Government vs. The Free Market

[sealybobo]

The people who vote Republican are so stupid. They brainwashed them to into thinking their own government is the problem. It is, but only because the rich/corporations have taken it over.

But instead of demanding that the government go back to working for we the people, these ass clowns want less government. They think if government just got out of the ways McD's and Walmart would start paying $10 hr.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So......you hadn't heard of Article I, section 8?

Do you have a point or is this one of those "The general welfare means anything I want it to mean" or one of those "Congress has no power to do these things under the Constitution" derailing posts to ignore the issue of what is or is not good public policy?

Yes....my point is that the Constitution is the law of the land.

Care to disagree?



From the OP:
2. President Jefferson was one of the first to agree to government investments: in 1806, he signed a bill to fund the National Road. The funding was thought to be consistent with the enumerated powers, as it was considered necessary for both national defense, and for mail delivery.
See Karl Raitz, "The National Road and American Culture."




Followed by this. post #12:

6. Remember, claiming the National Road as a federal post road made it constitutional for government funding. But, bumpy rides, steep grades, mud slides,....US postmaster R.J. Meigs found the road so impassable that the mail was almost undeliverable.
Jordan, Op. Cit., p. 283-285



This is the problem: "..... derailing posts to ignore the issue of what is or is not good public policy..."


Following the Constitution is the correct policy.....
...not an opinion from you or some politician.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its the way it's supposed to work stupid. P.S. Chaney was a defense contractor and bush was an oil man and they invaded Iraq and raped us.

Talk about stupid!

You don't realize that your post....undocumented, too......supports my point: the government is no "referee."


It should stay out of the free market.

No, it should be the referee not in bed with big business. You fools don't realize Citizens United basically handed our country over to the multi national corporations.

They looked at how politicians vote on every issue. In every case they never vote for what the masses want but instead water down what the people want so it is tolerable for big business. Perfect example is healthcare reform.

Listen stupid. If corporations had their way and government didn't step in, 60% of us wouldn't be able to afford good healthcare. Only the rich would be able to afford it.

The government is there to protect the general welfare of the citizens, or at least is should be. There is no arguing this stupid. The government protects us from capitalists.

"No, it should be the referee.....blah blah blah...."


No, it shouldn't.


This is why you shouldn't have left the third grade to join the circus.....had you learned to read, you might have perused the Constitution.


Now....if you claim to have read same....can you point to where it documents your claim?




Now...as far as you being stupid..... I'm not being rude...I just say what everybody else is thinking.

 

[sealybobo]

So......you hadn't heard of Article I, section 8?

Do you have a point or is this one of those "The general welfare means anything I want it to mean" or one of those "Congress has no power to do these things under the Constitution" derailing posts to ignore the issue of what is or is not good public policy?

Yes....my point is that the Constitution is the law of the land.

Care to disagree?



From the OP:
2. President Jefferson was one of the first to agree to government investments: in 1806, he signed a bill to fund the National Road. The funding was thought to be consistent with the enumerated powers, as it was considered necessary for both national defense, and for mail delivery.
See Karl Raitz, "The National Road and American Culture."




Followed by this. post #12:

6. Remember, claiming the National Road as a federal post road made it constitutional for government funding. But, bumpy rides, steep grades, mud slides,....US postmaster R.J. Meigs found the road so impassable that the mail was almost undeliverable.
Jordan, Op. Cit., p. 283-285



This is the problem: "..... derailing posts to ignore the issue of what is or is not good public policy..."


Following the Constitution is the correct policy.....
...not an opinion from you or some politician.

Wilson and Roosevelt's solution to the great depression wasn't to "get out of the free markets way". Like today corporations were sitting on cash and the government had to step in and solve the problem. Just like today. The rich are getting richer and the middle class is turning into the working poor. Don't hold your breath waiting for corporations to fix this on their own because they love it. Did you see the Dow? The rich are doing great.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its the way it's supposed to work stupid. P.S. Chaney was a defense contractor and bush was an oil man and they invaded Iraq and raped us.

Talk about stupid!

You don't realize that your post....undocumented, too......supports my point: the government is no "referee."


It should stay out of the free market.

Its supposed to be the referee. It most certainly should not "stay out of it" as corporations turn America into a 3rd world country.

I'm in favor of free speech, you're not: you must be a Liberal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The people who vote Republican are so stupid. They brainwashed them to into thinking their own government is the problem. It is, but only because the rich/corporations have taken it over.

But instead of demanding that the government go back to working for we the people, these ass clowns want less government. They think if government just got out of the ways McD's and Walmart would start paying $10 hr.

"They brainwashed them to into thinking their own government is the problem. It is,....."


I bet that sometimes even you question your sanity....and I bet, sometimes it replies.....as above.

 

[sameech]

This is the problem: "..... derailing posts to ignore the issue of what is or is not good public policy..."


Following the Constitution is the correct policy.....
...not an opinion from you or some politician.

Sure it is an option from me or some politician.

The Constitution survived 225 years without your being the arbitrator and absolute authority on what it means, and I suspect it will survive long after you and I are gone.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is the problem: "..... derailing posts to ignore the issue of what is or is not good public policy..."


Following the Constitution is the correct policy.....
...not an opinion from you or some politician.

Sure it is an option from me or some politician.

The Constitution survived 225 years without your being the arbitrator and absolute authority on what it means, and I suspect it will survive long after you and I are gone.

"Opinion."


Well, you've survived this long being a dope.....what does that prove?



And, no....the Constitution has not survived.


Were you less of a dope, you'd realize that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about government involvement in the marketplace. FDR's rural electrification program, for instance, had a lot of public good involved in it.

The real rub is how much of what we do as "government" really has legitimate national value, and how much of it is just vote buying. Over the last decade or so, there has been a steady increase in public rhetoric toward punishing the wealthy/successful to the point that alone seems to some people to have legitimate national value all on its own. It does not.

If we were to raise taxes to pay for specific projects of populist merit, then I doubt there would be a lot of difficulty garnering support. Unfortunately, there is none of that going on. The best people can come up with are some nebular bias specific generalizations. If there is no need for new roads, then we should not be building new roads just to "create jobs". If giant sea walls are only going to benefit directly the millionaires who have beachfront property, then let them move--they can afford it. If alternative energy research is only being pursued with commercial supplier scale focus, then let the commercial suppliers pay for it since they will be raping us either way.

Why do people keep pointing one of the biggest boondoggles in history as proof that the government can do things right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you have a point or is this one of those "The general welfare means anything I want it to mean" or one of those "Congress has no power to do these things under the Constitution" derailing posts to ignore the issue of what is or is not good public policy?

Yes....my point is that the Constitution is the law of the land.

Care to disagree?



From the OP:
2. President Jefferson was one of the first to agree to government investments: in 1806, he signed a bill to fund the National Road. The funding was thought to be consistent with the enumerated powers, as it was considered necessary for both national defense, and for mail delivery.
See Karl Raitz, "The National Road and American Culture."




Followed by this. post #12:

6. Remember, claiming the National Road as a federal post road made it constitutional for government funding. But, bumpy rides, steep grades, mud slides,....US postmaster R.J. Meigs found the road so impassable that the mail was almost undeliverable.
Jordan, Op. Cit., p. 283-285



This is the problem: "..... derailing posts to ignore the issue of what is or is not good public policy..."


Following the Constitution is the correct policy.....
...not an opinion from you or some politician.

Wilson and Roosevelt's solution to the great depression wasn't to "get out of the free markets way". Like today corporations were sitting on cash and the government had to step in and solve the problem. Just like today. The rich are getting richer and the middle class is turning into the working poor. Don't hold your breath waiting for corporations to fix this on their own because they love it. Did you see the Dow? The rich are doing great.

What an ignorant fellow you are....

But I’m proud of you!
Not only are you a fool, but you have the energy to let everyone know it!



1. Woodrow Wilson's "solution to the great depression"????

Woodrow Wilson???

The voters hated him, and his administration.

“The United States presidential election of 1920 was dominated by the aftermath of World War I and the hostile reaction to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president. Harding's victory remains the largest popular-vote percentage margin (60.3% to 34.1%) in Presidential elections after the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" ended with the victory of James Monroe in the election of 1820. ” United States presidential election, 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




2. "Wilson and Roosevelt's solution to the great depression wasn't to "get out of the free markets way"."

a. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.” The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI




3. "....Roosevelt's solution to the great depression wasn't to "get out of the free markets way"."

Actually, that's exactly what he did.

On May 26, 1940 his Fireside Chat signaled a new relationship with business: he would insure their profits, and assuage their fears that he would nationalize their factories.

a. “…we are calling upon the resources, the efficiency and the ingenuity of the American manufacturers of war material of all kinds -- airplanes and tanks and guns and ships, and all the hundreds of products that go into this material. The Government of the United States itself manufactures few of the implements of war. Private industry will continue to be the source of most of this material, and private industry will have to be speeded up to produce it at the rate and efficiency called for by the needs of the times…. Private industry will have the responsibility of providing the best, speediest and most efficient mass production of which it is capable.”
On National Defense - May 26, 1940




You might want to get some out the hate out of your worldview and replace it with an education.

Or, continue to be a source of amusement.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about government involvement in the marketplace. FDR's rural electrification program, for instance, had a lot of public good involved in it.

The real rub is how much of what we do as "government" really has legitimate national value, and how much of it is just vote buying. Over the last decade or so, there has been a steady increase in public rhetoric toward punishing the wealthy/successful to the point that alone seems to some people to have legitimate national value all on its own. It does not.

If we were to raise taxes to pay for specific projects of populist merit, then I doubt there would be a lot of difficulty garnering support. Unfortunately, there is none of that going on. The best people can come up with are some nebular bias specific generalizations. If there is no need for new roads, then we should not be building new roads just to "create jobs". If giant sea walls are only going to benefit directly the millionaires who have beachfront property, then let them move--they can afford it. If alternative energy research is only being pursued with commercial supplier scale focus, then let the commercial suppliers pay for it since they will be raping us either way.

Why do people keep pointing one of the biggest boondoggles in history as proof that the government can do things right?

Stupidity?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP began reminding that today is the anniversary of Samuel Morse's famous telegraph message, 'What Hath God Wrought.'


Morse's experience with government involvement in funding endeavors underscores the problem of government taking taxpayer money and deciding how to invest it.....



8. OK....perhaps government couldn't "build that," or "invent that," could they, at least, manage it?
In 1840, the bureaucracy tried with the newly invented telegraph. Samuel Morse invented the electromagnetic telegraph in 1837, and quickly patented it. But he didn't know where to get the money to wire the nation: He received $30,000 from the government...and his relationship with government quickly became more like the Mafia's actions.


Representative Francis Smith (D-Maine) threatened to stop the subsidy unless Morse turned over one fourth of the company; Morse did.



Then postmaster general Cave Johnson claimed that the telegraph "so powerful for good or evil, cannot with safety to the people be left in the hands of private individuals...."
How wonderful.....government bureaucrats, in their infinite wisdom, deciding that they know best.
"Wiring a continent;: The history of the telegraph industry in the United States, 1832-1866," Robert L. Thompson, p. 32-34



a. P.S. The government lost money every month it operated the telegraph. Lots of money, sometimes costing ten times what it brought in.

By 1846, they turned it back to private ownership, who came up with lots of new ways to use it, such as sending newspaper stories, stockbrokers used it for investing, steamship companies for weather reports, police as a weapon to catch criminals....business expanded rapidly.
Howe, "What Hath God Wrought," p. 691-698.

Unlike the National Road, which went where politicians wanted it to, when private citizens ran the company, the telegraph lines went where customers wanted it to.


And therein lies the genius of private ownership:
"In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!"
David Mament, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter ten.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Consider why government is inept at business endeavors: the incentives for bureaucrats is very different from that of entrepreneurs. Why should the government officials care if they made a profit...or if they lost money, which wasn't theirs in the first place?



For a business owner, the ones who did build that, the doctrines include improving service, finding new customers, and expanding. Once the telegraph business was privatized, along came Ezra Cornell, with the creation of Western Union.



a. Fifteen years after privatization, costs for construction and telegraph rates were about one tenth of the rates established by government.
Thompson, Op. Cit.



Throughout our history, industries such as the fur trade, steamships, railroads, airplanes, etc. have shown that private enterprise does it better.




Many of the 'seemed like a good idea at the time' plans began with Franklin Roosevelt.

Prior to FDR, government intervention and subsidies were uncommon, e.g., private charity cared for the needy. Using a crisis, Roosevelt convinced Americans that government programs were beneficial, necessary, and 'modern.' Under FDR we see the inception of many social problems that cause even greater problems than they were designed to solve, and that must be dealt with today.

 

[OnePercenter]

Think of it like a basketball game. One team is the consumers and the other team is business and government is the referee.

Referee???

You can't be serious.


1. “On March 3, 2007 USA Today ran a piece on then-Senator Obama regarding two stocks in his portfolio. Obama was running for President and his critics were stating that the Senator may have been involved in insider trading, cronyism, using his position for personal gain, etc. Basically the media ran this story for a day, and then kissed it goodbye. Could you imagine the outrage if these same set of circumstances involved a Republican running for President?”
Obama the Investor ? Brian Sussman


2. And, from the original AP story:
WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday he was not aware he had invested in two companies backed by some of his top donors and said he had done nothing to aid their business with the government. The Illinois senator faced questions about more than $50,000 in investments he made right after taking office in 2005 in two speculative companies, AVI Biopharma and Skyterra Communications.



3. Obama purchased $5,000 in shares for AVI, which was developing a drug to treat avian flu. Two weeks after buying the stock, as the disease was spreading in Asia, Obama pushed for more federal funding to fight the disease, but he said he did not discuss the matter with any company officials.



4. Obama also had more than $50,000 in shares of Skyterra, a company that had just received federal permission to create a nationwide wireless network that combined satellite and land-based communications systems. Among the company’s top investors were donors who raised more than $150,000 for Obama’s political committees, the New York Times reported Wednesday.


5. Obama said he didn’t invest in a qualified blind trust because it wouldn’t enable him to limit which companies he invested in, such as those in the tobacco industry and other areas that he did not want to support.
USATODAY.com - Obama faces questions on his investments


6. Obama with coincidental investment connections. Obama who was an upside down borrower on his condo. Obama who just got a little “boneheaded” advice from convicted felon Tony Rezko when he bought his mansion in Chicago. Obama the Investor ? Brian Sussman





7. Skyterra doesn’t ring a bell? Well, how about under its new name: LightSquared? “Reston-based satellite company SkyTerra Communications Inc. re-emerged July 20 as LightSquared,…” SkyTerra, now LightSquared, enters the national 4G race - Washington Business Journal

8. “The liberal Daily Beast reports on a broadband project backed by a frequent Obama White House visitor and donor that has Pentagon officials concerned over potential military GPS interference. The Obama FCC took the lead in intervening on the donor, billionaire hedge fund manager Philip Falcone’s, behalf and granting his company called “LightSquared” one of those coveted Obama waivers from existing law. Then Obama officials reportedly pressured a general to alter his testimony about the company’s impact on military satellite transmissions.” Michelle Malkin | » LightSquared: The next Obama pay-for-play morass?

9. The liberal Daily Beast reports: “Now the Pentagon has been raising concerns about a new wireless project by a satellite broadband company in Virginia called LightSquared, whose majority owner is an investment fund run by Democratic donor Philip Falcone.

Gen. Shelton was originally scheduled to testify Aug. 3 to a House committee that the project would interfere with the military’s sensitive Global Positioning Satellite capabilities, which control automated driving directions and missile targeting, among other things.”
Michelle Malkin | » LightSquared: The next Obama pay-for-play morass?


10. Referee?

Wise up.

If you have evidence that there was direct trading in the 'insider trading' claim then you may have something. Do some research! You'll find out that the 'insider trading' was part of fund investments. So no 'insider trading.'

 

[OnePercenter]

Talk about stupid!

You don't realize that your post....undocumented, too......supports my point: the government is no "referee."


It should stay out of the free market.

No, it should be the referee not in bed with big business. You fools don't realize Citizens United basically handed our country over to the multi national corporations.

They looked at how politicians vote on every issue. In every case they never vote for what the masses want but instead water down what the people want so it is tolerable for big business. Perfect example is healthcare reform.

Listen stupid. If corporations had their way and government didn't step in, 60% of us wouldn't be able to afford good healthcare. Only the rich would be able to afford it.

The government is there to protect the general welfare of the citizens, or at least is should be. There is no arguing this stupid. The government protects us from capitalists.

"No, it should be the referee.....blah blah blah...."


No, it shouldn't.


This is why you shouldn't have left the third grade to join the circus.....had you learned to read, you might have perused the Constitution.


Now....if you claim to have read same....can you point to where it documents your claim?




Now...as far as you being stupid..... I'm not being rude...I just say what everybody else is thinking.

For the middle class:

Regulation is good - deregulation is bad. Prove me wrong.

 

[OnePercenter]

There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about government involvement in the marketplace. FDR's rural electrification program, for instance, had a lot of public good involved in it.

The real rub is how much of what we do as "government" really has legitimate national value, and how much of it is just vote buying. Over the last decade or so, there has been a steady increase in public rhetoric toward punishing the wealthy/successful to the point that alone seems to some people to have legitimate national value all on its own. It does not.

If we were to raise taxes to pay for specific projects of populist merit, then I doubt there would be a lot of difficulty garnering support. Unfortunately, there is none of that going on. The best people can come up with are some nebular bias specific generalizations. If there is no need for new roads, then we should not be building new roads just to "create jobs". If giant sea walls are only going to benefit directly the millionaires who have beachfront property, then let them move--they can afford it. If alternative energy research is only being pursued with commercial supplier scale focus, then let the commercial suppliers pay for it since they will be raping us either way.

Why do people keep pointing one of the biggest boondoggles in history as proof that the government can do things right?

They can. Infrastructure, police, fire, parks, traffic signals, redevelopment.

 

[OnePercenter]

There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about government involvement in the marketplace. FDR's rural electrification program, for instance, had a lot of public good involved in it.

The real rub is how much of what we do as "government" really has legitimate national value, and how much of it is just vote buying. Over the last decade or so, there has been a steady increase in public rhetoric toward punishing the wealthy/successful to the point that alone seems to some people to have legitimate national value all on its own. It does not.

If we were to raise taxes to pay for specific projects of populist merit, then I doubt there would be a lot of difficulty garnering support. Unfortunately, there is none of that going on. The best people can come up with are some nebular bias specific generalizations. If there is no need for new roads, then we should not be building new roads just to "create jobs". If giant sea walls are only going to benefit directly the millionaires who have beachfront property, then let them move--they can afford it. If alternative energy research is only being pursued with commercial supplier scale focus, then let the commercial suppliers pay for it since they will be raping us either way.

Why do people keep pointing one of the biggest boondoggles in history as proof that the government can do things right?

Stupidity?

Really? Dial 9-1-1 and see if it works. Oh wait! Your not that bright. Take my word for it, it does work.

 

[bripat9643]

Think of it like a basketball game. One team is the consumers and the other team is business and government is the referee.

Your analogy is flawed because government is one of the teams on the field. So government gets to referee it's own conduct on the playing field. What do you suppose the odds are that government won't slant it's policing of the rules to favor itself?

 

[bripat9643]

There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about government involvement in the marketplace. FDR's rural electrification program, for instance, had a lot of public good involved in it.

The real rub is how much of what we do as "government" really has legitimate national value, and how much of it is just vote buying. Over the last decade or so, there has been a steady increase in public rhetoric toward punishing the wealthy/successful to the point that alone seems to some people to have legitimate national value all on its own. It does not.

If we were to raise taxes to pay for specific projects of populist merit, then I doubt there would be a lot of difficulty garnering support. Unfortunately, there is none of that going on. The best people can come up with are some nebular bias specific generalizations. If there is no need for new roads, then we should not be building new roads just to "create jobs". If giant sea walls are only going to benefit directly the millionaires who have beachfront property, then let them move--they can afford it. If alternative energy research is only being pursued with commercial supplier scale focus, then let the commercial suppliers pay for it since they will be raping us either way.

Why do people keep pointing one of the biggest boondoggles in history as proof that the government can do things right?

They can. Infrastructure, police, fire, parks, traffic signals, redevelopment.

These products and services are all exorbitantly expensive and almost always of very poor quality. Police protection has to be the the worst. How long does it typical take police to respond to an emergency call? Not long enough to save you from being shot or robbed by a thug.

 

[OnePercenter]

Why do people keep pointing one of the biggest boondoggles in history as proof that the government can do things right?

They can. Infrastructure, police, fire, parks, traffic signals, redevelopment.

These products and services are all exorbitantly expensive and almost always of very poor quality. Police protection has to be the the worst. How long does it typical take police to respond to an emergency call? Not long enough to save you from being shot or robbed by a thug.

Expensive? Please post the percentage of your effective tax rate you spend on police and fire services.

ETA's since Bush/Republicans/wall street crashed the economy has gotten longer.