5 Reasons The Government Will Never Work The Way Liberals Tell You It Can

[Bob Blaylock]

5 Reasons The Government Will Never Work The Way Liberals Tell You It Can

1. It’s not the government’s money
2. The government is doing things it shouldn’t be doing
3. It can’t go out of business
4. It doesn’t effectively measure success and failure
5. There’s a lack of responsibility

 

[Redress]

Oh how cute, some one thinks jingoistic phrases are insightful political discourse....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Oh how cute, some one thinks jingoistic phrases are insightful political discourse....

You probably didn't even bother to follow the link. It's not a terribly long article, nor particularly difficult to read, and it explains each of those five points very well.

But I guess it's easier to ignorantly dismiss them as “jingoistic phrases” than it is to actually read the article and form anything bearing any resemblance to an intelligent response to any of these points.

 

[Redress]

You probably didn't even bother to follow the link. It's not a terribly long article, nor particularly difficult to read, and it explains each of those five points very well.

But I guess it's easier to ignorantly dismiss them as “jingoistic phrases” than it is to actually read the article and form anything bearing any resemblance to an intelligent response to any of these points.

I make it a point to follow links before I even consider commenting. It is old tired talking points based on straw men and wishful thinking.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I make it a point to follow links before I even consider commenting. It is old tired talking points based on straw men and wishful thinking.

And yet you've done nothing to indicate any ability or intention to address any of those points.

If you truly have nothing to contribute to this thread, then why bother posting in it?

 

[CalGun]

Defend the realm...at all cost and complete ignorance for bliss.

And yet you've done nothing to indicate any ability or intention to address any of those points.

If you truly have nothing to contribute to this thread, then why bother posting in it?

 

[notquiteright]

5 reasons the government will never work the way liberals say it can-

1. Koch brothers
2. right wingnut talk radio
3. right wingnut politicians who would rather sink the ship of state than work to a compromise solution
4. right wing militarists who want the taxpayer to subsidize corporate security as the world resources are raked in
5. right wing nuts who think government works best when it is treated like a redheaded stepchild

 

[Wiseone]

5 Reasons The Government Will Never Work The Way Liberals Tell You It Can

1. It’s not the government’s money
2. The government is doing things it shouldn’t be doing
3. It can’t go out of business
4. It doesn’t effectively measure success and failure
5. There’s a lack of responsibility

When you make the argument that government has never worked you aren't making a conservative argument, you're making an anarchist argument.

Conservatives should talk more solution and less destruction, no one wants to hear from some guy that government is always evil, always wrong, and always the enemy and then be told to "vote me" into office. Who wants to work in a place always evil, wrong, always the enemy? That makes no sense, its totally dishonest.

 

[solletica]

5 Reasons The Government Will Never Work The Way Liberals Tell You It Can

1. It’s not the government’s money
2. The government is doing things it shouldn’t be doing
3. It can’t go out of business
4. It doesn’t effectively measure success and failure
5. There’s a lack of responsibility

And yet this post from a Conservative--someone who favors a large, intrusive militaristic government that runs up huge debts to start unlimited wars and sponsor all sorts of terrorist activities overseas.

Can you spell hypocrisy? Conservatives can't because rush hasn't yet taught them that word.

 

[Sababa]

5 Reasons The Government Will Never Work The Way Liberals Tell You It Can

1. It’s not the government’s money

1. 
   
   No but to operate we must give money to the government to use. From snow removal from highways to defense of the country money is required and so we have taxes. So in effect it is the government's money to spend on those things we elect them to spend it on. It is part of our social contract.
   
   

   [*]The government is doing things it shouldn’t be doing

   
   By whose rule? Seriously, the government does a lot of things and some things I wish they didn't need to do but the bottom line is again, we ask them to do it when we vote.
   
   

   [*]It can’t go out of business

   
   Except it can in a sense. Every two years we get a chance to change who the directors are and every 4 years we get to decide who the CEO is so we can reinvent the government.
   
   

   [*]It doesn’t effectively measure success and failure

   
   Again that is the people's job. That is what elections are about. We have the power.
   
   

   [*]There’s a lack of responsibility

Again this is built into the system....ELECTIONS

Whines of the right are amazing.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And yet this post from a Conservative--someone who favors a large, intrusive militaristic government that runs up huge debts to start unlimited wars and sponsor all sorts of terrorist activities overseas.

Can you spell hypocrisy? Conservatives can't because rush hasn't yet taught them that word.

 

[solletica]

View attachment 67166743

Looks like a one of those "liberals that wanna disarm America." I'm rush told you about them, right?

 

[apdst]

When you make the argument that government has never worked you aren't making a conservative argument, you're making an anarchist argument.

Conservatives should talk more solution and less destruction, no one wants to hear from some guy that government is always evil, always wrong, and always the enemy and then be told to "vote me" into office. Who wants to work in a place always evil, wrong, always the enemy? That makes no sense, its totally dishonest.

That's not what he said.

 

[apdst]

And yet this post from a Conservative--someone who favors a large, intrusive militaristic government that runs up huge debts to start unlimited wars and sponsor all sorts of terrorist activities overseas.

Can you spell hypocrisy? Conservatives can't because rush hasn't yet taught them that word.

Hypocrisy?

Obama admin to insurers: No worries, we’ll find “other sources of funding” for those risk corridors if need be « Hot Air

 

[solletica]

And yet you've done nothing to indicate any ability or intention to address any of those points.

If you truly have nothing to contribute to this thread, then why bother posting in it?

If you truly had any sense, you would stop trying to post about topics you know nothing about, i. e. limited government.

Concepts like freedom, limited government, free markets, etc. are only understood by Libertarians like me. They're too complex for you.

You're a conservative, so you need to post only about topics you understand, i. e. guns, or about Obama being "Muslum", or about how Mexicans are "invading the country" or about Clinton's blow job.

Don't try to get ahead of yourself by broaching adult topics that are beyond your grasp, or pretend like you know them.

 

[solletica]

Hypocrisy?

Obama admin to insurers: No worries, we’ll find “other sources of funding” for those risk corridors if need be « Hot Air

No hypocrisy, because obama is a dork.

FYI, I'm a Libertarian, or classical liberal, not a cafe (pop) liberal like obama, who's merely another pol defending the status quo like his idiot Texan predecessor.

So if you want to start a debate w/me about why obama sucks, congrats, you won, because I agree. I did not vote for him (nor did I waste my vote on any right wing pol).

OTOH, if you want to talk about limited government, you (a conservative) are way out of your league.

 

[apdst]

No hypocrisy, because obama is a dork.

FYI, I'm a Libertarian, or classical liberal, not a cafe (pop) liberal like obama, who's merely another pol defending the status quo like his idiot Texan predecessor.

So if you want to start a debate w/me about why obama sucks, congrats, you won, because I agree.

OTOH, if you want to talk about limited government, you (a konservative) are way out of your league.

Anyone that invokes, "...because Rush hasn't told you to...", and spells Conservative with a "K" is definitely standing on the Left side of the political fence.

 

[solletica]

Anyone that invokes, "...because Rush hasn't told you to...", and spells Conservative with a "K" is definitely standing on the Left side of the political fence.

What are you saying--that anyone who doesn't agree w/the pro-military pro-corporate subsidy right-wing agenda is a "leftist" in the style of obama?

Is that what you're saying? Please, clarify. . .

 

[apdst]

What are you saying--that anyone who doesn't agree w/the pro-military pro-corporate subsidy right-wing agenda is a "leftist" in the style of obama?

Is that what you're saying? Please, clarify. . .

You don't like Obama because he isn't Liberal enough.

 

[solletica]

You don't like Obama because he isn't Liberal enough.

And what exactly do you mean by "isn't Liberal enough"? Surely you didn't join this thread to post something w/out knowing what you meant, so enlighten us.

What does "not liberal enough" mean to you?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

5 Reasons The Government Will Never Work The Way Liberals Tell You It Can

1. It’s not the government’s money
2. The government is doing things it shouldn’t be doing
3. It can’t go out of business
4. It doesn’t effectively measure success and failure
5. There’s a lack of responsibility

So...why is it, then, that the nations with the highest standards of living are ALL first-world SOCIALIZED democracies? And why is it then that all the nations that have the conservative ideal of low effective taxes, weak regulation, and little or no social safety net are ALL third-world nations? And why has it been this way for over half a century?

I mean, if the socialism that is part and parcel of ALL first-world democracies (including America) is so bad that it's sure to doom us all into the economic dustbin of history, why hasn't it done so in the past fifty years? And if low effective taxes, weak regulation, and little or no social safety net are good for an economy, why aren't the nations who had this kind of economic system first-world nations already?

 

[solletica]

So...why is it, then, that the nations with the highest standards of living are ALL first-world SOCIALIZED democracies?

Actually, that isn't true. India had a socialist economy for decades and it lingered on as a Third World crapster.

Socialism has definitely worked well for Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, etc. but that's only because voters are smart in those nations and don't vote for idiots.

OTOH, nations w/a high level of political apathy or religious nuts will always wilt under a socialist system because an ignorant electorate creates a lack of accountability for politicians, who will then merely use their taxation power to give gifts to the already wealthy who lobby the govt. in exchange for donations that fill their Swiss bank accounts.

That's currently how the US (and countries like it) works. Whatever welfare benefits are dolled out to the poor are far outweighed by the subsidies, gifts dolled out to big oil firms, offense contractors, hedge funds, etc.

And that kind of system is precisely the one favored by the GOP. And those that vote the GOP into power (i. e. right wing voters) are merely coaxed into doing so because GOP pols say the buzzwords that appeal to their childish bigotries and juvenille understanding of the world.

That's why any sensible individuals would always :lamo at any one of these right wingers (or conservatives) who claim to know something about limited government; in reality, they're just kids who know nothing and merely parrot the mindless talking points they see on FauxNews.

 

[MTAtech]

When you make the argument that government has never worked you aren't making a conservative argument, you're making an anarchist argument.

Conservatives should talk more solution and less destruction, no one wants to hear from some guy that government is always evil, always wrong, and always the enemy and then be told to "vote me" into office. Who wants to work in a place always evil, wrong, always the enemy? That makes no sense, its totally dishonest.

Absolutely correct. If we read what the linked article uses as the examples of "The government is doing things it shouldn’t be doing,"the article uses "government declaring your yard a wetland because it rains, micromanaging what kind of light bulbs you’re allowed to buy, bailing out big corporations and forcibly taking over our health care, of course the government does it badly."

Sorry, but that just isn't what your federal government spends much money on. It's time to repeat that the vast bulk of its spending goes to the big five: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest on the debt. The amounts spent on anything remotely resembling "declaring your yard a wetland" is a rounding error on a rounding error. It’s just not what your government does on any significant scale.

As for "micromanaging what kind of light bulbs you’re allowed to buy" the bulb industry thought that was a good idea -- and it is a good idea to eliminate the relic 100 watt incandescent bulb. Moreover, the government hasn't "forcibly taking over our health care." That claim was the Politifact lie of the year in 2010.

 

[MTAtech]

So...why is it, then, that the nations with the highest standards of living are ALL first-world SOCIALIZED democracies?

Actually, that isn't true. India had a socialist economy for decades and it lingered on as a Third World crapster.

Socialism has definitely worked well for Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, etc. but that's only because voters are smart in those nations and don't vote for idiots.
...

Actually, it is true. Where you make the mistake is translating Glen's words, "the nations with the highest standards of living are ALL first-world SOCIALIZED democracies" into "All socialized democracies have a high standard of living."

Claiming that who the people in Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Germany vote for is the determinant of their high standard of living implies that the political system, not the economic system, determines living standards. The fact that in those countries politics has given them a high minimum wage, a broad social safety net, worker protections, lots of time off, etc. is an admission that liberal policies yield high living standards.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Actually, that isn't true. India had a socialist economy for decades and it lingered on as a Third World crapster.

Socialism has definitely worked well for Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, etc. but that's only because voters are smart in those nations and don't vote for idiots.

OTOH, nations w/a high level of political apathy or religious nuts will always wilt under a socialist system because an ignorant electorate creates a lack of accountability for politicians, who will then merely use their taxation power to give gifts to the already wealthy who lobby the govt. in exchange for donations that fill their Swiss bank accounts.

That's currently how the US (and countries like it) works. Whatever welfare benefits are dolled out to the poor are far outweighed by the subsidies, gifts dolled out to big oil firms, offense contractors, hedge funds, etc.

And that kind of system is precisely the one favored by the GOP. And those that vote the GOP into power (i. e. right wing voters) are merely coaxed into doing so because GOP pols say the buzzwords that appeal to their childish bigotries and juvenille understanding of the world.

That's why any sensible individuals would always :lamo at any one of these right wingers (or conservatives) who claim to know something about limited government; in reality, they're just kids who know nothing and merely parrot the mindless talking points they see on FauxNews.

Excuse me, but India's economy is not and has never been like those found in first-world nations. Why? Because they have never had high effective taxes, strong regulation of all sectors of the economy, or a significant safety net.

In other words, your comparison fails.

That said, those traits are not a guarantee of first-world status - I never said they were. I am only pointing out the strong correlation. Yes, I know that correlation does not in and of itself prove causation...but correlation can certainly be a strong indicator, and the correlations are certainly strongly significant here.

As I keep asking, if having higher taxes, strong regulation, and a significant social safety net is a sure-fire recipe for economic doom as conservatives seem to believe, why hasn't it happened to any of the first-world socialized democracies (like America) that have had such systems for fifty years or more? And why haven't the nations with low effective taxes, weak regulation of the business sector, and little or no social safety net become first-world nations?

If you can't answer that, don't be surprised - I've been asking the same question of conservatives here and elsewhere for several years now, and none have been able to answer it. Not. a. single. one.