Ayn Rand has ruined Paul Ryan

I'll see that sister and the priest, raise you two altar boys and a flying nun

 

Southern Europe is in crisis and the rest of Europe is deeply impacted because of the common market and common currency, however speaking of Europe as if it is monolithic is silly. Germany is very well governed. So is the Netherlands and Scandinavia. I would also point to Australia as a place where government is far more capably handled than in the US. In fact most developed countries are better governed than the US. There are numerous reasons for that, but a large reason is that the people doing the governaning actually believe in governing capably and efficiently. They don't believe that bad governance is inevitable, and work hard to ensure that it is. Our politicians create a self-fulfilling prophecy where they tell us how terrible government is, and then do everything they can to prove it. I am an anarchist in an ideal world, but in the real world we actually live in, government is a reality. Accepting this reality, we should seek to see it run as well as possible. Not attempt to sabotage it, in order to prove ourselves correct.

 

The entire E.U.is in crisis because they have no mechanism for "under-performing" member states to leave or be forced out, and because they share a common currency, while not requiring their members to maintain balance budgets, creating a situation where countries are encouraged to spend liberally before their neighbors get the benefit of having done the same.

By 2016, we will be the world's largest economy, because the E.U. is stagnating. This despite having 200 million less people, and far less resources.

By 2020, only around 5% of world's economic activity will occur in Europe. It will have made itself irrelevant.

Germany, no, to the others, Apples to Oranges, otherwise I can just say "Hong Kong" and the debate is over.

 

He sure could have fooled me; http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/03/paul-ryans-ayn-rand-problem/

 

We'll, what we do know is Reid Ribble never made any gains in is argument against the sister and just passed off the baton to someone else. If he had had a good argument, which he didn't, he'd of stuck in there with it. He coward out instead.

 

So when you cut thousands of jobs as proposed in these budgets you are stopping many currently employed people from "Doing things for themselves" >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<<!

 

Because he's not a theologian. Only (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s like Biden and Pelosi think they got the bead on Catholic Theology without actually studying it.

 

They were never doing anything for themselves, rather, they were taking someone else money by force to do it.

Those kinds of jobs exist at the pleasure of the tax payer, the moment the taxpayer doesn't want to keep subsidizing them, they should go away. To say otherwise is you admitting the Public Service has a self-interest, and was never objective about these things.

 

Apparently Ryan isn't much of an expert on budgets either, when his own party rejected it.

 

It's because Washington is a self-centered, neurotic bubble. Did you know they got out of the recession years ago? and so many Phds per capita there, nearly all of them on the public dime.

Anyway, Ryan's plan was the just the beginning of sanity, even it doesn't go far enough. That Congress rejected it, means the Government is unwilling to save itself. Prepared to be downgraded again.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. You've broken the forum rules. Your post has been reported. Have a nice day.

 

First off we must realize two things:
1. The people we elected and sent to Washington are not doing the job they are required to do.
2. The political party is considered more important than the nation.

In the 60's it wasn't just one generation that was one welfare it was third generations with both Republicans and Democrats at fault. It's not just Democrats that are sitting there with their hands out to get what they can. We have several leading ex=governors in Congress as TP's opposed to any of these bills that give away money or other things. It wasn't long ago while governors they were after those programs for their states. A recent occurrence was the tank contract which the Army said they didn't need or want. It was a great bipartisan effort to issue the contract over the objection of the Army. There is little difference between the two major parties other than the number and the amounts.

While going to school my income was way below the poverty level but I never asked for it, if you want to call the school breakfast and lunch program accepting aid, then I guess letting my kids have 2 good meals a day qualifies.

Aid in general should not be considered a full time job. I'm 100% against giving a weekly check to anyone who is able to work. A requirement should be in place that searching for a job or being trained/retrained must exist. This presents a problem because most businesses would rather see a higher jobless rate. The Democrats are wrong with their belief that we should eliminate the poor. I agree with them but do not feel the way to achieve it is to give them more money. Supply them with the knowledge and skills to make more money. I enjoy asking people now much it is worth to them to live in the USA. For anyone opposing immigration reform, I will answer it for most illegals, "Everything I have and my life."

I should be asking American business that same question. Does business have a responsibility to this Nation? They buy our politicians, they fund "Special Interest Groups" etc. then they should be willing to create jobs and settle for slightly lower profits. I was against the bailout of the auto industry. I think we all know you can make a good profit while showing a loss. They were allowed to "Run in the Red" for years. Responsibility is not only for the middle class and the poor.

Some of the best workers I've seen have come from the welfare programs.

 

When the Tea Party shuts the government down, you can bet we will be downgraded.

 

Off the top of everyone else who has to do the same in the private sector. If we're all hurting, why should they be spared? Make them go into the private sector like the rest, see how they like having a portion of their earnings go to public sector stiffs that enjoy a higher income with pitiful service in return.

... Uh, May 2004, 310,000 jobs created in a single month. 2004 had several million jobs created that year.

Yeah, the jobs did come, you just didn't pay attention. Most of you libs didn't, and some of you just decided to complain about it. Sour grapes much?

 

Again, the right winger lives in some fantasy land with fairys and invisible hands flying around making things right! If you think there should be no govt. jobs and that would somehow make things better, think again, unemployment would easily double and the privatized jobs replacing the govt. jobs would be the same work or more with a far lower standard of living with more money going to the top. I know you like that, but it sucks for society. What happenned to the days when people just accepted and respected govt. jobs? Because THEY ARE NEEDED, you can't have a nation without govt! Some of you dream about that, but that's dumb, do you really want to live in a world like Mad Max 2 Return to Thunderdome?

 

I see a MOUNTAIN of pitiful service everywhere I go in the PRIVATE SECTOR, stores, offices, banks, 800#s... low paid people who don't give a shyt and barely know how to do the job, because they don't care.

And if the govt. workers should'nt be spared, why must the top 1% of the wealthy be spared? Why not take enough from THEM so that they actually HURT BAD, so maybe they have LOSE SOMETHING, like an extra house or 4th car? They're not really creating any jobs with that money anyway, let's TAKE IT and put it into circulation to stimulate the economy somehow.

 

I didn't say that. What I'am saying is that Gov't jobs create do not create wealth, as such, they exist at the pleasure of tax payers whom they take wealth from in order to exist. And the moment the Tax payer finds any portion of them displeasurable, they should cease to be, for the taxpayers are their employers.

1. By taking money out of the private economy to create those jobs, you were lowering the standard of living of normal people all along.

2. The ends of the economy is not Jobs. If that were the case, we could solve unemployment by having the Government employ everyone digging holes and filling them back up again.

No, the true end of the economy is creating wealth.

Probably went out when Gov't jobs decided they needed more income than their average private sector counterpart.

Used to be you took a Gov't job not because it paid well, but because it was stable, a trade off. Today, there is no tradeoff, you get the best of both worlds, at the taxpayer's expense, regardless of if you're even good at your job, or if your job itself is useful.

No sh*t, take your straw man elsewhere.

 

Someone disagrees, otherwise, they would have gone out of business.

Meanwhile, the terrible DMV stereotype endures. They aren't going anywhere.

Apples to oranges. The top 1% exist because they created wealth for other people, who gave them money voluntarily, no one forced anything.

Public Sector employee do not ask, they just take.

Consumption is not a panacea. You also need savings and investments, and guess who is disproportionately responsible for that? That's right, the rich.

And once again, jobs are not the end of the economy, that's a misconception on your part.

 

Creating wealth is less important than employing human beings.

As for the pay of govt. workers, nobody was complaining when the private sector was making more, so screw them now!

 

Disagree, things won't go out of business that easy, almost every private business has very poor service these days and often there are few or no alternatives as monopoly powered corporations corner many markets. Like what do you want? Comcast or Verizon? Both have services as bad as or worse than the DMV! In fact Comcast has service WAY WORSE than any DMV I've been to, it's not even close!

As for the 1%? Screw them, let's not ask, let's TAKE. You want shared PAIN, then it has to be REAL PAIN and they can't be excluded. For them to feel REAL PAIN, we have to take enough that it's FELT.

 

No, it isn't, Jobs are not an end, but a means to an end. No one works for its own sake, rather, they work to earn wealth, to put food on their plate.

They should be, the Private sector paychecks pay for the Gov't paychecks. If someone works for me, why should they be paid more than me?

Okay, I'll take your stuff. I'm not asking.

 

Bottom line is there is no reconciling! We'll never agree. I don't want to compromise with the right anymore. I not only hate their ideology, I hate them as people too. Secession and the creation of two or more different countries is what I see as the only viable option, one where the stupid red state hillbillies live in poverty and squalor paying tribute to their masters, and the other where the smart people live with dignity, otherwise we'll all be living in limbo in some crappy middle ground that we both hate.

 

So, if I work as an IT Specialist, highly skilled, highly trained, but work for the Federal Government, in your view, I should be paid less than tax payers who work in private industry, even if my skills and abilities dictate that I am WORTH that amount of pay in the market?

 

even if my skills and abilities dictate that I am WORTH that amount of pay in the market? [/quote]
If there was an mechanism to keep it equal, that might be fine, but the trouble is, they tend instead to be paid more.

The other problem is that, while it is at times done for wages, it's certainly not done for benefits.