CDZ What are you worth?

[Asclepias]

You made the claim that the government does not create wealth....nothing can be further from the truth

Not in context of what I meant which I have explained twice to you already and you continue to ignore my context and apply your own. I can't make you understand my context and disregard your false context. All I can do is explain that you've taken my comment out of context and it's up to you to open your mind to that and accept it.

You continue to illustrate INDIRECT ways the government creates wealth for individuals or companies, or even themselves through taxation and regulation. That is NOT what I meant. Shall I repeat that a few more times to penetrate your granite-like cranium? The government doesn't produce products and services for profit. They do not DIRECTLY produce wealth. All of your glorious examples of NY harbors, bridges, tunnels and water systems were paid for by PEOPLE who paid taxes to government.

You, like most liberal progressives, think that Government is some sort of mystical magical money machine with an unlimited supply of money and wealth to shower upon us for whatever whim we conjure up. That's simply not reality in the universe we live in. The Government ONLY has resources it confiscates from us in the form of taxes and regulations, fees and fines, or tariffs on trade, etc. It also borrows and prints money... it does nothing to directly create wealth on it's own.

You fail to realize that We the People created the Government. It does things to directly benefit the people. The Government IS the people or as Abraham Lincoln said ....Of the people, by the people and for the people

In that regard, the government generates tremendous wealth

Our whole Defense Industry is an example of the Government directly generating wealth. It does not exist without the Government

Boss has made up his dream world and you are intruding in his fantasy and making it all icky with facts. He didnt want to debate. He justs wants you to listen and agree.

 

[320 Years of History]

That's something that a lot of folks just don't get.

Do you believe we live in a plutocracy as I described it; govt of the rich, by the rich, for the rich?

I believe we live in an aristocracy more so than plutocracy.

When the founders said "government of, by and for the people,

Are you thinking they "forgot" to include the word "rich". As in " government of, by and for the rich people.

They didn't want women to vote. Would have preferred only land owners vote. Sounds like rich people to me.

To a large, but not complete degree, yes. I don't think they forgot to include "rich." I think they thought it was obvious to the point of not needing to be included. As I see it, the founders were of the mind that one didn't have to be rich to be part of the ruling class, but that if one were rich, one would automatically, short of one's refusing to partake, be part of the ruling class.

 

[Boss]

Right now, our government is in the pocket of crony capitalists. They give token protection for the rights of We the People.

We need government to do more, not less to protect the people

No... We certainly DON'T ...That's THE problem! The more power you give government, the more crony corporatist influence you get because they buy the influence and you can't.

That's great you oppose what you describe. Greater yet would be the "how" to stop what you describe. Plutocrats have worked hard to put in place the system we now have.

How would you dismantle their system?

We stop it by limiting the power of the Federal government the way the framers intended things to be in the beginning. If they have no power, they have no control and there is nothing for crony corporatists to exploit. It's pointless to bribe officials who have no power.

Return the power to the states and people respectively and you eliminate the problem.

 

[Boss]

Boss has made up his dream world and you are intruding in his fantasy and making it all icky with facts. He didnt want to debate. He justs wants you to listen and agree.

No, I am not the one living in the dream world. You keep expecting government to swoop in and solve all your problems... like health care. You ended up with Obamacare and it doesn't help anyone except the insurance and pharmaceutical lobby. You end up with massive bloated government agencies full of bureaucrats and bean counters who provide nothing and simply squander tax resources. You prop up federal teacher unions that turn out abject morons through Common Core and blow smoke up your ass. You create housing crisis and financial crisis because your Big Government solutions continue to meddle in free market capitalism trying to "FIX" something.

You're sitting here trying to argue that $500 toilet seats and $200 hammers being billed to the taxpayers is a GOOD thing that helps our economy and generates wealth. It's NOT a good thing, it's a terrible and wasteful thing that doesn't need to happen.

We're looking at this very election and people are talking about how we have to elect Donald Trump because of the Supreme Court picks.... but the SCOTUS was intended to be the least "political" branch of government. They're not supposed to be setting policy and establishing our laws, that's supposed to be done by Congress. So we have turned our system on it's ear to where it depends on one man/woman being elected to determine our fate as a nation.

And then Trump promises 6-weeks of maternity leave and he's going to pay for that with "eliminating waste fraud and abuse!" ...that's like saying you're going to cut the police force and judiciary in half by eliminating crime and corruption! If there is waste, fraud and abuse, we need to eliminate that and give the money back to the taxpayer. We don't need yet another massive government entitlement we cannot afford.

We have to STOP turning to government to FIX everything! The more government does, the less freedom we have and the more we become enslaved to our debt.

 

[320 Years of History]

No, I am not the one living in the dream world. You keep expecting government to swoop in and solve all your problems... like health care. You ended up with Obamacare and it doesn't help anyone except the insurance and pharmaceutical lobby.

There's a huge difference between what the government rightly should take on and solve/improve and whether any given governments actual approach addressing a given matter is done well.

Why did we get the Obamacare we have rather than a different variant, one that would still be called Obamacare? Because individual voters didn't take the initiative to pay close attention to the damn legislation as it was being developed and immediately upon it's release. Would that have been very time consuming for folks? Yes, it would have, but now folks don't like what we got and the folks who do like what we got took the time to be involved enough to make sure it turned out that way.

It may be that one sometimes doesn't get what one works to achieve, but it nearly always so that one does not achieve that which one did work to make happen.​

It's really easy to sit there after the the fact and tell someone how they screwed up. It takes real effort to have played an active enough role from the get-go to make sure that didn't happen. That's a recurring complaint I have about the behavior of many of our citizens. Folks are quick to say what's wrong, gone wrong, or is a problem, but they aren't willing to do the hard and proactive (rather than reactive) work it takes to be part of the solution.

• Where were the millions of handwritten letters to Representatives and Senators telling them what to do or not do in reforming healthcare?
• Over the two years it took to get O-Care passed, where were the marches and the coordinated statements of expectation?
• Did millions of Americans make appointments with their representatives (either in D.C. or in their local districts) to tell them what they thought before the deal was done?

Do folks to the hair salon, sit in the chair and let the stylist do whatever the hell crosses their mind? Do folks contract a builder to have a home built and let them construct whatever design appeals to them? Folks get down to the most nitty-gritty of details telling the service provider what they want and don't want. Yet when it comes to matters of major legislation, they won't do that. Well, they didn't and now they don't like what they got, but they want to blame someone besides themselves for failing to do the one thing they could have done to make a difference. Puh-lease. Cry me a river!

 

[Wilbur Right]

We stop it by limiting the power of the Federal government the way the framers intended things to be in the beginning. If they have no power, they have no control and there is nothing for crony corporatists to exploit. It's pointless to bribe officials who have no power.

To bad you couldn't say specifically how to do what you propose.

Would you overturn Citizens United?

 

[Boss]

To bad you couldn't say specifically how to do what you propose.

Would you overturn Citizens United?

Citizens United has nothing to do with this. That was SCOTUS correctly defending the 1st Amendment right of individuals to have freedom of speech regardless of their "creed" (or group). This was understood before Congress enacted McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. It violated that fundamental right and SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional. You cannot restrict people's freedom of speech because they happen to belong to a corporation.

And I told you how we do it... we start limiting the size and scope of government so there is nothing to influence. Once we've returned power to the people and states you don't have to worry about Citizens's United because there is nothing for them to gain.

 

[Boss]

No, I am not the one living in the dream world. You keep expecting government to swoop in and solve all your problems... like health care. You ended up with Obamacare and it doesn't help anyone except the insurance and pharmaceutical lobby.

There's a huge difference between what the government rightly should take on and solve/improve and whether any given governments actual approach addressing a given matter is done well.

Well, yes... there is a difference but I can argue both points at the same time.

Why did we get the Obamacare we have rather than a different variant, one that would still be called Obamacare? Because individual voters didn't take the initiative to pay close attention to the damn legislation as it was being developed and immediately upon it's release. Would that have been very time consuming for folks? Yes, it would have, but now folks don't like what we got and the folks who do like what we got took the time to be involved enough to make sure it turned out that way.

Well, no... it didn't matter. Individual voters left it up to their representatives and their representatives passed a 2000+ page bill without reading what was in it. The only people who like what we got are those who belong to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry and a small handful who got put on Medicaid because of it. Everyone else got screwed. There's nothing much we can do about legislation once it's passed other than to hope maybe someone can challenge it's constitutionality in court.

Do folks to the hair salon, sit in the chair and let the stylist do whatever the hell crosses their mind?

In the case of healthcare it's exactly what we did. Except I'd use a different analogy... some of us greased up our ass and bent over hoping government would give us something to make us feel good.

Do folks contract a builder to have a home built and let them construct whatever design appeals to them?

Again, it's exactly what we did with Obamacare. We do this all the time with government. We expect them to fix our problems however they think is best. When they screw things up even worse, we reward them with reelection and hope they'll fix what they screwed up. Instead of firing the contractor and building our own home, we re-hire the contractor and let him do whatever he thinks is best to correct whatever mess he made to start with. And half of us are so gullible and idiotic we think this is the correct approach.

Folks get down to the most nitty-gritty of details telling the service provider what they want and don't want. Yet when it comes to matters of major legislation, they won't do that. Well, they didn't and now they don't like what they got, but they want to blame someone besides themselves for failing to do the one thing they could have done to make a difference. Puh-lease. Cry me a river!

Don't you see? You've given up your rights to protest what you don't want. In the free market capitalist system, the transaction of commerce is voluntary. But we've taken health care out of the hands of free markets and put it in the hands of government.

 

[Wilbur Right]

And I told you how we do it... we start limiting the size and scope of government so there is nothing to influence. Once we've returned power to the people and states you don't have to worry about Citizens's United because there is nothing for them to gain.

So you don't know HOW to do what you propose ie. Limit the power blah blah blah.

That makes you full of Bullshit. Especially when you believe Citizens United isn't contributing to exactly what you say you hate, crony capitalism.

You full of it.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Boss, do you understand the difference between the "what" and the "how"?

You believe you identified what needs to be done. You just don't know how to do it.

People with power and influence intend to keep what they have.

 

[Boss]

And I told you how we do it... we start limiting the size and scope of government so there is nothing to influence. Once we've returned power to the people and states you don't have to worry about Citizens's United because there is nothing for them to gain.

So you don't know HOW to do what you propose ie. Limit the power blah blah blah.

That makes you full of Bullshit. Especially when you believe Citizens United isn't contributing to exactly what you say you hate, crony capitalism.

You full of it.

Again, the case of Citizens United was brought against a law that was changed in 2002. It restored constitutionality that had existed up until 2002 and passage of McCain-Feingold.

We can resolve MANY problems if we're going to ignore the constitution to do so. Due process gets in the way all the time, it contributes to all sorts of problems but it's part of the constitution.

As I said, crony corporatism is a problem for two reason, 1) because government has power the corporatist can influence through buying it when you can't. And 2) because we elect unethical scoundrels instead of men above reproach. If we start limiting the size, scope and therefore, power of the federal government, and we start electing honorable men and women to federal office, we will eliminate the problem of crony corporate influence.

I've explained now, three times, HOW we do this and it seems to not be computing in your mind for some reason.

 

[rightwinger]

Right now, our government is in the pocket of crony capitalists. They give token protection for the rights of We the People.

We need government to do more, not less to protect the people

No... We certainly DON'T ...That's THE problem! The more power you give government, the more crony corporatist influence you get because they buy the influence and you can't.

That's great you oppose what you describe. Greater yet would be the "how" to stop what you describe. Plutocrats have worked hard to put in place the system we now have.

How would you dismantle their system?

We stop it by limiting the power of the Federal government the way the framers intended things to be in the beginning. If they have no power, they have no control and there is nothing for crony corporatists to exploit. It's pointless to bribe officials who have no power.

Return the power to the states and people respectively and you eliminate the problem.

The Governments role is to act as a referee. Not to make sure everyone wins but to make sure everyone has a fair chance to win in our society.

Right now, all the calls are going for the rich

 

[Boss]

The Governments role is to act as a referee. Not to make sure everyone wins but to make sure everyone has a fair chance to win in our society.

Right now, all the calls are going for the rich

The Governments role is to act as a referee.

No, it's really not. The government has enumerated responsibilities defined in Article I Section 8. Why is that so hard for progressives to understand? Free market capitalism is it's own referee. It is the voluntary exchange of commerce between parties, Government has a constitutional responsibility of reasonable oversight... they can act to protect our drinking water and air or ensure a free market capitalist isn't selling us poison food or death trap cars. They can even step in and ensure a free market capitalist doesn't corner the market (monopoly) and push out all other competition. When there are disputes over who's fundamental rights are more or less important than another's, we have a Supreme Court who is supposed to rule based on the Constitution.

"FAIR" is a subjective concept. Two people may have completely different ideas of what is fair. When we try to chase the idea of fairness we have to get rid of freedom and liberty. The closest we can ever get to "fairness" is to ensure equality in opportunity. I think we do that better than any nation on the planet.

Right now, all the calls are going for the rich

Well that may be your perspective but it's a false one. First of all, you've not qualified who you're talking about when you say "the rich." Here, you seem to be connecting crony corporatists who exploit the power of government with the rich. In some cases, they may be, in other cases maybe they're not. Equality of opportunity has to be afforded to the rich just like the poor and the middle or it's patently not fair. You can't simply tilt the tables one way and claim that is fair. And that is the problem with chasing this concept of "FAIR".

 

[rightwinger]

The Governments role is to act as a referee. Not to make sure everyone wins but to make sure everyone has a fair chance to win in our society.

Right now, all the calls are going for the rich

The Governments role is to act as a referee.

No, it's really not. The government has enumerated responsibilities defined in Article I Section 8. Why is that so hard for progressives to understand? Free market capitalism is it's own referee. It is the voluntary exchange of commerce between parties, Government has a constitutional responsibility of reasonable oversight... they can act to protect our drinking water and air or ensure a free market capitalist isn't selling us poison food or death trap cars. They can even step in and ensure a free market capitalist doesn't corner the market (monopoly) and push out all other competition. When there are disputes over who's fundamental rights are more or less important than another's, we have a Supreme Court who is supposed to rule based on the Constitution.

"FAIR" is a subjective concept. Two people may have completely different ideas of what is fair. When we try to chase the idea of fairness we have to get rid of freedom and liberty. The closest we can ever get to "fairness" is to ensure equality in opportunity. I think we do that better than any nation on the planet.

Right now, all the calls are going for the rich

Well that may be your perspective but it's a false one. First of all, you've not qualified who you're talking about when you say "the rich." Here, you seem to be connecting crony corporatists who exploit the power of government with the rich. In some cases, they may be, in other cases maybe they're not. Equality of opportunity has to be afforded to the rich just like the poor and the middle or it's patently not fair. You can't simply tilt the tables one way and claim that is fair. And that is the problem with chasing this concept of "FAIR".

Free Market capitalism is its own referee?

What twisted world do you live in? The Land of the Robber Barrons?

Free Market capitalism could not exist without government

 

[Boss]

Free Market capitalism is its own referee?

What twisted world do you live in? The Land of the Robber Barrons?

Free Market capitalism could not exist without government

Yes.... Free market capitalism is it's own referee. It's totally voluntary transaction between parties. I have something you need -- you have something I need. We agree to exchange... why is a referee needed in that? Are you too retarded to know what you need? Not calling you names or anything, but why would you need a referee to engage in free trade?

Free market is not free market if government is dictating the parameters. That is precisely the definition of free market capitalism... minimal government interference.

"Robber Barons" is another progressive meme used to attack free market capitalism. Perhaps in the Gilded Age there was some crony corporatist collusion with government but crony corporatism isn't free market capitalism. It's exactly what you get when you try to combine government and capitalism.

 

[rightwinger]

Free Market capitalism is its own referee?

What twisted world do you live in? The Land of the Robber Barrons?

Free Market capitalism could not exist without government

Yes.... Free market capitalism is it's own referee. It's totally voluntary transaction between parties. I have something you need -- you have something I need. We agree to exchange... why is a referee needed in that? Are you too retarded to know what you need? Not calling you names or anything, but why would you need a referee to engage in free trade?

Free market is not free market if government is dictating the parameters. That is precisely the definition of free market capitalism... minimal government interference.

"Robber Barons" is another progressive meme used to attack free market capitalism. Perhaps in the Gilded Age there was some crony corporatist collusion with government but crony corporatism isn't free market capitalism. It's exactly what you get when you try to combine government and capitalism.

What happens when the free market acts on its own?

I invent the worlds greatest gizmo. Nothing like it in the world. But mega business does not want me to take their profits so they threaten my suppliers and tie me up in litigation until my patents expire. Then they come in and take over the market

Don't believe it? Look at Filo Farnsworth vs RCA and the invention of television

 

[Boss]

What happens when the free market acts on its own?

I invent the worlds greatest gizmo. Nothing like it in the world. But mega business does not want me to take their profits so they threaten my suppliers and tie me up in litigation until my patents expire. Then they come in and take over the market

Don't believe it? Look at Filo Farnsworth vs RCA and the invention of television

But you are describing tactics of the crony corporatists. That's not free market capitalism. The same thing happened to Preston Tucker and his car. Big Auto had powerful influence over politicians and they set out to destroy him.

Again, the problem is big powerful government in collusion with capitalists who are NOT practicing "free market" capitalism. The solution... really, the ONLY solution, is to eliminate the power of government. Let the forces of free market capitalism work and they will work brilliantly.

 

[320 Years of History]

What happens when the free market acts on its own?

I invent the worlds greatest gizmo. Nothing like it in the world. But mega business does not want me to take their profits so they threaten my suppliers and tie me up in litigation until my patents expire. Then they come in and take over the market

Don't believe it? Look at Filo Farnsworth vs RCA and the invention of television

But you are describing tactics of the crony corporatists. That's not free market capitalism. The same thing happened to Preston Tucker and his car. Big Auto had powerful influence over politicians and they set out to destroy him.

Again, the problem is big powerful government in collusion with capitalists who are NOT practicing "free market" capitalism. The solution... really, the ONLY solution, is to eliminate the power of government. Let the forces of free market capitalism work and they will work brilliantly.

You know, as I read your posts more and more, it seems as the only environment in which "free market capitalism" of the sort you've been advocating can exist only in a theoretical construct, and that construct can only be described as a sort of "organized" anarchy. Of course "organized" and "anarchy" are oxymoronic in practice, which is why I say the conception of free market capitalism as you've been describing can only exist and operation "in theory."

 

[rightwinger]

What happens when the free market acts on its own?

I invent the worlds greatest gizmo. Nothing like it in the world. But mega business does not want me to take their profits so they threaten my suppliers and tie me up in litigation until my patents expire. Then they come in and take over the market

Don't believe it? Look at Filo Farnsworth vs RCA and the invention of television

But you are describing tactics of the crony corporatists. That's not free market capitalism. The same thing happened to Preston Tucker and his car. Big Auto had powerful influence over politicians and they set out to destroy him.

Again, the problem is big powerful government in collusion with capitalists who are NOT practicing "free market" capitalism. The solution... really, the ONLY solution, is to eliminate the power of government. Let the forces of free market capitalism work and they will work brilliantly.

You know, as I read your posts more and more, it seems as the only environment in which "free market capitalism" of the sort you've been advocating can exist only in a theoretical construct, and that construct can only be described as a sort of "organized" anarchy. Of course "organized" and "anarchy" are oxymoronic in practice, which is why I say the conception of free market capitalism as you've been describing can only exist and operation "in theory."

Of course capitalists love government when it's ....hey government, protect my patents
Hey government, I need more tariffs
Hey government, provide me safety and security
Hey government, protect my interests abroad

But when government stands up for the safety of workers or the environment, it's.........Socialism

 

[PredFan]

My skill set is shooting. I'd be willing to go to the range 4 hours a day 5 days a week.