Do Federal/State/Local Governments Create Jobs?

[Wry Catcher]

$100 billion to say our ******* flag is flying on the moon

Again, how did the benefit the taxpayers?

All of the spin off technologies and off the shelf products made available, for the ease and convenience of the private sector.

You have to prove the equally useful technologies wouldn't have been developed if the Space Program had never existed.

LOL, this ^^^ is one of the dumbest comments in history. Given the many dumb comments by BRIPAT, that is some accomplishment.

Your modus operandi is to accuse people you disagree with of being dumb simply because they disagree with you. You've never posted a shred of proof that anyone you accuse of being dumb is actually dumb.

"You have to prove the equally useful technologies wouldn't have been developed if the Space Program had never existed" is as dumb as dumb gets.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, how did the benefit the taxpayers?

All of the spin off technologies and off the shelf products made available, for the ease and convenience of the private sector.

You have to prove the equally useful technologies wouldn't have been developed if the Space Program had never existed.

LOL, this ^^^ is one of the dumbest comments in history. Given the many dumb comments by BRIPAT, that is some accomplishment.

Your modus operandi is to accuse people you disagree with of being dumb simply because they disagree with you. You've never posted a shred of proof that anyone you accuse of being dumb is actually dumb.

"You have to prove the equally useful technologies wouldn't have been developed if the Space Program had never existed" is as dumb as dumb gets.

No I don't. I'm not trying to justify spending $100 billion. You are.

 

[Wry Catcher]

All of the spin off technologies and off the shelf products made available, for the ease and convenience of the private sector.

You have to prove the equally useful technologies wouldn't have been developed if the Space Program had never existed.

LOL, this ^^^ is one of the dumbest comments in history. Given the many dumb comments by BRIPAT, that is some accomplishment.

Your modus operandi is to accuse people you disagree with of being dumb simply because they disagree with you. You've never posted a shred of proof that anyone you accuse of being dumb is actually dumb.

"You have to prove the equally useful technologies wouldn't have been developed if the Space Program had never existed" is as dumb as dumb gets.

No I don't. I'm not trying to justify spending $100 billion. You are.

You have to prove that equally useful technologies and products would have been developed if the space program had never existed. Since a number of the products developed had to do with a weightless environment, your task will be as impossible as the one you asked me to perform.

 

[bripat9643]

You have to prove the equally useful technologies wouldn't have been developed if the Space Program had never existed.

LOL, this ^^^ is one of the dumbest comments in history. Given the many dumb comments by BRIPAT, that is some accomplishment.

Your modus operandi is to accuse people you disagree with of being dumb simply because they disagree with you. You've never posted a shred of proof that anyone you accuse of being dumb is actually dumb.

"You have to prove the equally useful technologies wouldn't have been developed if the Space Program had never existed" is as dumb as dumb gets.

No I don't. I'm not trying to justify spending $100 billion. You are.

You have to prove that equally useful technologies and products would have been developed if the space program had never existed. Since a number of the products developed had to do with a weightless environment, your task will be as impossible as the one you asked me to perform.

As I already explained, I have to do no such thing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

LOL, this ^^^ is one of the dumbest comments in history. Given the many dumb comments by BRIPAT, that is some accomplishment.

Your modus operandi is to accuse people you disagree with of being dumb simply because they disagree with you. You've never posted a shred of proof that anyone you accuse of being dumb is actually dumb.

"You have to prove the equally useful technologies wouldn't have been developed if the Space Program had never existed" is as dumb as dumb gets.

No I don't. I'm not trying to justify spending $100 billion. You are.

You have to prove that equally useful technologies and products would have been developed if the space program had never existed. Since a number of the products developed had to do with a weightless environment, your task will be as impossible as the one you asked me to perform.

As I already explained, I have to do no such thing.

No you can't do such a thing, which is why your first post was stupid and only a dumb person would propose it;.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What would happen to the U.S. economy if the private sector took over all public sector functions?

The economy would boom Of course, there would be no private equivalent of welfare. You can't get people to voluntarily cough up money for parasites. They will only give to the truly needy.

Social programs for the poor are in place because the People chose to put them in place.

 

[bripat9643]

What would happen to the U.S. economy if the private sector took over all public sector functions?

The economy would boom Of course, there would be no private equivalent of welfare. You can't get people to voluntarily cough up money for parasites. They will only give to the truly needy.

Social programs for the poor are in place because the People chose to put them in place.

You mean about a quarter of the eligible voters voted for the politicians who lied about what the planned to put in place.

If each taxpayer was asked individually to voluntarily cough up whatever his share of the tab is, you would get about $5000.

 

[bripat9643]

Your modus operandi is to accuse people you disagree with of being dumb simply because they disagree with you. You've never posted a shred of proof that anyone you accuse of being dumb is actually dumb.

"You have to prove the equally useful technologies wouldn't have been developed if the Space Program had never existed" is as dumb as dumb gets.

No I don't. I'm not trying to justify spending $100 billion. You are.

You have to prove that equally useful technologies and products would have been developed if the space program had never existed. Since a number of the products developed had to do with a weightless environment, your task will be as impossible as the one you asked me to perform.

As I already explained, I have to do no such thing.

No you can't do such a thing, which is why your first post was stupid and only a dumb person would propose it;.

Whether I can do it or not, the bottom line is you're the one who's trying to sell something, not me. That means you're the one obligated to demonstrate the program was worth the money it cost the taxpayers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What would happen to the U.S. economy if the private sector took over all public sector functions?

The economy would boom Of course, there would be no private equivalent of welfare. You can't get people to voluntarily cough up money for parasites. They will only give to the truly needy.

Social programs for the poor are in place because the People chose to put them in place.

You mean about a quarter of the eligible voters voted for the politicians who lied about what the planned to put in place.

If each taxpayer was asked individually to voluntarily cough up whatever his share of the tab is, you would get about $5000.

Well, when an anarchist like you rejects the Constitution and everything that stems from that's pretty much the end of the debate, isn't it?

 

[bripat9643]

What would happen to the U.S. economy if the private sector took over all public sector functions?

The economy would boom Of course, there would be no private equivalent of welfare. You can't get people to voluntarily cough up money for parasites. They will only give to the truly needy.

Social programs for the poor are in place because the People chose to put them in place.

You mean about a quarter of the eligible voters voted for the politicians who lied about what the planned to put in place.

If each taxpayer was asked individually to voluntarily cough up whatever his share of the tab is, you would get about $5000.

Well, when an anarchist like you rejects the Constitution and everything that stems from that's pretty much the end of the debate, isn't it?

What does the Constitution have to do with this discussion?

 

[rightwinger]

What would happen to the U.S. economy if the private sector took over all public sector functions?

The economy would boom Of course, there would be no private equivalent of welfare. You can't get people to voluntarily cough up money for parasites. They will only give to the truly needy.

Social programs for the poor are in place because the People chose to put them in place.

You mean about a quarter of the eligible voters voted for the politicians who lied about what the planned to put in place.

If each taxpayer was asked individually to voluntarily cough up whatever his share of the tab is, you would get about $5000.

Those who choose to vote have a voice in our government.......those who don't, don't

 

[rightwinger]

What would happen to the U.S. economy if the private sector took over all public sector functions?

The economy would boom Of course, there would be no private equivalent of welfare. You can't get people to voluntarily cough up money for parasites. They will only give to the truly needy.

Social programs for the poor are in place because the People chose to put them in place.

You mean about a quarter of the eligible voters voted for the politicians who lied about what the planned to put in place.

If each taxpayer was asked individually to voluntarily cough up whatever his share of the tab is, you would get about $5000.

Well, when an anarchist like you rejects the Constitution and everything that stems from that's pretty much the end of the debate, isn't it?

What does the Constitution have to do with this discussion?

Ummmmm......everything

 

[bripat9643]

What would happen to the U.S. economy if the private sector took over all public sector functions?

The economy would boom Of course, there would be no private equivalent of welfare. You can't get people to voluntarily cough up money for parasites. They will only give to the truly needy.

Social programs for the poor are in place because the People chose to put them in place.

You mean about a quarter of the eligible voters voted for the politicians who lied about what the planned to put in place.

If each taxpayer was asked individually to voluntarily cough up whatever his share of the tab is, you would get about $5000.

Those who choose to vote have a voice in our government.......those who don't, don't

Utterly meaningless. The bottom line: no one would pay for this shit if they had the option of not paying.

 

[bripat9643]

The economy would boom Of course, there would be no private equivalent of welfare. You can't get people to voluntarily cough up money for parasites. They will only give to the truly needy.

Social programs for the poor are in place because the People chose to put them in place.

You mean about a quarter of the eligible voters voted for the politicians who lied about what the planned to put in place.

If each taxpayer was asked individually to voluntarily cough up whatever his share of the tab is, you would get about $5000.

Well, when an anarchist like you rejects the Constitution and everything that stems from that's pretty much the end of the debate, isn't it?

What does the Constitution have to do with this discussion?

Ummmmm......everything

Wrong. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[candycorn]

Read the link I posted, moron.

Which link?

The link he's too chicken shit to quote directly.

I posted the link, dumbass.

Of course you did.... And the reason you did it was to avoid quoting it directly because by any mature standard, you sound like a lunatic.

No, the reason I avoided quoting it directly is the fact that the subject is complex and can't be explained in a paragraph or two. Quoting the entire article would be illegal. It should be easy to show I would sound like a lunatic simply by quoting the portion of the article that yo believe to be crazy.

'
For one example, consider the following from your link:

However, in complex modern societies self-defense will constitute only a small part in the overall production of security. In today's world we do not produce our own shoes, suits and telephones; we partake in the advantages of the division of labor. This is also true of the production of security. To a large extent, we rely on specialized agents and agencies to protect our life and property. In particular, most people rely on freely financed and competing insurance companies for their protection, and this reliance on insurers will tend to increase and intensify the greater and more valuable the quantity of one's property. Insurance companies in turn will associate and cooperate with police and detective agencies, either directly as a subdivision of the insurance company or indirectly as separate business entities. At the same time, insurance agencies will cooperate constantly with internal and with independent, external arbitrators and arbitration agencies.

How would this competitive system of interconnected insurance, police, and arbitration agencies work?

Competition among insurers, police, and arbitrators for paying clients would bring about a tendency toward a continuous fall in the price of protection (per insured value), thus rendering protection more affordable. In contrast, a monopolistic protector who may tax the protected can charge ever higher prices for his services.

What is being sponsored in the above rubbish is the simple argument that those who would like protection from the police will have to pay for it; meaning that if you fall behind a few payments, you are in danger of being without protection.

Basically this is what organized crime did. You paid protection to the same people who would attack you if you didn't pay them.

Now, your counter argument will be that either "you're crazy" which is what you keep saying to every one else or that "nobody is going to attack you if you are not current on your payments". Yeah...right. Afterall, who are you going to call to come to your rescue?

This is just one of a plethora of nonsense in that target-rich-environment of your link. Start spinning.

 

[rightwinger]

Social programs for the poor are in place because the People chose to put them in place.

You mean about a quarter of the eligible voters voted for the politicians who lied about what the planned to put in place.

If each taxpayer was asked individually to voluntarily cough up whatever his share of the tab is, you would get about $5000.

Well, when an anarchist like you rejects the Constitution and everything that stems from that's pretty much the end of the debate, isn't it?

What does the Constitution have to do with this discussion?

Ummmmm......everything

Wrong. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Since the "Constitution" establishes the "Constitution" of our government

It has everything to do with it

 

[rightwinger]

What would happen to the U.S. economy if the private sector took over all public sector functions?

The economy would boom Of course, there would be no private equivalent of welfare. You can't get people to voluntarily cough up money for parasites. They will only give to the truly needy.

Social programs for the poor are in place because the People chose to put them in place.

You mean about a quarter of the eligible voters voted for the politicians who lied about what the planned to put in place.

If each taxpayer was asked individually to voluntarily cough up whatever his share of the tab is, you would get about $5000.

Those who choose to vote have a voice in our government.......those who don't, don't

Utterly meaningless. The bottom line: no one would pay for this shit if they had the option of not paying.

Schools? Roads? Police? Fire protection?

An anarchist such as yourself does not want to pay but enjoys the benefits. Most real Americans insist on these things

 

[danielpalos]

The economy would boom Of course, there would be no private equivalent of welfare. You can't get people to voluntarily cough up money for parasites. They will only give to the truly needy.

Social programs for the poor are in place because the People chose to put them in place.

You mean about a quarter of the eligible voters voted for the politicians who lied about what the planned to put in place.

If each taxpayer was asked individually to voluntarily cough up whatever his share of the tab is, you would get about $5000.

Those who choose to vote have a voice in our government.......those who don't, don't

Utterly meaningless. The bottom line: no one would pay for this shit if they had the option of not paying.

Schools? Roads? Police? Fire protection?

An anarchist such as yourself does not want to pay but enjoys the benefits. Most real Americans insist on these things

The public sector can actually solve simple poverty in our republic through that form of socialism, the private sector can only cover multitudes of sins through capitalism.

 

[Iceweasel]

The public sector can actually solve simple poverty in our republic through that form of socialism, the private sector can only cover multitudes of sins through capitalism.

That didn't make sense when you posted it before. How about explaining it instead of doing an autobot routine? How specifically can the government solve 'simple' poverty and why hasn't the first 15 trillion worked?

 

[danielpalos]

The public sector can actually solve simple poverty in our republic through that form of socialism, the private sector can only cover multitudes of sins through capitalism.

That didn't make sense when you posted it before. How about explaining it instead of doing an autobot routine? How specifically can the government solve 'simple' poverty and why hasn't the first 15 trillion worked?

It helps if you have a clue and a Cause, and not just "canned" propaganda and rhetoric that is only as relevant as any diversion and that form of fallacy.

We should be solving simple poverty with existing legal and physical infrastructure simply because, supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

We already have a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will. We already have the concept of unemployment compensation. Why not establish a form of "minimum wage" through unemployment compensation instead of regulations on employers?