How Our Government Makes Us Poorer

[Jack Hays]

Here is why big government makes most people poorer.

A hulking government

Progressives and economic growth.

By George F. Will Opinion writer December 5

Intellectually undemanding progressives, excited by the likes of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — advocate of the downtrodden and the Export-Import Bank — have at last noticed something obvious: Big government, which has become gargantuan in response to progressives’ promptings, serves the strong. It is responsive to factions sufficiently sophisticated and moneyed to understand and manipulate its complexity.


Hence Democrats, the principal creators of this complexity, receive more than 70 percent of lawyers’ political contributions. Yet progressives, refusing to see this defect — big government captured by big interests — as systemic, want to make government an ever more muscular engine of regulation and redistribution. Were progressives serious about what used to preoccupy America’s left — entrenched elites, crony capitalism and other impediments to upward mobility — they would study “The New Class Conflict,” by Joel Kotkin, a lifelong Democrat.


The American majority that believes life will be worse for the next few decades — more than double the number who believe things will be better — senses that 95 percent of income gains from 2009-2012 went to the wealthiest 1 percent. This, Kotkin believes, reflects the “growing alliance between the ultra-wealthy and the instruments of state power.” In 2012, Barack Obama carried eight of America’s 10 wealthiest counties. . . .

 

[ocean515]

Here is why big government makes most people poorer.

A hulking government

Progressives and economic growth.

By George F. Will Opinion writer December 5

Intellectually undemanding progressives, excited by the likes of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — advocate of the downtrodden and the Export-Import Bank — have at last noticed something obvious: Big government, which has become gargantuan in response to progressives’ promptings, serves the strong. It is responsive to factions sufficiently sophisticated and moneyed to understand and manipulate its complexity.


Hence Democrats, the principal creators of this complexity, receive more than 70 percent of lawyers’ political contributions. Yet progressives, refusing to see this defect — big government captured by big interests — as systemic, want to make government an ever more muscular engine of regulation and redistribution. Were progressives serious about what used to preoccupy America’s left — entrenched elites, crony capitalism and other impediments to upward mobility — they would study “The New Class Conflict,” by Joel Kotkin, a lifelong Democrat.


The American majority that believes life will be worse for the next few decades — more than double the number who believe things will be better — senses that 95 percent of income gains from 2009-2012 went to the wealthiest 1 percent. This, Kotkin believes, reflects the “growing alliance between the ultra-wealthy and the instruments of state power.” In 2012, Barack Obama carried eight of America’s 10 wealthiest counties. . . .

With ample evidence of economic harm from Progressive dominated big government states (i.e. California, Illinois, etc.), Will's opening three words strike the appropriate cord - "Intellectually undemanding Progressives".

 

[Bob N]

Hence Democrats, the principal creators of this complexity, receive more than 70 percent of lawyers’ political contributions. Yet progressives, refusing to see this defect — big government captured by big interests — as systemic, want to make government an ever more muscular engine of regulation and redistribution. Were progressives serious about what used to preoccupy America’s left — entrenched elites, crony capitalism and other impediments to upward mobility — they would study “The New Class Conflict,” by Joel Kotkin, a lifelong Democrat.

I'll see your lawyer-thing and raise your wager, Jack. Take note Just look and see what a Republican gets to buy with their $$. :coffeepap

 

[Jack Hays]

I'll see your lawyer-thing and raise your wager, Jack. Take note Just look and see what a Republican gets to buy with their $$. :coffeepap

So what?

 

[Joe Steel]

George Will has outdone himself. Usually he's a few sentences into his babbling before he proves himself a complete idiot. This time he's done it in the first three words. "Intellectually undemanding progressives?" Seriously, George? Conservatism is another way to say low-effort thinking. Anyone who calls himself a conservative has no basis for judging anyone's intellectual ability, especially those who have proven themselves time and again to be intellectually superior.

 

[Master PO]

George Will has outdone himself. Usually he's a few sentences into his babbling before he proves himself a complete idiot. This time he's done it in the first three words. "Intellectually undemanding progressives?" Seriously, George? Conservatism is another way to say low-effort thinking. Anyone who calls himself a conservative has no basis for judging anyone's intellectual ability, especially those who have proven themselves time and again to be intellectually superior.

who would that be?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Here is why big government makes most people poorer.

A hulking government

Progressives and economic growth.

By George F. Will Opinion writer December 5

Intellectually undemanding progressives, excited by the likes of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — advocate of the downtrodden and the Export-Import Bank — have at last noticed something obvious: Big government, which has become gargantuan in response to progressives’ promptings, serves the strong. It is responsive to factions sufficiently sophisticated and moneyed to understand and manipulate its complexity.


Hence Democrats, the principal creators of this complexity, receive more than 70 percent of lawyers’ political contributions. Yet progressives, refusing to see this defect — big government captured by big interests — as systemic, want to make government an ever more muscular engine of regulation and redistribution. Were progressives serious about what used to preoccupy America’s left — entrenched elites, crony capitalism and other impediments to upward mobility — they would study “The New Class Conflict,” by Joel Kotkin, a lifelong Democrat.


The American majority that believes life will be worse for the next few decades — more than double the number who believe things will be better — senses that 95 percent of income gains from 2009-2012 went to the wealthiest 1 percent. This, Kotkin believes, reflects the “growing alliance between the ultra-wealthy and the instruments of state power.” In 2012, Barack Obama carried eight of America’s 10 wealthiest counties. . . .

OK, and the party of limited government is, who again?

Oh, right. It's Republicans when they aren't in power.

 

[Jack Hays]

OK, and the party of limited government is, who again?

Oh, right. It's Republicans when they aren't in power.

I don't see advocacy of the Repubs anywhere in this column. The point is that Dems have constructed the state to benefit their powerful constituents. And that's bad for the rest of us.

 

[Amadeus]

Something broke along the way that made Americans poorer. I can't put my finger on when, exactly.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I don't see advocacy of the Repubs anywhere in this column. The point is that Dems have constructed the state to benefit their powerful constituents. And that's bad for the rest of us.

Yes, the Democrats are in the pockets of the moneyed interests, just as the "opposing" party, which isn't so different. What we have is not a Republican vs Democrat political system, but an oligarchy in which it really doesn't matter which party is in power.

 

[Dittohead not!]

From the political cartoons thread:

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, the Democrats are in the pockets of the moneyed interests, just as the "opposing" party, which isn't so different. What we have is not a Republican vs Democrat political system, but an oligarchy in which it really doesn't matter which party is in power.

Except that one party favors redistribution and the other favors growth as the solution.

 

[Bob N]

So what?

Republicans receive 717% and Democrats receive 580.8% as the grand totals in spending of what I showed you and you write "So what?" :roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

Republicans receive 717% and Democrats receive 580.8% as the grand totals in spending of what I showed you and you write "So what?" :roll:

And all that is just free political speech that has zero to do with the point of Will's column.

 

[pbrauer]

Here is why big government makes most people poorer.

A hulking government

Progressives and economic growth.

By George F. Will Opinion writer December 5

Intellectually undemanding progressives, excited by the likes of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — advocate of the downtrodden and the Export-Import Bank — have at last noticed something obvious: Big government, which has become gargantuan in response to progressives’ promptings, serves the strong. It is responsive to factions sufficiently sophisticated and moneyed to understand and manipulate its complexity.


Hence Democrats, the principal creators of this complexity, receive more than 70 percent of lawyers’ political contributions. Yet progressives, refusing to see this defect — big government captured by big interests — as systemic, want to make government an ever more muscular engine of regulation and redistribution. Were progressives serious about what used to preoccupy America’s left — entrenched elites, crony capitalism and other impediments to upward mobility — they would study “The New Class Conflict,” by Joel Kotkin, a lifelong Democrat.


The American majority that believes life will be worse for the next few decades — more than double the number who believe things will be better — senses that 95 percent of income gains from 2009-2012 went to the wealthiest 1 percent. This, Kotkin believes, reflects the “growing alliance between the ultra-wealthy and the instruments of state power.” In 2012, Barack Obama carried eight of America’s 10 wealthiest counties. . . .

The deep recession that started under President Bush made people a whole lot poorer.

President Obama is not a progressive, if he was he wouldn't have pushed for PPACA, he would have pushed for a single payer system.

As for bigger government, it was George Bush who pushed for and Medicare "D" which is paid for by income taxes.

Oh and BTW, George Will is either an idiot or thinks you are one. The 10 wealthiest counties voting for Obama is a non sequitur.:roll:

 

[Master PO]

Here is why big government makes most people poorer.

A hulking government

Progressives and economic growth.

By George F. Will Opinion writer December 5

Intellectually undemanding progressives, excited by the likes of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — advocate of the downtrodden and the Export-Import Bank — have at last noticed something obvious: Big government, which has become gargantuan in response to progressives’ promptings, serves the strong. It is responsive to factions sufficiently sophisticated and moneyed to understand and manipulate its complexity.


Hence Democrats, the principal creators of this complexity, receive more than 70 percent of lawyers’ political contributions. Yet progressives, refusing to see this defect — big government captured by big interests — as systemic, want to make government an ever more muscular engine of regulation and redistribution. Were progressives serious about what used to preoccupy America’s left — entrenched elites, crony capitalism and other impediments to upward mobility — they would study “The New Class Conflict,” by Joel Kotkin, a lifelong Democrat.


The American majority that believes life will be worse for the next few decades — more than double the number who believe things will be better — senses that 95 percent of income gains from 2009-2012 went to the wealthiest 1 percent. This, Kotkin believes, reflects the “growing alliance between the ultra-wealthy and the instruments of state power.” In 2012, Barack Obama carried eight of America’s 10 wealthiest counties. . . .

i will share with you something my late father said to me, back in the 1960's...."the government keeps the people down, to keep them under control"

 

[Dittohead not!]

Except that one party favors redistribution and the other favors growth as the solution.

Actually, both parties favor growth. Growth of government.

Except, of course, for the Republicans when they aren't in power.

 

[Jack Hays]

The deep recession that started under President Bush made people a whole lot poorer.

President Obama is not a progressive, if he was he wouldn't have pushed for PPACA, he would have pushed for a single payer system.

As for bigger government, it was George Bush who pushed for and Medicare "D" which is paid for by income taxes.

Oh and BTW, George Will is either an idiot or thinks you are one. The 10 wealthiest counties voting for Obama is a non sequitur.:roll:

Medicare Part D is the only part of Medicare that lowers health care costs. And if you think the voting records of wealthy counties are a non sequitur then you missed the point of the article.

 

[Jack Hays]

Actually, both parties favor growth. Growth of government.

Except, of course, for the Republicans when they aren't in power.

Don't expect me to defend the Repubs on that score, but the proper response is: So what?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Except that one party favors redistribution and the other favors growth as the solution.

That may be what they say; yet the true test is how they actually govern. Both parties are quite willing to spend far more than they are willing to tax. The federal department of education is a prime example of income redistribution, and definitely not an enumerated federal constitutional power, yet is not opposed by the republicants. Both parties are nearly equally guilty of allowing the federal government to grow and basically to run itself with very little regard to the laws (or constitution) as written.

 

[Bob N]

And all that is just free political speech that has zero to do with the point of Will's column.

So what you and Will are saying in the end is "lawyers are not entitled to freedom of speech?" :shrug:

 

[Jack Hays]

That may be what they say; yet the true test is how they actually govern. Both parties are quite willing to spend far more than they are willing to tax. The federal department of education is a prime example of income redistribution, and definitely not an enumerated federal constitutional power, yet is not opposed by the republicants. Both parties are nearly equally guilty of allowing the federal government to grow and basically to run itself with very little regard to the laws (or constitution) as written.

The only way to test your hypothesis going forward is to put a Repub in the White House.

 

[Jack Hays]

So what you and Will are saying in the end is "lawyers are not entitled to freedom of speech?" :shrug:

No. There is nothing in Will's column that criticizes the lawyers for their contributions.

 

[polgara]

The only way to test your hypothesis going forward is to put a Repub in the White House.

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

??? *GASP* ??? Unthinkable! .... :lamo:

 

[Jack Hays]

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

??? *GASP* ??? Unthinkable! .... :lamo:

Happy Sunday, Polgara.:2wave:

I'm watching the Redskins flail around pointlessly.:roll: