Someone please explain Bachmann's "reasoning'?

[Sky Dancer]

Hey man, don't blame me for the implications of your views. Welfare is parasitic, you said it there right above in response to countries like Japan, England and Germany, and your choice to ignore the massive spending of the military to go first on the chopping block is telling. Where do you think the money goes? I bet the guys at Boeing eat pretty well.

Socialism is only evil when it happens to individuals and not corporations I guess.

At least the guys at Boeing are providing something that is provided for as a legitimate function of a de jure central government....America abandons global empire, closes those foreign bases, and you get those big cuts in military spending that all you lefties get a big woody over.

How much is enough?

Yeah! It's not socialism when it's for military purposes! Giving people assistance to survive? Evil, vile socialism! Giving corporations money to design things designed to kill people? Totally patriotic use of funds!

Judging by your response, I guess I wasn't putting words in your mouth then, hm?

It's not welfare if it's corporate welfare...just thought I'd add to your post.

 

[Foxfyre]

It really doesn't matter whether the employee works in a government office or a contractor's office or a contractor's jobsite if his/her salary is coming out of the public treasury. Every penny he or she receives comes from present or future taxpayers as well as the expenses of bulding, furnishing, and upkeep on the facilities and all the equipment and supplies necessary to equp the office or job.

The more money the taxpayer can keep of his/her earnings and have confidence that he will most likely continue to be able to earn those wages or make a profit without them being taxed away, the more he or she is willing to risk in investment, hiring new people, buying supplies, new trucks, updating equipment etc. Everything he invests helps somebody else creating a ripple effect throughout the economy because everything stays in the private sector/economy.

When it cycles back to the government in taxes or fees or accumulating government debt, there is usually an increase in government jobs and a much larger loss in private sector jobs. When that disparity becomes too great, nobody has a job.

During the last two years the number of public employees has increased from 22.3 million in January 2008 to 22.4 million in January 2011 after peaking at 22.6 million in July 2010. The number of private jobs decreased from 115.5 million in January 2008 to 107 million now. That’s a lose of 8.7 million jobs in the private sector while the public sector gained almost 100,000 jobs.

That is the smoke and mirrors of President Obama's speech last night. He made all these magnanimous claims but he won't tell you that the last stimulus grew government and diminished the private sector and a second stimulus will do exactly the same thing.

We cannot spend ourselves rich.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Bachman intends to win by using the same tool Bush did. Fear.

That seems to be a common denominator with Dominionists. Bush was considered by Pat Robertson, to be the first Dominionist "Regent".

Now we have two GOP candidates for POTUS in that category: Bachmann and Perry.

 

[Oddball]

Hey man, don't blame me for the implications of your views. Welfare is parasitic, you said it there right above in response to countries like Japan, England and Germany, and your choice to ignore the massive spending of the military to go first on the chopping block is telling. Where do you think the money goes? I bet the guys at Boeing eat pretty well.

Socialism is only evil when it happens to individuals and not corporations I guess.

At least the guys at Boeing are providing something that is provided for as a legitimate function of a de jure central government....America abandons global empire, closes those foreign bases, and you get those big cuts in military spending that all you lefties get a big woody over.

How much is enough?

Yeah! It's not socialism when it's for military purposes! Giving people assistance to survive? Evil, vile socialism! Giving corporations money to design things designed to kill people? Totally patriotic use of funds!

Judging by your response, I guess I wasn't putting words in your mouth then, hm?

The point of a militia and military (I'll throw police and fire departments in there to boot) is the collectivized extension of your individual right to protect your life, liberty and property....That said military has been completely misused and abused, since at least the beginning of the progressive era, doesn't change that original purpose.

And speaking of rights, what right are you protecting by shaking me down to give those resources to someone you say "deserves" them more so that I do?...What of my right to dispose of the fruits of my labor and support the charities of my choosing, free form any of your pious lberoidal browbeating and moralizing?

 

[Sky Dancer]

It really doesn't matter whether the employee works in a government office or a contractor's office or a contractor's jobsite if his/her salary is coming out of the public treasury. Every penny he or she receives comes from present or future taxpayers as well as the expenses of bulding, furnishing, and upkeep on the facilities and all the equipment and supplies necessary to equp the office or job.

The more money the taxpayer can keep of his/her earnings and have confidence that he will most likely continue to be able to earn those wages or make a profit without them being taxed away, the more he or she is willing to risk in investment, hiring new people, buying supplies, new trucks, updating equipment etc. Everything he invests helps somebody else creating a ripple effect throughout the economy because everything stays in the private sector/economy.

When it cycles back to the government in taxes or fees or accumulating government debt, there is usually an increase in government jobs and a much larger loss in private sector jobs. When that disparity becomes too great, nobody has a job.

During the last two years the number of public employees has increased from 22.3 million in January 2008 to 22.4 million in January 2011 after peaking at 22.6 million in July 2010. The number of private jobs decreased from 115.5 million in January 2008 to 107 million now. That’s a lose of 8.7 million jobs in the private sector while the public sector gained almost 100,000 jobs.

That is the smoke and mirrors of President Obama's speech last night. He made all these magnanimous claims but he won't tell you that the last stimulus grew government and diminished the private sector and a second stimulus will do exactly the same thing.

We cannot spend ourselves rich.

Where is Modbert when you need him?

 

[Foxfyre]

What really doesn't "do it" are strawmen, platitudes and post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc arguments.

Do you know what "post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc" means?

Absolutely...It's basically what your "if gubmint didn't do it, nobody would" argument boils down to.

I just had to compliment the two of you for actually debating the topic. (The whole thing, not just this little excerpt.)

 

[Intense]

Why do you keep posting? You're really, honestly, in all truth, more stupid than crusaderfrank, daveboy, willow tree and Odd-dude. I know, being more stupid is like being more pregnanat, but man you are really stupid.

I find it charming that you think you're qualified to judge the intelligence of other posters.

My Masters Degree is in "Human Relations" and included courses and siminars in Psychology, Sociology, Counseling and Anthropology. I took several courses in Psychological Testing for Counselors and interviewed hundreds (likely more than a thousand) men and women in my lifetime.

I glad you find my assessment of you and a few others charming. I suggest you go back and review the posts you've made on this message board, and your life thus far and prove me wrong.

Still, there is no substitute for that CHP Badge, Gun, and Sun Glasses. you do get that should anyone see you first, there was little chance of you not effecting their disposition or behavior, right? There is also that elitist thing going on that is an internal battle with those that have that kind of power and authority over others. Just saying Officer. There is good and bad in everything, everyone. One good thing about humility and humbleness, is it keeps you grounded, huh. That said, even though I may disagree with you politically I think you have good instincts. Maybe you need give that priority over your bias. That profiling thing never really works out all that well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In my thought process, these government employees have bills to pay, children to raise and whether they are productive in the eyes of some or not, they still pay taxes. In addition they buy things: pizzas and pies, shoes and socks, books and bagels.

How will increasing the unemployment numbers stimulate our economy?

The ‘reasoning’ maintains that public sector employees are ‘bad,’ they need to be punished regardless the consequence.

Parasites like... the Department of Defense?

They’re the ‘good’ parasites.

 

[Intense]

In my thought process, these government employees have bills to pay, children to raise and whether they are productive in the eyes of some or not, they still pay taxes. In addition they buy things: pizzas and pies, shoes and socks, books and bagels.

How will increasing the unemployment numbers stimulate our economy?

The ‘reasoning’ maintains that public sector employees are ‘bad,’ they need to be punished regardless the consequence.

Parasites like... the Department of Defense?

They’re the ‘good’ parasites.

Context is everything, apparently, you are lacking.

Hey, We are All Human Beings first. Remember Government by the Consent of the Governed, before you steamrolled over it?

Too many Chief's, not enough Indians to afford your life style. The Parasite has outgrown it's host. We can't afford you or your benefit packages any more. The toast is burnt. Your Goose is over stuffed. Buy a Lottery Ticket already. Gamble with your own money.

Does Government have a roll in Society? Yes. How is that defined? By consent or Mandate? Enough with the Extra Constitutional Mandates. Is that so hard to comprehend?

 

[Oddball]

Why do you keep posting? You're really, honestly, in all truth, more stupid than crusaderfrank, daveboy, willow tree and Odd-dude. I know, being more stupid is like being more pregnanat, but man you are really stupid.

I find it charming that you think you're qualified to judge the intelligence of other posters.

My Masters Degree is in "Human Relations" and included courses and siminars in Psychology, Sociology, Counseling and Anthropology. I took several courses in Psychological Testing for Counselors and interviewed hundreds (likely more than a thousand) men and women in my lifetime.

A shame you threw all that training in the gutter to lead the life of a sociopath.

Then again, some of the most messed up head cases I've encountered in my life have been psych majors.

 

[Texanmike]

Republicans nit-pick over government spending while ignoring the big picture: government does what the private sector in incapable of doing.

Can the private sector protect our country? No.
Can the private sector build and maintain our roads? No.
Can it provide medical insurance to the elderly? No.
Can it educate ALL our children? No.
Can it protect the air, the water, and the land from industrial poisons? No.
Etc.

The fact is the very existence of this country depends on government, and there would be no economy without it. The argument that the private market does it better ignores the fact that the private sector doesn't do it.

Can you prove that the private sector cannot do all of those things, or do you simply assume that?

The fact is that no one I have seen on this board advocates eliminating the government, and the economy supports the government. Even Keynes preferred a smaller government to a larger one, yet every time anyone talks about making it smaller some idiot acts like making the government smaller will kill the economy because the economy depends on the government.

The truth is a bit more complicated than what I am about to say, but when it comes down to it the economy will go on forever without the government, and the government will collapse tomorrow without the economy.

The argument that the private sector doesn't do it ignores the fact that the government forbids the private sector from doing most things that it does. The USPS used to be the only game in town, and that somehow proved the private sector couldn't handle the mail. The funny thing is, no one thinks that today.

The fact is windbag the failure of the Articles of Confederation proved the private sector cannot do the things conservatives suggest than can do.

Roads, for example. I can today get on the SF-Oak Bay Bridge (I-80) and drive straight through to New York City. Thinking people can imagine how different this would be if 10, 20 or 100 + private sector businesses owned sections of I-80 across the country.

What? That is not at all what happened. How much do you know about the writing and ratification of the Constitution? Do you know how it came about? What was said and done in order to make it happen? Are you aware of the actual debates that took place both in the convention and the committees?

Are you saying that the roads would be of various qualities? That some sections would be nicer than others?

I know that the privatized toll roads that I use in Houston are all much better than any of the public roads I use.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

I find it charming that you think you're qualified to judge the intelligence of other posters.

My Masters Degree is in "Human Relations" and included courses and siminars in Psychology, Sociology, Counseling and Anthropology. I took several courses in Psychological Testing for Counselors and interviewed hundreds (likely more than a thousand) men and women in my lifetime.

A shame you threw all that training in the gutter to lead the life of a sociopath.

Then again, some of the most messed up head cases I've encountered in my life have been psych majors.

What is the point of that?

Mike

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bachmann attacked President Obama's speech yesterday and in part she proposed to “massively cut” government and to repeal “job killing regulations.’’

If the cost of government is largely the cost of salary and benefits, then cutting government means cutting jobs.

Cutting jobs increases unemployment, so, I conclude, cutting government is a "job killing" proposition.

In my thought process, these government employees have bills to pay, children to raise and whether they are productive in the eyes of some or not, they still pay taxes. In addition they buy things: pizzas and pies, shoes and socks, books and bagels.

How will increasing the unemployment numbers stimulate our economy?

We've pointed this out time after time to the ineducable Right on this forum.

Reducing the size of government means reducing the number of people who work for the government, or, who work in the private sector that does business with or gets business from the government.

The result is job loss, period. It may or may not be a good thing to make millions of government/government connected jobs disappear,

but pretending that shrinking government is a job creator, or even just pretending that it's not a job killer,

is idiocy.

 

[Oddball]

My Masters Degree is in "Human Relations" and included courses and siminars in Psychology, Sociology, Counseling and Anthropology. I took several courses in Psychological Testing for Counselors and interviewed hundreds (likely more than a thousand) men and women in my lifetime.

A shame you threw all that training in the gutter to lead the life of a sociopath.

Then again, some of the most messed up head cases I've encountered in my life have been psych majors.

What is the point of that?

Mike

The point is that you're looking at one of the least introspective posters -or people for that matter- that you'll find anywhere, in old Wry Catcher.

I think he took his psych courses as an instruction manual of how to be a neurotic and sociopath, rather than to study the behaviors in the 3rd person observer position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans nit-pick over government spending while ignoring the big picture: government does what the private sector in incapable of doing.

Can the private sector protect our country? No.
Can the private sector build and maintain our roads? No.
Can it provide medical insurance to the elderly? No.
Can it educate ALL our children? No.
Can it protect the air, the water, and the land from industrial poisons? No.
Etc.

The fact is the very existence of this country depends on government, and there would be no economy without it. The argument that the private market does it better ignores the fact that the private sector doesn't do it.

Can you prove that the private sector cannot do all of those things, or do you simply assume that?

The fact is that no one I have seen on this board advocates eliminating the government, and the economy supports the government. Even Keynes preferred a smaller government to a larger one, yet every time anyone talks about making it smaller some idiot acts like making the government smaller will kill the economy because the economy depends on the government.

The truth is a bit more complicated than what I am about to say, but when it comes down to it the economy will go on forever without the government, and the government will collapse tomorrow without the economy.

The argument that the private sector doesn't do it ignores the fact that the government forbids the private sector from doing most things that it does. The USPS used to be the only game in town, and that somehow proved the private sector couldn't handle the mail. The funny thing is, no one thinks that today.

The fact is windbag the failure of the Articles of Confederation proved the private sector cannot do the things conservatives suggest than can do.

Roads, for example. I can today get on the SF-Oak Bay Bridge (I-80) and drive straight through to New York City. Thinking people can imagine how different this would be if 10, 20 or 100 + private sector businesses owned sections of I-80 across the country.

How does the failure of the Articles of Confederation prove the private sector cannot do something?

From what I remember of my history classes, the problem with the Confederacy was that the central government was given responsibilities and powers, but had no authority or ability to tax. I will point out the obvious here though, during the period we were a confederacy no one attacked us, there were roads, and people went to school. By the standards of today's progressives that makes the confederacy a rousing success.

By the way, that interstate highway system you are in love with was justified in order to facilitate the movement of troops and equipment for the military, not so that you can get from place to place. Since that is actually part of the enumerated powers of the federal government, and not a wild attempt to stretch the commerce clause to cover growing food in a garden, I would think you would prefer to try to justify big government by pointing to something else.

Do you have any intention of answering the questions I asked of you in post 28?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do you keep posting? You're really, honestly, in all truth, more stupid than crusaderfrank, daveboy, willow tree and Odd-dude. I know, being more stupid is like being more pregnanat, but man you are really stupid.

I find it charming that you think you're qualified to judge the intelligence of other posters.

My Masters Degree is in "Human Relations" and included courses and siminars in Psychology, Sociology, Counseling and Anthropology. I took several courses in Psychological Testing for Counselors and interviewed hundreds (likely more than a thousand) men and women in my lifetime.

I glad you find my assessment of you and a few others charming. I suggest you go back and review the posts you've made on this message board, and your life thus far and prove me wrong.

Believe it or not, none of that qualifies you to judge anyone's intelligence, especially on a message board.

It does help to make you look pretentious though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The ‘reasoning’ maintains that public sector employees are ‘bad,’ they need to be punished regardless the consequence.

The reasoning is actually much simpler than that, public sector employees are a net drain on the economy.

Parasites like... the Department of Defense?

They’re the ‘good’ parasites.

No, they are a necessary drain, just like the rest of the government. That does not mean we should not keep that drain to a minimum, and make sure it sticks to what is actually needed.

Then again, if you actually could think, you would never again make a comment about the law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can you prove that the private sector cannot do all of those things, or do you simply assume that?

The fact is that no one I have seen on this board advocates eliminating the government, and the economy supports the government. Even Keynes preferred a smaller government to a larger one, yet every time anyone talks about making it smaller some idiot acts like making the government smaller will kill the economy because the economy depends on the government.

The truth is a bit more complicated than what I am about to say, but when it comes down to it the economy will go on forever without the government, and the government will collapse tomorrow without the economy.

The argument that the private sector doesn't do it ignores the fact that the government forbids the private sector from doing most things that it does. The USPS used to be the only game in town, and that somehow proved the private sector couldn't handle the mail. The funny thing is, no one thinks that today.

The fact is windbag the failure of the Articles of Confederation proved the private sector cannot do the things conservatives suggest than can do.

Roads, for example. I can today get on the SF-Oak Bay Bridge (I-80) and drive straight through to New York City. Thinking people can imagine how different this would be if 10, 20 or 100 + private sector businesses owned sections of I-80 across the country.

What? That is not at all what happened. How much do you know about the writing and ratification of the Constitution? Do you know how it came about? What was said and done in order to make it happen? Are you aware of the actual debates that took place both in the convention and the committees?

Are you saying that the roads would be of various qualities? That some sections would be nicer than others?

I know that the privatized toll roads that I use in Houston are all much better than any of the public roads I use.

Mike

Toll roads everywhere tend to be better than non toll roads. The only exception to that are the roads to the mayors house.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bachmann attacked President Obama's speech yesterday and in part she proposed to “massively cut” government and to repeal “job killing regulations.’’

If the cost of government is largely the cost of salary and benefits, then cutting government means cutting jobs.

Cutting jobs increases unemployment, so, I conclude, cutting government is a "job killing" proposition.

In my thought process, these government employees have bills to pay, children to raise and whether they are productive in the eyes of some or not, they still pay taxes. In addition they buy things: pizzas and pies, shoes and socks, books and bagels.

How will increasing the unemployment numbers stimulate our economy?

We've pointed this out time after time to the ineducable Right on this forum.

Reducing the size of government means reducing the number of people who work for the government, or, who work in the private sector that does business with or gets business from the government.

The result is job loss, period. It may or may not be a good thing to make millions of government/government connected jobs disappear,

but pretending that shrinking government is a job creator, or even just pretending that it's not a job killer,

is idiocy.

Pretending that you can think must be a massive strain on your intellect.

Reducing the drain on the economy is always a good thing. I suggest you pick up one of John Maynard Keynes books sometime and actually read it. You will learn that he presents his ideas very simply, that they were actually rejected by FDR when he was looking for a way to end the depression, and that people have been lying to you your entire life.

 

[Political Junky]

You really have no fucking idea where the money to pay those parasites comes from, do you?

Parasites like... the Department of Defense?

Nice strawman, dickweed.

I'm of course speaking of the parasites at the Departments of Education, Commerce, Labor, Energy, HHS & HUD, Fatherl...er...Homeland Security & TSA, CPB/PBS/NPR, BATF, DEA, ONDCP, and the rest of the Alphabet Soup Mafia.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

Now, where does the money to pay those stooges come from?.... Santa Claus?

"Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction."
- Adolf Hitler