The irony of the cry for less government

Of course you are being silly goofy and preposterous By pretending that someone wants to "throw them overboard" do you know what a strawman is? I suggest you think about it

 

Translation: if I could present an example to prove my point I obviously would but I can't so I'll use personal attack to try to change the subject and hope no one will notice I'm running from the debate defeated

 

So you are saying Obama care is a good example of capitalism? See why we must conclude that liberalism is based on ignorance rather than intelligence. Is another logical conclusion possible?

 

Still waiting for James to show us evidence that the rich donate most of their money. Do you think he'd take that $10k bet?

 

Do you know what eliminating welfare would do to people? Apparently you are clueless if you think tens of millions of people will suddenly support themselves in society in a lawful and orderly manner over night.

 

1) if I said overnight I will pay you $10,000. Bet??

2) for 4th time do you know what a strawman is??? Please ask you mother to explain

3) when Clinton eliminated welfare as we know it by making it workfare fully half decided they were no longer poor. Do you understand this?

 

In June 2010, the Giving Pledge campaign was formally announced and Bill Gates and Warren Buffett began recruiting members.[2] As of August 2010, the aggregate wealth of the first 40 pledgers was $125 billion.[3] As of April 2011, 69 billionaires had joined the campaign and given a pledge,[4] and by the following year,The Huffington Post reported that a total of 81 billionaires had committed.[5] As of 2012, signatories of the pledge included: Hasso Plattner,[6] David Rockefeller,[7] Azim Premji,[8] Richard Branson,[9] Elon Musk, Tim Cook,[10] Sara Blakely,[11] and Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw.[12] By May 2017, 158 individuals and/or couples were listed as pledgers.[13][14]

Signers[edit]

 

If I misunderstood you then perhaps you can be a bit more clear next time.

 

if I was not clear you would not be so afraid to show where this happened.

 

Yet again this poster displays woeful ignorance of western capitalist socialism as practiced in every single advanced nation but ours, we do it in a very small way. By immediately trying to define my goals as a direct line to communism, the poster shows he is not a very serious thinker or student of world governments. The old libertarian/Hayekian/Mize/Friedman/JBirch line of reasoning only works for people who want to be fooled or who enjoy being taken for suckers by the GOP these days. Universal health care is not communism, nor is a strong social safety net nor progressive tax rates nor free college..the list goes on and on and on. I suggest you learn more about how other advanced nations solve these problems.

 

Advanced nations like France solve them by living with the per capita income of Arkansas about our poorest state. Is France what you call an advanced nation We have 70% of all recent medical Patents France has 2% and we provide their national defense as well has their healthcareIs that what you call an advanced nation

 

Continued population growth, continued demands on infrastructure and health care and welfare and local and world security, dealing with unknowns associated with climate change and natural disasters and world disobedience, all DEMAND a larger and larger government at ALL levels...chart all the knowns and unknowns any way one wishes and all of the curves end up with larger and larger government.

The only question I might have moving forward is how to qualify the economic scenarios that will allow tax payers to properly fund government...

 

I agree, but to the statement above, perhaps you've heard me say, people, don't pay taxes to fund the federal government. They pay taxes in order to minimize inflation (among other things).

 

Econ 101: inflation is minimized by Fed mandate. Sorry to rock your liberal world.

 

you mean if you are a liberal without the ability to understand the principle of freedom on which our country was founded and on which it came to be the greatest country in human history!

 

you mean Bernie Sanders, an open communist, is not taking over the Democratic Party? Or do you mean you don't support Sanders?

 

Most Libertarians either don't care because of how much they hate taxes, or they have money and want the scenario you described.

 

Wow, how to even approach so much hogwash in such a short space so I guess head on would be the best.

As wealth accumulated in the hands of fewer people, the less the economic decisions of the greater number of people matter.

What evolves is a neo-feudal, private state, which inevitably seeks to choke the public state in order to replace it.[/quote]

This is a totally absurd statement in and of itself. This is to ignore all principles of market economies and a gross lack of understanding of the concept of freedom.

Wealth accumulation in the hands of the few is only possible because of government intervention in establishing barriers against any new competition.

The private state can never choke the public state without the involvement of government and there chocking hands. It is the bought and paid for laws of the unaccountable mega corporations that stifles any competition and results in a feudal environment.

What super rich is libertarian? You seem to somehow mistaken totalitarians with some sort of libertarian leanings. Govern is what their puppets would do, they dominate, absolute rule. They are mentally diseased and believe they are gods with the right to life and death rule.

Their approach is not to privatize, that would be beneficial. They monopolize. The rest is so convoluted it isn't worth commenting.

 

And all due to the heavy hand of a government.

 

Nice thought, so sad it doesn't work that way.

I would suggest that you examine this in more detail as all is not as it seems.

Again not true. Back in 1944 the highest individual tax rate was 94%. For the 50's, 60's and 70's the rate never dipped below 70%. It wasn't until 1981 that the rate dipped to 50%.

Again great thought but there are many other factors that have contributed and helped to maintain that "welfare" ideology. Also it wasn't just the liberals but the conservatives that have contributed to the melee.

 

of course if it didn't work that way you would not be so afraid to tell us how it does work.

 

are you saying you can discriminate against the rich by making them pay more than the poor in taxes? Do you want the rich to pay more for a can of soup in a supermarket too??

 

of course if true you would not be so afraid to tell us other factor comes to mind.

 

The real question would be how that was possible. Wouldn't have anything to do with government, would it?

So by your reckoning it has nothing to do with philanthropy just the rich trying to get more than they give. Another trait only possible because of government meddling. Historically before government declared it's right to rob and give, charities had more money that they needed to do their work.

No, they will all travel the same exact distance around the track maintaining their own lane. What is a significant advantage is the uneven playing field established by government to control new entries into a market.

In this world we all come in as equal, some may have advantages after their birth but in the end it is still the individual that determines their fate except when government establishes barriers that prevent them from being all they could be.