Someone please explain Bachmann's "reasoning'?

[john8gomes]

After a long time Bachmann was getting interested in politics just as her party was getting interested in people like her. In the late nineteen-nineties, she began travelling throughout Minnesota, delivering lectures in churches, and writing pamphlets, on the perils of a federal education law known as School to Work, which supported vocational training, and a Minnesota education law known as Profile of Learning, which set state education standards.so keep updating this is an interesting topic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

I am saying that the roads, ferry crossings and portages were very much different in the 18th Century. One would encounter tolls at each intersection/transition from one private road to another, some travelers would be denied passage for abitrary reasons and fees would very by the season or whim of the operator or his agent.

Private roads today are likely less traveled than the major interstates, and don't exist everywhere.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Why are you distracting from th rasonng of obama the president to Bachmann who isn't even a front runner?
Afterall it is obama who is in charge of the government.

 

[Sundial]

Suggesting government is inefficient and proving government is so are two very different things. It's true that some of government largess is wasted, a good deal of that waste is the product of private sector greed, incompetence and thievery. Medicare fraud needs to be investigated and those who engage in white collar crime need to go to prison and make full and complete restitution.

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.

Without patents, copyrights, trademarks, corporations, roads, money, police, courts, and law it's hard to see what kind of economy we'd have. Maybe something like what they had in Mad Max?

The value of government services far exceeds what we pay for them. Sometimes that's hard to see, because the government doesn't seek to make a profit, or attempt to sell things at market rates. But mostly people just take things for granted.

I can't "prove" that the private sector can't do these things. I can only point to the fact it never has, and that typically private businesses won't do something, unless there's a way to make a profit at it.

 

[Intense]

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.

That depends on what one chooses to clean up, now doesn't it? Redundancy, Bureaucracy, Extra Constitutional Usurped Authority, Obstruction, Elitism, Privilege, may all suffer, yet I won't be crying over such loss. Many Government Workers will end up spending less time on vacation at Disney World or at exclusive Time Share get away's. It will probably get easier to attain Flight Reservations, as a result. Hey, buy a Lottery Ticket.
State Capitalism Bad. Free Market Good Comrade.

 

[Intense]

How much has the Ratio of Government Workers to Private Workers changed? How about Salaries and Compensation? The Trend is unsustainable.

 

[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.

Without patents, copyrights, trademarks, corporations, roads, money, police, courts, and law it's hard to see what kind of economy we'd have. Maybe something like what they had in Mad Max?

The value of government services far exceeds what we pay for them. Sometimes that's hard to see, because the government doesn't seek to make a profit, or attempt to sell things at market rates. But mostly people just take things for granted.

I can't "prove" that the private sector can't do these things. I can only point to the fact it never has, and that typically private businesses won't do something, unless there's a way to make a profit at it.

Trust me, pointing at patents and copyrights as a way to prove we need the government to sustain the economy is not the way to go. If you drop it I will give you a pass on it, otherwise I will point out exactly how patents and copyrights are being used to stifle competition and keep innovation out of the economy.

As for government services value being higher than what we pay for them, I am not going to let that one pass. The Professional Left likes to site the fact that Medicare has a lower overhead cost than private insurance, but that is actually because of two factors. The first is that the government can transfer the cost of some of the Medicare administration so that it is off the books. It does this in multiple ways, one is to make the private sector carry some of the administrative cost by forcing them to comply with onerous reporting standards. They can also transfer some of the costs themselves to other programs, and forcing people that do not participate in Medicare to pay for it anyway. If you do not believe the latter, check with any retired military you know that use VA services and ask them about how much they pay to Medicare annually.

Another thing that Medicare does is report its administrative costs as a percentage of their entire budget. When you do a per patient comparison Medicare is actually more expensive than private insurance. This is actually interesting when you consider the fact that Medicare participants, on the average, are generally unhealthier and need more services then other health insurance participants.

The simple fact is that the government, by its very nature, is going to cost more than the private sector doing the same thing. This is because the government does not worry about profit or service, it just exists to collect taxes.

Also, I already pointed out that the reason the private sector is not doing the things you mention is because the government made it illegal. Let is take an example where I can actually prove my point, ATC (air traffic control.)

The US is the only major country where the government has day to day control of air traffic. It also ranks last in terms of how well the ATC system responds to market changes.

U.S. trails other countries in air traffic management: IU News Room: Indiana University

Other countries have actually proven that not collecting taxes to finance the ATC works, They have proven that separating the regulation and actually running of the ATC is beneficial, and that the private sector can actually do a better job of responding to the real need.

Proof that the reason the private sector does not handle ATC is not because they cannot, but because the government will not let them. Pointing to the fact that something is not happening as proof of anything while ignoring the fact that the government makes many things it does illegal to compete with, just like they did with USPS a few years ago, makes you look like a hack.

 

[Foxfyre]

How much has the Ratio of Government Workers to Private Workers changed? How about Salaries and Compensation? The Trend is unsustainable.

I refer you to my post #68 on this thread where I tried to address that.

Via Executive Orders, President Obama gave federal employees about 6% in raises in 2009 and early 2010 when he froze those wages at their higher levels. The wage freeze is almost meaningless for most, however, as it applies to all federal workers, including civilian Defense Department employees, but does not apply to military personnel, government contractors, postal workers, members of Congress, Congressional staffers, or federal court judges and workers.

Yep, our fearless leaders are getting their regular automatic raises they built into the system so they wouldn't be criticized for midnight votes to give themselves a raise any more. Pretty slick huh?

And, from what my friends currently working for the federal government tell me, it's pretty easy to get around the freeze. If an employee merits a raise or whatever, they simply abolish his or her position and create a new one with a reworded title for him/her at a higher pay grade.

 

[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.

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.

If you show me how eliminating the number of jobs it would take to reduce the federal government by 40%,

which is the percent of the budget we're borrowing,

would lead to a net increase in the number of jobs in this country, by all means do so.

Be specific and talk in factual terms about real tangible things, PLEASE.

Otherwise shut up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You idiots who think shrinking the size of government is not a job killer, tell me this.

The US Post Office needs to get rid of about 100,000 employees to get itself financially straight.

How does that create jobs? First, how does it create jobs for the 100,000 laid off postal workers? Then, where does the net increase in jobs come from?

Prove that you're not idiots.

 

[Disenchanted61]

It stimulates the economy of the wealthy, not the general population. It is the rich talking to the rich
that is all.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

If you show me how eliminating the number of jobs it would take to reduce the federal government by 40%,

which is the percent of the budget we're borrowing,

would lead to a net increase in the number of jobs in this country, by all means do so.

Be specific and talk in factual terms about real tangible things, PLEASE.

Otherwise shut up.

No YOU shut up. Please.

If you eliminate 40% of the taxes needed to feed a growing and bloated bureaucracy, stop increasing the deficit, and start paying down the debt, our AAA credit rating is restored and both foreign and domestic markets will stabilize. Consumer confidence is restored.

Then give the job producers assurance that their tax burden is maneagable for the next five to ten years, and remove the most unnecessary and onerous regulation for the next five to ten years, and they will put the estimated 3 to 6 trillion in investment capital they are sitting on back into the economy and put people back to work.

That's how it is done.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If you show me how eliminating the number of jobs it would take to reduce the federal government by 40%,

which is the percent of the budget we're borrowing,

would lead to a net increase in the number of jobs in this country, by all means do so.

Be specific and talk in factual terms about real tangible things, PLEASE.

Otherwise shut up.

No YOU shut up. Please.

If you eliminate 40% of the taxes needed to feed a growing and bloated bureaucracy, stop increasing the deficit, and start paying down the debt, our AAA credit rating is restored and both foreign and domestic markets will stabilize. Consumer confidence is restored.

Then give the job producers assurance that their tax burden is maneagable for the next five to ten years, and remove the most unnecessary and onerous regulation for the next five to ten years, and they will put the estimated 3 to 6 trillion in investment capital they are sitting on back into the economy and put people back to work.

That's how it is done.

That's retarded. Seriously. You put millions of people out of work if you cut back government by 40%, all that buying power and demand disappears, you already have 9% unemployment in a jobless recovery,

and you think that magically businesses are going to ramp up production enough to hire millions??

Use your ******* head.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If you show me how eliminating the number of jobs it would take to reduce the federal government by 40%,

which is the percent of the budget we're borrowing,

would lead to a net increase in the number of jobs in this country, by all means do so.

Be specific and talk in factual terms about real tangible things, PLEASE.

Otherwise shut up.

How long of a time period do I have?

 

[Foxfyre]

If you show me how eliminating the number of jobs it would take to reduce the federal government by 40%,

which is the percent of the budget we're borrowing,

would lead to a net increase in the number of jobs in this country, by all means do so.

Be specific and talk in factual terms about real tangible things, PLEASE.

Otherwise shut up.

No YOU shut up. Please.

If you eliminate 40% of the taxes needed to feed a growing and bloated bureaucracy, stop increasing the deficit, and start paying down the debt, our AAA credit rating is restored and both foreign and domestic markets will stabilize. Consumer confidence is restored.

Then give the job producers assurance that their tax burden is maneagable for the next five to ten years, and remove the most unnecessary and onerous regulation for the next five to ten years, and they will put the estimated 3 to 6 trillion in investment capital they are sitting on back into the economy and put people back to work.

That's how it is done.

That's retarded. Seriously. You put millions of people out of work if you cut back government by 40%, all that buying power and demand disappears, you already have 9% unemployment in a jobless recovery,

and you think that magically businesses are going to ramp up production enough to hire millions??

Use your ******* head.

Use YOUR head. Government can print money, but if it prints more than the economy is generating it diminishes the value of every dollar and coin in your pocket. Government CANNOT CREATE WEALTH. It can promote policies that enable the private sector to create more wealth, but otherwise takes wealth out of the economy.

Every salary paid in the federal government is money not available for a private sector job and every salary paid in the federal government is a drain on the economy.

Yes some government salaries are essential for essential government functions.

Most government jobs can be done as well in the private sector as is being done in government even if the government job is doing anything at all. Many really aren't because they're just duplicating stuff other parts of government are doing.

 

[Intense]

You idiots who think shrinking the size of government is not a job killer, tell me this.

The US Post Office needs to get rid of about 100,000 employees to get itself financially straight.

How does that create jobs? First, how does it create jobs for the 100,000 laid off postal workers? Then, where does the net increase in jobs come from?

Prove that you're not idiots.

Deregulation.

Rewriting the Tax Structure Laws.

Limiting Government Overhead.

We are too top heave NYCarb. You are too caught up in your game of Musical Chairs to notice the effect you have on the rest of us. You have been riding high for too long.

 

[Woyzeck]

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.

Yeah! Those evil progressive that have been controlling all aspects of government since the Progressive era! It's not like there were any true conservatives to stop this tide of progressive evil! But because the military is the extension of your individual right, they're allowed a bloated budget that goes towards killing people.

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?

What right are you protecting by shaking me down and giving it to corporations with much more expensive taste than poor individuals? Our military budget is three times more than the next country that spends most in military, we give millions in farm and oil subsidies. But no, to save money we must cut things that don't nearly spend as much, or give anything to big business!

It's funny you called things like the Department of Education a parasite, but ignore the actual elephant parasites in the room. Is it libertarian philosophy to suck the cock of corporations so hard, or is it just your own personal philosophy?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

State Capitalism Bad. Free Market Good

It’s that type of dogmatic oversimplification that prevents us from making any real progress with regard to reform.

It must first be acknowledged that ‘the government’ performs many vital, necessary functions. Without it much of the free market couldn’t operate effectively.

And government certainly has its limitations and areas best left to the private sector to address.

The best approach is a pragmatic approach, where the strengths of the public and private sectors are conjoined to successfully address this Nation’s issues.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

State Capitalism Bad. Free Market Good

It’s that type of dogmatic oversimplification that prevents us from making any real progress with regard to reform.

It must first be acknowledged that ‘the government’ performs many vital, necessary functions. Without it much of the free market couldn’t operate effectively.

And government certainly has its limitations and areas best left to the private sector to address.

The best approach is a pragmatic approach, where the strengths of the public and private sectors are conjoined to successfully address this Nation’s issues.

What do you think the strength's of the public sector are? What are the strengths of the private sector?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Deal. Hence why I made the statement that I made.

Facts is Oddball has a raging hard-on for big business and would support just about anything if it meant private business could make a buck off of it. He's made that crystal clear in multiple threads on this site.

Ok great, then please provide a link to a quote from Oddball where you found that he doesn't want to cut defense because he loves high $$ private contracts.

If you can find that, I'll understand the crazy allegation about him.

Ha, he has over 25,000 posts. I'm not even going to attempt to find something like that right now. I'm sure you or someone else will call that a copout and some sort of admission of defeat. Fine. But that's way to much effort for something I couldn't care less about proving. I'll tell you what though. Every time I see Oddball make a post defending the interests of his corporate overlords I'll be sure to send you a PM about it. Deal?

Yep that is a copout, good admission. Him having that many posts should make it even easier to find what you're looking for if it's so obvious that he's against cutting the military because he loves big private contract $$$.