Obama Drowning Business in a Sea of Red Tape

The Tacit Counter-Revolution: Why Conservatives Would Kill the USA

This whole thread is a propaganda farce, courtesy our neighborhood shill.

There are three important aspects to consider:

(1) This is another case of "Now More Than Ever".

(2) This is a diversion from what is really going on in the business community.

(3) This is just an attempt to cover for the Republican intention to destroy the United States of America.​

To consider that in each part:

(1) Now More Than Ever​

In May, Ezra Klein considered the Republican jobs agenda, describing it to the one as "old ideas, fancy new clip art", and to the other as what economist, presidential advisor, and foot-in-mouth survivor Lawrence Summers describes as "Now More Than Everism".

“Here’s how it works,” [MIT economist David] Autor wrote in an e-mail. “1. You have a set of policies that you favor at all times and under all circumstances, e.g., cut taxes, remove regulations, drill-baby-drill, etc. 2. You see a problem that needs fixing (e.g., the economy stinks). 3. You say, ‘We need to enact my favored policies now more than ever.’ I believe that every item in the GOP list that you sent derives from this three-step procedure.

“That’s not to say that there are no reasonable ideas on this list. But there is certainly no original thinking here directed at addressing the employment problem. Or, to put it differently, is there any set of economic circumstances under which the GOP would not actually want to enact every item on this agenda? If the answer is no, then this is clearly now-more-than-everism” ....​

So we ask ourselves a simple question: When is regulation not the problem, according to the GOP?

That is, on what occasions does the Republican Party actually oppose regulatory reductions?

(2) What's Really Going On​

Let us recall for a moment the long complaint of the GOP against unions. And even worse than unions, according to conservatives, are unions representing public employees. Government, say Republicans, is too big. We need to cut government spending, eliminate government jobs.

Keep that in mind as you consider the image below:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Killing the Recovery: In case anyone was wondering where the jobs are.​

To say it is an "open secret" that American private enterprise is sitting on, quite literally, trillions of dollars in cash reserves, but not hiring, is inappropriate. There is no secret about it. The point has worked its way into the political discourse recently, but only because it must. A year after cartoonist John Darkow made the point, it is only in more liberal quarters that the issue is receiving any serious consideration. While Republicans might argue about red tape and regulation, those of more liberal inclination are looking at questions of supply and demand.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Strengthening Communities: Remember that private business makes your community stronger.
(John Darkow, August 21, 2010; via Cagle)​

And here we need to look at two kinds of demand. First, the demand for products, which simply isn't there. While private enterprise might be sitting on trillions in cash, what reason have they to hire if nobody is buying? Second, though, is a more complex consideration of demand, the demand for jobs. From the workers' standpoint, the demand is obvious. Regardless of whether we use the common unemployment number, or decide that since a Democrat is in office, we ought to use a "real" unemployment number, it's a miserable number.

Workers need work. But as the EPI graph above reminds, demand is actually suffering as conservative economic policies force public employees into unemployment.

This is something to remember the next time a conservative asks, "Where are the jobs, Mr. President?" Because the answer is, "In the gutter, Mr. Conservative, right where you put them."

A more complicated idea of demand, though, is the private sector's need for employees. With profits so high, what need have these companies for additional employees? That is, if they can achieve such profits and profit margins without adding workers to their rolls, why would they hire additional workers?

Many major players in the private sector—indeed, many with enough influence to set the tone—have no demand for more workers. They have no need to hire in large numbers.

Thus it comes down to cajoling and, perhaps, open bribery. The private sector now finds itself in a position in which they might prove a few things about their long-running rhetoric. Private industry creates jobs, stabilizes and improves communities, brings all sorts of public benefit. Instead of proving that point, they're asking for more handouts. Cut the regulations, or else they won't hire. Lower taxes, or else they won't hire. Businessmen to their very souls, the leading voices of the private sector refuse to be held to the altruistic rhetoric by which they justify their machinations.

What is really going on is that the right wing and its private sector allies are strangling the economy, hoping to win a ransom from the government.

(3) Republicans Destroying the Nation​

We are in the midst of a Galtian revolution. Even those business leaders not inclined toward such an endeavor find themselves largely committed to it by necessity.

At some level, for many of the non-identifying revolutionaries, it is an accident. So much of the economy is psychological that any number of factors affect their outlooks. The racism of the Tea Party is actually a relatively minor influence in this, but cannot be overlooked since it includes "Kenyan anti-colonialism", which dovetails nicely with the constant denunciations of President Obama's socialism, communism, and Naziism.

For the accidental revolutionaries, it is simply a matter of a worrying climate. That President Obama has conceded virtually every major policy initiative to business interests—abandoning the public option, signing a weakened financial services reform bill, withdrawing Elizabeth Warren, extending tax cuts, negotiating a ransom for the debt ceiling, &c.—doesn't make much difference to a businessman who reads the headlines and ledes, but not the details; to a businessman who reads from the Wall Street Journal and Investor's Business Daily. The average voter does not explore the issues in depth; the average voter includes the average businessman. If you attend CNBC every day, you hear news specifically tailored to the business world, and this serves its purpose outside politics. But what is the context of that business-tailored news compared to anything else? What a CNBC talking head, or WSJ columnist, might call bad news for business could, in the end, otherwise be good news for people. If everybody you know and trust tells you it's going to rain, you pack your umbrella.

But the deliberate revolutionaries are playing for tremendous stakes. Each bone thrown to them by congressional Democrats and the president just emboldens their demands.

The Wisconsin fight was as clear a signal as could be. With the Koch brothers backing Republican candidates, and the Fitzgerald brothers running the state legislature, the Walker administration sought to address a projected $137m hole in the budget by taking it out of public employees, and simultaneously handing $117m in tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy.

And yet, in looking back to the EPI graph, we see the fallacy of such an approach. While the tax breaks were allegedly to spur job growth, the strangling of the public sector has the effect of reducing demand, with the result that the private sector has fewer reasons to hire.

What the Galtian revolution aims for is nothing less than a return to feudalism. A business climate is only truly friendly and inviting when workers owe their thanks, devotion, and allegiance to the owners for whatever generosity the latest pittance offers. It is the private sector's expectation that the workers owe the companies, not the other way around.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Art of Repetition: Doesn't matter if it's true; conservatives keep whining until people believe.
(Barry Deutsch, September 4, 2009)​

Only when workers are stripped of their rights, wages and benefits plunge, and the standard of living for the working class tumbles into serfdom, will the conservatives be happy. This is an age-old fight for them. It is the key to understanding the Communist assertion that, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

This isn't just about the wealth of the wealthy. It is about proportions. That is, it is not enough that the wealthy be wealthy; they must achieve some abstract comparative wealth. If you have a dollar to their million, they are a million times more wealthy than you. But if you have a thousand dollars to their million, they are only a thousand times more wealthy than you. If you have a hundred thousand to their million, they are still wealthy, but you have become dangerous; they are not wealthy enough in comparison to you.

And that is what this is about.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

(Marx and Engels)​

The wealthy interests will not stop until they have returned the working classes to their "rightful" place: slave, plebian, serf, journeyman—oppressed.

And that is what this Galtian revolution is about. It is a tacit counter-revolution. Nothing moves forward until the would-be masters of society get everything they demand. And they will lie, cheat, and steal to accomplish it.

Indeed, that is what this current discussion is about. Sleight of hand. Look over here, and the conservatives will tell you that the solution is what they always say is the solution. Now, more than ever.

Cut the red tape. Get rid of the excessive regulations. Indeed, as word comes in from across the Pond:

The problem, apparently, is red tape. It's stifling business and preventing growth, because red tape is evil, and you can no more argue in favour of red tape than say, "I don't wish to contribute to the fight against cancer as I think we should have more of it".

For example, Tory MEP Julie Girling wrote yesterday that red tape is preventing businesses from making agency staff work more than 48 hours a week, which "costs companies £2bn a year". And maybe it does, in the same way that red tape insisting businesses pay their staff five pounds an hour costs companies five pounds an hour, or red tape forbidding slavery costs business £450bn a year and has led to the demise of Britain's pyramid industry. It's no wonder we're in a recession.

There's no explanation as to how the figure of £2bn is arrived at. But as with the deficit, an assortment of statistics like that are thrown around, such as "The red tape in the building industry alone comes to more words than they had in the whole of the 19th century", or "If Jay-Z was to rap the regulations restricting small businesses it would take him to the year 4583" ....

.... One of the main areas singled out as a red tape burden is the world of health and safety. Because what sort of world have we come to where employers are obliged to be healthy and safe? No one would ever have built the Roman Empire if they'd had to worry about repetitive strain injury to galley slaves or the possible stress caused by being a gladiator.

Almost every mention of red tape, it seems, refers to a law. I could just as easily argue that red tape is costing me £200 a week by preventing me from robbing £200 a week from pensioners. The rioters could claim that red tape insisting windows mustn't be smashed without prior permission from the window-holder and demanding trainers have to be paid for at a visit to the trainer shop is costing them billions of pounds a year, so the time has come for deregulation of the looting industry. A group of senior arsonists could write a letter to The Times complaining that every time one of them burns something down, they're forced to pay a fine to comply with red tape, and this has caused some of the finest pyromaniacs in the country to move abroad.

It appears the definition of red tape is laws that businesses don't like, because if the poor are forced to fill in more forms than ever that doesn't seem to annoy the government quite as much.

(Steel)​

In the end, it is a simple question: What is the economy to you?

Is it a collective tool that can be used to improve the quality of life within human societies, i.e., economics? Or is it a pseudo-deity you exist to worship and serve, i.e., The Economy?

That is the real fight that conservatives are after. This bawling about red tape is just a red herring.

And it is time people recognized the willful advocates for what they are: Aspiring slavemasters willing to destroy the United States of America in order to get what they want.
____________________

Notes:

Klein, Ezra. "GOP jobs plan: Old ideas, fancy new clip art". The Washington Post. May 26, 2011. WashingtonPost.com. September 5, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...y-new-clip-art/2011/05/26/AG3XZKCH_story.html

Karimian, Arin. "Employment during the economic recovery". Economic Policy Institute. July 6, 2011. EPI.org. September 5, 2011. http://www.epi.org/publication/employment_during_the_recovery/

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. 1848. Marxists.org. September 5, 2011. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

Steel, Mark. "When in doubt, blame red tape". The Independent. August 31, 2011. Independent.co.uk. September 5, 2011. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...eel-when-in-doubt-blame-red-tape-2346345.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, keep that in mind when you notice that the begin dates are somewhat cherrypicked and there are different scales on the Y axis for Public vs Private jobs, which gives a totally misleading impression of the relative change (the right Y axis for the Public makes the line about 4 times as steep as the same decline for the Private).

And why start in June of 09????

Start in Jan of 09, not June of 09 and use the same Y axis scales for both and you will see a nearly identical slopes for both sectors and that employment for BOTH sectors has dropped, and that the change in the Private sector is down ~2 Million jobs from Jan 09 and that is about 4 times as much as the Public sector, down about ~500 k jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No Arthur, the only one cherry picking around here is you. There is nothing even remotely misleading regarding the chart Tiassa published. Just because you don't like the truth, it does not mean there is any cherry picking going on.

I have noticed over the years that you and others like you (Republicans/Tea Partiers) like to dump your trash and that of George II and his merry band of Repbulicans on President Obama.

Ask yourself this, when did President Obama take office? I will give you a hint, it was January 19, 2009. Now do you understand why it would be unfair to attribute January 2009 data to President Obama? Just exactly what policies or actions of President Obama did that month to cause the January 2009 unemployment numbers? Not a damn one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And if you knew anything about employment numbers, you would know that they are very slow to react to changes in the economy - about six months behind. That is why you use the June 2009 numbers Arthur. It takes time to hire people and fire people. It does not happen overnight although it may appear that way to employees such as yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is just silly. You might as well point out that the Republicans wear pants or breath oxygen. Guess what? So do the Democrats.

Of course, it's not surprising that those on the left and those on the right tend to propose the same remedies regardless of what the problem is. It is perfectly consistent with their respective world views. The right views government as a necessary evil and the left views it as the solution to almost every problem. When a problem pops up, we all see the solution in the context of our general worldview.

This is just an attempt to cover for the Republican intention to destroy the United States of America.​

You are the mirror image of a guy I was camping with this weekend. It was a school trip and many of the parents I met on the trip make me look like you. This particular guy was explaining that Obama was intentionally destroying the country as revenge for colonialism and slavery and viewed all US citizens as acceptable losses in that endeavor.

The kids returned from their spelunking and interrupted the conversation before anyone got the chance to question him further on this theory. Nevertheless, his viewpoint was no less paranoid and lacking in insight than yours.

And when is over-regulation ever the problem according to the left?

.
For once, I hope you're right!.

.
Any money spent by the government is first removed from the private sector, after first being filtered thru the federal bureaucracy to ensure minimal efficiency. Decreasing the number of government employees might temporarily decrease demand, but once those workers get jobs in the private sector it's a net gain.

We seek nothing more or less than economic freedom.

."Always a good idea to bring communism into the argument when we're discussing Obama.

Working classes? Fuck that. We are not a nation of competing classes or an entrenched aristocracy. We are free men, individuals, able to rise or fall on our own merits.

The economy isn't a God, but neither is it a tool. It's you. It's me. It's a general term used to describe the sum of all the economic interactions of the American people as they go about their lives and pursue their dreams. .

What is the difference between a slave and a free man? A slave has no choice. He is forced at the point of a gun to do his master's bidding. Might I remind you that it is you, not I, that advocates the use of force rather than free choice as the determining factor in economic interactions.

I and any advocates of a "Galtian Revolution" advocate nothing more or less than economic freedom. How you can call that slavery while advocating the actual slavery that is communism is an amazing act of projection.

 

That's a nice story you tole there pardner. Too bad it ain't true.

 

Remind me again ... why do we take conservatives seriously? Oh, right. Courtesy.

Yes, well ... that was certainly a response.

What else should we expect you to say, sir? After all, it is the GOP's preferred policies, the ones we need now more than ever, that got us into this mess in the first place. Heaven protect those ideas from ever being judged on the merits of their results.

I mean, you could be more predictable, I suppose. Like if you threw in a straw man for good measure.

You know, kind of like that.

You need to tilt that windmill, don't you?

The solution is to create a society in which poverty will be impossible. No matter what else you try to staple on, that is the core. That is the basic stake. A world without poor people is a world in which the masters are that much more equal to the slaves, and that is what the right wing deplores most.

You fight to keep poverty a necessity.

Yes, and I've made the joke before that Obama's penchant for accommodating the right wing was the evidence of his closet Marxism.

However, there is a prima facie argument to be made here:

(1) Reduction in government employment is generally according to conservative demands in difficult economic times.

(2) Those job losses are offsetting demand increases, and stunting the private sector recovery.

(3) Conservatives are attempting to win political points complaining about the general lack of economic recovery.​

Just remember those points when you hear a Republican asking, "Where are the jobs?"

You never were very good with subtlety. I mean, really, for most the difference between fantasy and fact isn't that difficult to figure.

I think, given the plethora of possible answers on that, we should probably wait for you to establish that you are capable of recognizing responsibly functional definitions of proper and excessive regulation.

And then you go and demonstrate my point.

Thank you.

Now here is where I face a moral question: Is he stupid, I must ask myself, or simply dishonest?

Because, frankly, I find your response worthy of contempt. Your "answer", as such, simply ignores the parts of the issue that are inconvenient.

You have just repeated a basic theory that is not presently in effect. Or, rather, at best the answer to a completely different question.

And here we need to look at two kinds of demand. First, the demand for products, which simply isn't there. While private enterprise might be sitting on trillions in cash, what reason have they to hire if nobody is buying? Second, though, is a more complex consideration of demand, the demand for jobs. From the workers' standpoint, the demand is obvious ....

.... A more complicated idea of demand, though, is the private sector's need for employees. With profits so high, what need have these companies for additional employees? That is, if they can achieve such profits and profit margins without adding workers to their rolls, why would they hire additional workers?

Many major players in the private sector—indeed, many with enough influence to set the tone—have no demand for more workers. They have no need to hire in large numbers.​

That's what your response ignores.

A meaningless prize. A worthless rhetorical bauble. A vapid phrase.

Well, since the economic freedom you demand requires poverty and exploitation, you seem to have successfully made such issues relevant again.

Uh-huh. It's a nice belief, isn't it? Feels good?

Probably feels a lot better to believe that than reality.

That sounds so pretty. And it does a good job of separating people from the economy from the consequences.

If you're going to be so openly dishonest, why bother? Remember that the unions and regulations you so loathe came about because the capitalists were abusive, exploitative, immoral scourges on humanity.

The economic freedom you want is a return to child labor and the sweatshop.

You have to remember that when people complain that public unions give workers unfair advantages over their private sector counterparts, they are complaining that it is unfair for public sector workers to be paid fair wage and benefit, to be guaranteed reasonable and safe working conditions: "Oh my God! Public workers are paid fairly, and not taken advantage of! That's not fair!"

What would you use the coercive force of government for? Would you not break a strike line? I mean, you realize what you've exposed yourself to by trying to introduce the question of force.

As near as anyone can tell, the economic freedom you prescribe returns us to the days of owing one's soul to the company store.

And it is quite desperate, I think, for you to try to turn the question on communism when, in fact, you are scrambling to avoid actually dealing with facts.

Face it, you're caught out on this one. Conservatives have been running their ruses into the ground of late, pushing way beyond the breaking point. This line about red tape just doesn't work anymore.

Conservative economic policies and aggressive capitalism got us into this one.

Conservative economic and governance policies are stifling our recovery.

Conservatives are complaining about the slow pace of recovery, essentially trying to capitalize on their own clusterdiddle while trying to duck the blame and politically posturing in such a way that they appear to have every reason to want unemployment to stay high.

Just because the way in which conservative behavior is described sounds fantastic and incredible does not mean it is impossible. Take a look at the facts sometime, sir. I know they're a lot less gratifying than fantasies, but if you want to be taken seriously, you need to start dealing with facts at some point.

 

Except June isn't the beginning of our Fiscal year (it starts in Oct), so a more reasonable starting point is the beginning of Obama's term in office.

Agreed, and that's why I said if you start in Jan 09 and use the same scale for both for the Y axis then you will see a nearly identical slopes for both sectors,

but that's not at all the visual one gets from that chart now is it?

Arthur

 

Really

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicydefinitions/g/Fiscal_Year.htm

 

Absurd. Who is in favor of poverty? I know you love to turn those to your right into caricatures, but this is too much. I take no pleasure in seeing people in poverty. However, if you really want to eliminate it you should be a capitalist. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. Is there any need to cite communism's record in that regard?

Also, the discovery of some cheap , clean, near inexhaustible energy source would help. As would the elimination of kleptocratic tyrannical governments.

Not to mention the fact that we've come a long way towards eliminating poverty already. By any objective measure, the "poor" in the United States are better off than most humans that have ever lived.

The average person defined as poor owns his own car, has air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a washer, a dryer, a microwave, 2 color TV's, cable, a VCR or DVD player and a stereo. Furthermore, far from being malnourished, they typically are overweight. They also mostly have access to healthcare and their homes are generally larger than the living quarters of the average (note, not the poor) person in Europe.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america​

Can we do better? Of course. But to do so requires economic growth and scientific advances.

.
Most of the world is following an austerity policy in response to the recent economic crisis these days. Obama is making the US the rare exception.

A common question for you to pose, which suggests that you lack the ability to truly empathize with and/or understand those who disagree with you. To you, your adversaries are always either dishonest or stupid.

.
So, they should hire workers even though they don't need them? Is that your suggestion? The proverbial Keysian workers digging and filling up holes, perhaps? Producing more with fewer workers is how we increase productivity, and increasing productivity is how we increase our standard of living.

.
If you value freedom so little, well, I guess that explains a lot about your way of thinking.

.
It requires no such thing. Again, care to compare notes regarding nations run under your preferred system of government? You want to see poverty? You want to see people living like animals and ground under the heel of an oppressive government? You know where to look. Some members of my family are suffering under such a regime to this very day. Thank God my grandfather got out before the communists took over and turned the nation into a prison.

..
Well, thanks.

.
You are making the mistake of comparing conditions then with conditions now, when you should compare them with what came before. For most of human history everyone worked. So child labor was not invented by evil robber barons. It was just the normal thing to do. To this day our children get the entire summer off because their labor was once required for farming.

It was only the capitalist industrial revolution that made us wealthy enough to see child labor as a bad thing.

Yes, fair pay. Like the lifeguards earning $200k a year? I understand that that's California and they're nuts out there, but it doesn't make sense for public servants to make more than the tax payers who pay the taxes that pay their salaries.

.
What would I use the coercive force of government for? Enforcing contracts that both parties have previously agreed to. Enforcing the law. Protecting the shores.

.
Then start your own company. Create your own job. Of course, when we have a government so overgrown and coercive that it spends it's time shutting down children's Lemonade stands, that can be difficult. Which takes us back to the OP. Can you at least admit that the government Shutting down a four year old's Lemonade stand is Over Regulation? Especially when it is happening In multiple locations all over the country? What is this country coming to when the government feels it needs to stamp it's boot on four year old entrepreneurs? Perhaps we should have shut down Bill Gates for operating a business from his garage?

.You're the one who brought communism into this discussion.

If you are speaking of the specific problems which led to this crisis, fine. They should be dealt with. But by no means is this economic downturn proof that capitalism itself isn't still the best economic system yet devised any more than all the previous downturns were. The economy is cyclical. We all know that. All of nature is cyclical, why should humans and our activities be any different. When times are good, people get a bit over exuberant and end up making bad investments. This leads inevitably to a bust. When things finally get sorted out, the economy gets humming again until bad investments start piling up and then comes another bust.

Right. Once (I hope and pray) Obama is out of office and we return to sensible economic policies we will see an economic boom.*

*You can quote me on that. At this point in the presidency of whatever Republican succeeds Obama the economy will be much improved by any measure you choose to use and the deficit will be decreased to a fraction of what it is now.

 

Oh no you would never admit to being in favor of poverty. But you do advocate policies that make the super rich even more wealthy and the middle class with less money in their pockets.

Ah, and here is the straw man. This is not an arguement of capitalism versus so socialism or communism or any other kind of "ism". No one here is saying capitalism in wrong or bad. That is you creating another straw man.

What is at issue here is doing what is right for this nation versus continuing the path set forth by Republican congresses past and present or to choose a new path. A path similar to that which we have traveled in the past; a path that led the nation to its perriod of unprecedented prospertity or do we go back to the days of the industrial revolution which is what people like your self are arguing?

Back to the crazy language again, "kleptocratic tyrannical government".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As has been pointed out to you many times, taxes are the lowest they have been in more than 60 years.

Two, we do have a cheap, clean and nearly inexhaustible energy source. We just don't use it - one of the problems with a government of and for the special interests (Republican/Tea Party).

The same could be said of almost humans. It is the result of technology.

Back to using discredited partisan sources I see.

What happened to capitalism? But you are right we do need economic growth. And we start by breaking up some of the excessive wealth build up. We have a wealth clot in this country - too much accumulation of wealth and not enough spending. Government needs to get the wealth moving again. So people and industries can be competitive and capitalism can do what it does best.
.

No, most of the world did do exactly what Obama and the Democrats did. Europe is not "most of the world". And if you want to use Europe as an example, then you have not been paying attention to the news or world markets. Europe is in deep doo doo. The US economy is growing much faster than that of economies in Europe. And American banks are more stable and better capitalized than their European counterparts. One of the fears that has been driving markets down is the fear over European debt contagin. Their economies are not growing but their debt is.

Increasing demand is what needs to bone. If you do that by digging holes and filling them back up so be it. But that is not what is being advocated. That is you creating another straw man. What is being advocated is to invest in the nation as we did after WW II - remember the Eisenhower Interstate System? Eisenhower by the way was a Republican. There are plenty of opportunities for investment in the US and there is no good reason for not improving our infrastructure.
.

Yeah, a bunch of Republican fantasies. No one here is advocating for big government. That is you creating another straw man. What is being argued is a case for effective and efficient government. It is not a game of all or none. It is a game of what works and what does not. The problem with your argeuments is we have been there and done that and it does not work.

Yeah, I must have missed that boom. We saw what Republican/Tea Party policies did to this country and the nation when they had control of all branches of our government for the first several years of this decade; out of control government spending, fiscal irresponsibility, wars, special interests run amuck, etc. Yeah, I have had enough of that garbage.

Yeah we have seen what the people you vote for bring to the nation, high unemployment, fiscal irresponsibility, debt, war, etc. No thanks.

 

Perhaps i was a bit unclear there. Tiassa was speaking of making poverty impossible and, in my answer, I was speaking to eliminating poverty worldwide. So I was not describing the US government as kleptocratic and tyrannical, but various third world countries.

 

No you demand the economic aristocracy be able to treat the economic serfs like slaves and than have the audacity to call it economic freedom even though you damn well know( sorry I'm assuming you are in fact an intelligent reasonablely educated adult) the its only freedom for the mega wealthy and gives them the ability to restrict the freedoms and ability of the lower classes. you act as if we are to stupid to see through the rather shallow arguments for it. I have met and talked to other who follow the religion of rand. hell I have met galtians who see nothing wrong with the robber baron era. that what you want to go back to and that is not economic freedom.

 

how could we? righties don't have sensible economic plans. you want sensible you vote for the left. your just like every other rightie selfish and not seeing the big picture.

 

I like seeing businessmen and politicians prepped in suits and ties, because they come ready with a line around their neck, and adorned for burial.

 

What Business Does to America

So did everyone else miss the news? Speaker Boehner acknowledged the Galtian Revolution.

"Job creators in America are essentially on strike."

—Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner
—September 15, 2011​

Remember this the next time you hear a conservative tell you about all the wonderful things private enterprise does for communities: It's a threat.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

New Labor, American Style: Obama is a Democrat, so they've had enough.​

It is also worth noting that the basis for Speaker Boehner's declaration, a complaint about 219 pending regulations, earned three Pinochhios from the Washington Post's Fact Checker.

This is your Galtian Revolution.
____________________

Notes:

Conaway, Laura. "Boehner: Job creators are on strike". The Maddow Blog. September 15, 2011. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. September 17, 2011. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/15/7779615-boehner-job-creators-are-on-strike

Kessler, Glenn. "John Boehner’s misfire on pending federal regulations". The Fact Checker. September 16, 2011. WashingtonPost.com. September 17, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-regulations/2011/09/15/gIQAufuhVK_blog.html