh Khalifa's position, however, was unchallenged.

Report this comment
#19) On April 16, 2009 at 3:30 PM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

Here we go. Government sponsored Socialist healthcare. Much nicer deals if you are a citizen as opposed to a visitor, but Gov't financed healthcare none-the-less. Must be nice to sit on an oil field as big as your country.

Nice website, maybe you guys should spring for some traffic lights...

http://www.hmc.org.qa/hmc/Adminitrative%20depts/finance/fee%20charges/fees%20opening%20page.htm 

HMC FEES ONLINE

Hamad Medical Corporation has published its medical, surgical and other hospitalization fees on its website. The fees cover the cost of medical care for Qatari nationals, GCC citizens, expatriate patients who are resident or visiting, and domestic (household) workers.

Qatari patients pay for a private single room, equipment deposits for a wheel chair and other home care equipment; prosthetic and orthotic devices (cost plus 15%); and medical reports and x-ray films, and attendant meals.

GCC nationals also pay for a private single room, equipment deposits, prosthetic and orthotic devices, medical reports, x-ray films, and attendant meals. Moreover, they also pay charges for dental and plastic surgery.

Resident expatriates pay for outpatient clinic visits, 20% of the cost of drugs, 10% of the cost of medication for cancer, heart failure, and kidney failure and organ transplantation. Other services for which a fee is charged are radiology examinations, single and shared rooms, attendant meals, visiting consultant appointments, medical reports, x-ray films, IVF procedures, hemodialysis, day care surgery, total knee replacements, plastic surgery and dental procedures.

Prospective patients are advised to check the HMC website for other news. HMC costs are competitive with those available in other Gulf medical centers and certainly less expensive than care in Europe or the Americas. Medical care for resident expatriates is still provided at a discounted cost, and, except for the services mentioned above is still free.

Report this comment
#20) On April 16, 2009 at 3:35 PM, whereaminow (45.39) wrote:

Deviosh,

Yep you've got Qatar all figured out.  Never mind that the U.S. government under the direction of FDR cartelized the oil industry in America, and that OPEC is following that example.  Never mind that the railroad and meatpacking industries were cartelized under Republican rule in the 1800's.   Never mind that the mint was monopolized under Wilson.  Never mind the thousands of examples of American regulation of competition in America.

One company under state control in Qatar proves that it's a big government welfare State.

It's true that Qatar retains some backward elements.  It took 400 years for Europe to go from Magna Carta to representative government.  I guess perspective is lost on some people.  I think their progress over the last 15 years is remarkable.  But hey, what do I know?  I only live here.

As for SLAVE LABOR, how do you figure?  Have you ever lived in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, etc?  I have.  Do you think workers would come here if they weren't exercising their time preference for savings?  Do you think the ONLY workers in Qatar are low wage "slaves" as you call them?  

You have no idea what you're talking about.  75% of the population here is foreign.  They range THE ENTIRE DIVISION OF LABOR. So go ahead and nit pick all you want, but you're just ignorant.  You can pull some random stat or you can look at economic facts.  

And to think that Libertarians are the ones accused of living in a fantasy world. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#21) On April 16, 2009 at 3:37 PM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

http://www.stopsmokingarab.com/ 

I cannot read this one. Is this a law or a Socialist campaign to infringe on your rights?

Report this comment
#22) On April 16, 2009 at 3:51 PM, whereaminow (45.39) wrote:

It's a community service campaign, not a law.  

This is a bit old, it's a 1999 report on economic growth in the UAE

http://82.195.132.90/uaeint_misc/pdf/perspectives/12.pdf

Since then, growth has continued to advance by leaps and bounds.

The employment pattern in the UAE does not reflect the structure of output. The oil sector employs only 1.6 percent of the UAE labour force, reflecting the capital-intensive nature of the industry. Nearly 39 per cent of the labour force is engaged in community, social and personal
services. The unemployment rate in the UAE (0.5 per cent) is  remarkably low, which means that the UAE economy is effectively at full employment.

The government of the UAE and Qatar do attempt to mimic the policies of the USA and Europe, however, they are much more cautious about determining which policies to implement, realizing that many welfare policies are harmful.

Is there a government? Yes.  Does that government manifest itself in the lives of its citizens in the scope of a American or European government?  Not even close.  Not even in the same ballpark.  May that change in the future as the government's power is outstripped by the power accumulated by individuals?  Probably.  But for now, the individual in this country, and in the UAE, has far greater freedom than in America.

Democracy is not a panacea, nor a sign of the inherent superiority of a nation.  It certainly has positive aspects, but many negative ones as well. 

Have you ever considered the possibility that America and Europe advanced spectacularly in spite of democracy, rather than because of it?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#23) On April 16, 2009 at 4:52 PM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

They must need Nurses if the Gov't is paying for education. 

The Higher Institute of Nursing 
Inaugurated in October 1999, the Higher Institute of Nursing is a national educational body affiliated to the National Health Authority (NHA. It offers a two and a half-year program to obtain the Associated Diploma of Nursing (ADN) in English instruction, and in the future it will introduce a bridge program to qualify for a bachelor's degree course in collaboration with the Faculty of Science at Qatar University. The institute aims to prepare qualified nursing national cadres, with a special emphasis on encouraging females to take up this profession. This is why Qatari female students at the institute are offered a monthly allowance of QR1800 each, and tuition is free for non-Qatari female students.

Report this comment
#24) On April 16, 2009 at 4:58 PM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

Dave,

Qatar seems like a great place to live if you are not an immigrant, promised living wages and not getting them. But it is certainly not the free market utopia you are promoting. In fact it seems they are doing many of the things you are fighting against here. If America subsidizes nurses training like you do there, will that disrupt the nursing schools business plan? Are you counting on American Medical tourism for profit?

I asked you once before and I will ask you again.

What country is your model for small Gov't? Somalia? Nigeria?

Big Brother Qatar?

Report this comment
#25) On April 16, 2009 at 5:34 PM, DaretothREdux (41.72) wrote:

devoish,

Wow. You have done a wonderful job arguing that no gov't is perfect...now turn those powers of perception on your own gov't and see that maybe more gov't isn't the answer.

Once again: how much gov't is enough? And how many freedoms are you willing to sacrifice to acheive your goals?

Report this comment
#26) On April 16, 2009 at 5:57 PM, whereaminow (45.39) wrote:

Not only is history on my side. Present day events are on my side as well.  In every part of this world where humans have been allowed greater freedom, low-to-zero taxes, and minimal government there has been dramatic improvement of the living conditions of all people, especially the masses.

In every country where the there has been limited-to-zero freedom, higher taxes, and large government bureaucracy there has been stagnation of wealth or destruction of wealth for all people, especially the masses.

Qatar and the UAE are closer to the former rather than the latter.  The USA from 1776-1913 was the former and is moving towards the latter.  Same goes for Europe.  Germany was the former from the 1600's until Bismark's Sozial Politik in 1881.   France was the former from the 1700's until the late 1800's.   Same for England.  These were times that were among the most peaceful in human history, but also saw the greatest advancement in welfare for the poor.  By the late 1800's, poor people in Europe lived better than Kings had just decades earlier.

Dare, I, and others have provided ample evidence of this in dozens of posts.  

Logic tells me that less government equals greater prosperity.  You asked for an example of limited government and I provided that example, and claimed nothing else.  I did not claim it was a free market utopia.  It is not.  I claimed that I have greater freedom here and that there is greater prosperity here because there is less government.

I have no interest in changing your opinion.  I wish to influence the reader.  And I only wish to do that through honesty.  If you feel that I'm being dishonest, then you need to represent my position properly first.  Then if I've said something that is incorrect, I will admit to it.  There are welfare programs here, but their scope is significantly smaller than in America and Europe, and the proceeds do not come from the taxes of individuals.  

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#27) On April 16, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Option1307 (29.92) wrote:

Another quality piece Dare...

I'm really enjoying this current discussing between you all. Although, I really would like devoish to answer the quesion from Dare.

 Once again: how much gov't is enough? And how many freedoms are you willing to sacrifice to acheive your goals?

To be fair, I think you, Devoish, do raise some valid points and concerns. I understand what you are saying and partially agree that there needs to be some small amount of goverment. IMO, it's not that I am hoping for the elimination of all goverment, its jsut that I think our current form is hugely exaggerated and completely unnecessary. I would like to see much of it go away. This doesn't mean I want to live in Anarchy, not at all. It just simply means that I think we would be better off without so much interference.

Report this comment
#28) On April 16, 2009 at 9:54 PM, DaretothREdux (41.72) wrote:

Option1307,

Thanks man. And I agree that Devoish should answer that question since it is the foundation for my argument. I'm not anti-gov't just to be anti-gov't...but I am anti-restriction of freedom.

Report this comment
#29) On April 16, 2009 at 11:36 PM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

Logic tells me that less government equals greater prosperity.  You asked for an example of limited government and I provided that example, and claimed nothing else.

Then use something besides logic because your logic is failing you. You provided Qatar as an example of limited gov't and the Qatar gov't accounts for 57% of the economy. That is limited compared to nothing and in fact only 16 Gov'ts are more intrusive in their economys. Of course Qatar doesn't tax you. They don't let you own the oil industry, the King keeps that for his own family and then doles it out as they see fit. It is fortunate that he seems benevolent toward the citizens of Qatar if not so much the immigrants. The USA would be in much better shape if they took Shells property like Qatar did. The USA gov't would have to almost triple in size to be the model you aspire to, not get smaller from its 19.9% of GDP. It is like you held up a starfish as an example of a horse and that seems to make sense to you.

But like you said  "I claimed that I have greater freedom here and that there is greater prosperity here because there is less government" and then we learn that by %of GDP Qatar is the 20th largest Gov't in the world that gave you that prosperity, not less gov't at all.

Dare,

Wow. You have done a wonderful job arguing that no gov't is perfect...now turn those powers of perception on your own gov't and see that maybe more gov't isn't the answer.

Actually I described what seems like a wonderful place to live for its citizens. However it is not the "small Gov't" model that you would like it to be. It is a huge Gov't comprising 57% of its countrys GDP. It has an economy bathed in Gov't dollars supplied through Gov't subsidized healthcare and education. It needs to improve the enforcement of laws concerning the abuse of immigrants.

A Big Gov't might not work for the benefit of its citizens, but a Small Gov't cannot. Here in the USA, despite your complaints to the contrary we have a small Gov't and an ineffective SEC, EPA, FDA etc.

Option1307,

You said IMO, it's not that I am hoping for the elimination of all goverment, its jsut that I think our current form is hugely exaggerated and completely unnecessary. I would like to see much of it go away.

On a 160 country list of Government expenditures as a percentage of GDP, in 2007 the USA ranked 144th, 15 spots above the smallest. and 130 spots behind Denmark. People are crying, afraid we might become Gov't dependent, I guess because people keep saying it on Fox news, like it has some relevance to the real world we live in.

You go look at a list of countrys by the size of Gov't spending as a percentage of GDP and you tell me, do you want to live in one of the countries near the top of the list like Sweden, Denmark, Qatar, or one of the small gov't countries like Haiti or Bangladesh? Glenn Beck of all idiots is screaming for small Gov't and I say be careful what you wish for. It would be nice if I could just disappear Gov't and go my own way in peace, but the real world doesn't work that way, and it is a childs dream that it might.

 

I give up the right to bury waste oil in my back yard.

Report this comment
#30) On April 17, 2009 at 12:08 AM, DaretothREdux (41.72) wrote:

I give up the right to bury waste oil in my back yard.

Yes you are an environmentalist mechanic of all things! Isn't that like beign a member of PETA and running a slaughter house?

I debate you more later, but that one has been bugging me for awhile...

Report this comment
#31) On April 17, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Option1307 (29.92) wrote:

Devoish,

Thanks for the response; however, I still don't think you answered the question...

How much governemnt is too much, how much power do you want them to have? What do you think they should be in charge? Healthcare, education, employment, retirement? This is a serious question.

Do you want them to direct our education, should you be able to educate your family as you see fit?

Should they be able to direct our diet and decide what is proper and what is "unhealthy"?

Do you want them to tell you how to live, what vehicle to drive, what activites are deemed "safe"?

Should they help out when you loose your job, should they help out when you retire?

Do they help out when a family births more children than it can financially handle?

Do they help out when a family is bankrupt because of too much leverage, a company, a city?

Seriosuly, what does the government look like in the eyes of Devoish. You don'y need to answer eerything, but wht do you see as the role of governemnt, and what are the limits, if any?

If you have already spelled this out before, my apology, please direct me to it.

 

Now that we have established what you would like the governemnt to do, are you willing to give up personal liberties and freedoms to obtain these wishes? Are you willing lessen your personal choice when it comes to family manners?

On a 160 country list of Government expenditures as a percentage of GDP, in 2007 the USA ranked 144th, 15 spots above the smallest

Intersting point, but so what? I'm not claiming that we have a huge government relative to others, it's simply too big in my eyes. I would still feel the same way even if we were the "smallest" on the list, tht is irrelevant.

Here in the USA, despite your complaints to the contrary we have a small Gov't and an ineffective SEC, EPA, FDA etc.

I agree, these organizations are worthless. Why not cut some of the red tape (reducing government) an let these organizations actually do their jobs. At the very least, this is a perfect point you make, we do not need more government, we need to make the current systems work! This bothers me so much, whenever one organization fails (SEC cough, cough) we just want to expand their powers or create more oversight. Why? Why not just enforce the laws we have, why not just concentrate on making the current organizations actually do their freaking jobs?

 I guess because people keep saying it on Fox news, like it has some relevance to the real world we live in.

Glenn Beck of all idiots...

Really Devoish, really? You want to stoop to this level, why must you?

 I honestly respect your opinion and have in actuality learned from you. I appreciate your strong convictions in your ways, it makes myself and Dare/Whereaminow truely think about our own positions. I thank you for that. But you really sound ridiculous when you get up on your pedestal and throw out comments like that.

Fox is right leaning, obviously, so what? Can you tell me with a straight face that MSNBC (or anyother network) is no left leaning? Do you honestly believe that other networks are neutral? No they are not neutral, they are clearly one sided as well. So why does this point get brought up, shouldn't there be a variety of opinions on TV? Doesn't it make you look ignorant to make comments like that, grouping all of us "pro small gov" people together as hard core idiots who watch FOX? I think you loose credibility when you make comments like that.

Glenn beck, have you ever watched/listened to him? Honestly? I watch his show a lot, but I also listen to mister neutral himself, Kieth Olberman. I've watched every Michael Moore movie ever made countless times, but I also read Ron Paul. I've read the bible and studied religion a bit, but I also read Richard Dawkins and watched Religulous by Bill Maher (loved it).

My point is, you can learn more from the "otherside" than you can by simply listening to your fellow supporters. Seeking out all sides of information is vital.

So please, don't make random off handed remarks like that. I welcome your thoughts and arguments on all areas, but those comments make you seem very childish and makes your credibilty fade away...

Report this comment
#32) On April 17, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Option1307 (29.92) wrote:

I'm likely not as hard core "small government" as Dare or Whereaminow, but I truely believe the governemnt is over extended in its current shape and form.

I am a firm believer in personal responsibilty. I have failed many times in my young life, and I expect to fail many more times to come. However, I look to my family and friends for support. I look to my inner strength for courage and determination. I do not want someone "helping me out", unless they are family. That is what families are for. I do not wanthelp from the government when things are tough in my life, I do not want stimulus check or slocial security. I do not want welfare help or food stamps when life has me down.

All I want is the ability to pull myself back up, look the victor in his eyes, and tell him that I'm coming back. I'm coming back stronger than before, and I WILL succeed...

Why do we as Americans feel like we have to be taken care of? Why do we expect someone to "fix" things or help when we make mistakes? When did 12th place deserve a trophey? When did the strive for excellence cease to exist?

I'm not calling for the elimination for governemnt. I'm calling for accountability and a reduction in worthless prorams.

I'm glad you support an audit of the FED Devoish, I do to. But there is more than that. Do we honestly need troops all over the world? Do we need every expanding welfare, in whatever technical form you cal it? Do we need monetary encouragement for births? Do we need to nationalize/bail out corporations? Do we need to help our fellow citizens who do not unerstand fiscal responsibility or econ 101.

I say no.

I'm not calling for destruction or absolute "let them all fail". But can't there be a realistic compromise, a organized restructuring of these things. A organized bankruptcy?

Report this comment
#33) On April 17, 2009 at 12:27 PM, PrestonCheek (32.37) wrote:

Option, sounds like you just want some common sense back in the world. Some simple principles and guidelines we can live by, people not trying to scam the system.

Report this comment
#34) On April 17, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Option1307 (29.92) wrote:

sounds like you just want some common sense back in the world.

I can dream can't I? Although, sometimes I feel as though I'm the only one...

Report this comment
#35) On April 17, 2009 at 9:20 PM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

option1307,

It concerns me that after so very many posts by Dave and dare promoting a small Gov't model, you are not concerned they do not have one, and that you are more concerned that I answer the question "how many rights am I willing to surrender".

I will answer your questions, but for some I will need your help.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement