Bob Gorrell for October 21, 2009

“A rich man is nothing but a poor man with money.” -W.C. Fields

Pretty soon most of us might be begging at the government trough.

Government largess, from diapers to diapers.

petergrt & oldlego, b.s. How about an element of fairness? That’s what I want. (I won’t speak for anyone else) Why do you want to continue our upside down system where people who play monopoly on Wall St. are rich beyond imagination and yet create nothing and get tax breaks so they can buy enough congress members to ensure their free ride continues? Why aren’t good teachers paid for the value they give the future of our nation? Why do we taxpayers have to pay Halliburton exorbitant contracts so they can fail at even the simple tasks like properly grounding showers so our troops don’t get electrocuted? Why do taxpayers have to pay exorbitant contracts to defense contractors so they can get exemptions from criminal laws so female employees can be gang-raped by their male coworkers and told to shut up about it. (Must have aksed for it, right? why else would they go to Iraq and Afghanistan?) Ever watch “Iraq for Sale?”

This b.s. about wanting a nanny state is just that — b.s. You may want our current and future generations to continue being indentured servants to the ruling class with money and influence but I don’t.

I’ll climb off the soap box, but stop the cr@p and at least offer legitimate reasons for what you support.

neocon, you must be happy after reading posts like the ones above.

“How about an element of fairness?”

Karl Marks wrote all about ‘fairness’!!!

In capitalism fairness is defined by free market - a balancing act between the supply and demand.

it’s not a free market and you know it peter, when the Fed Reserve fuels easy money by artificially lowering interest rates to encourage ever more bad debt leveraging which would not be possible in an efficient/undistorted free market. It’s not a free market when the Fed take actions that create fractional banking on steroids with access to money printed and released by fiat.

it’s not a free market when the US government grants NO-BID, cost-plus contracts to the Vice President’s former employer and buddies (and in which he still held an interest) and its slew of subsidiaries.

It’s not a free market when the Feds policy of removing regulations to prevent fraud and oversee its printed money on steroids has to be bailed out by taxpayers and debts handed down to future generations.

it’s not a free market when Wall St. gambles and leverages itself into bankruptcy with other people’s money and is not held accountable.

Free market, bull. We have a government for the wealthy and influential, by the wealthy and influential and of the wealthy and influential.

And you want a bigger government still?

did I SAY I wanted a bigger government?

You have been harping about government getting into the health-care business in a bigger way, you have been defending the 787 B ‘stimulus’ boondoggle, and on and on.

What do you think that is? Smaller government?

I don’t know about BCS, but I don’t care much about catch-words like “big government” or “small government”. I want a government that works and that improves the standards of living for everyone, or at least the majority of society (myself included). If that means more government initiatives, fine. If it means less regulation and less red tape, fine as well (you can definitely have too much regulation). Government is a means to an end, no more and not less.

Peter, the free market (as defined by a market with no external intervention or regulation apart from protection against fraud or crime) has little to do with fairness. If you work as hard and give as much as the other guy, it’s only fair that you get the same in return. Well, that doesn’t quite work in reality if you are a dogcatcher and the other guy is a financial consultant, and the free market is fine with that :) . It doesn’t care if you devoted half your life to a company, if you were honest or crooked (as long as you were not caught in the latter), and imo it doesn’t really care much whose fault it was when something goes downhill. It might be a lot of things, but fair - not necessarily.

“I want a government that works and that improves the standards of living for everyone, or at least the majority of society (myself included).”

That is a good description of Socialism / welfare state / statism, and I might add, fundamentally un-American.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

What!?! BCS IS CORRECT ON FAIRNESS

Pretty fair toon you ask me.

I don’t want socalism, peter, nor a nanny state. I’m not giving a complete definition of fairness here, but we have many many laws and regulations and exemptions from laws and regulations which favor the wealthy and influential. That’s neither fair nor free market. And I already gave you several examples.

Some documentaries to watch: Iraq for Sale Money-Driven Medicine The Warning

Fairness is a really problematic term, particularly outside of judicial system, where some form of relative quid-pro-quo standards have been established. As in, a life is worth $xxxx-much, or x many years in a slammer.

What I admire about the American ideals is that it strives to level the playing field, so as to offer equal opportunities, rather than equal results.

That said, it is not perfect, but by comparison, there simply is no like place on the planet. And I say this from the perspective of someone who spends 50% of time in Europe, and I have been / done business at virtually every industrialized corner of the globe.

Take a look at the backgrounds of our presidents or high level executives at our largest companies. Many, if not most, have come from humble beginnings.

I realize that leftists will immediately focus on Bush. It takes a little more constructive thought to see the forest behind a bush, though.

your sark went right over my head, Howie. Watch those documentaries yet?

But the US playing field is not at all level. If you wanted a level playing field then you would have to have a better primary, secondary and tertiary public education, and universal healthcare.

“That is a good description of Socialism / welfare state / statism, and I might add, fundamentally un-American.”

First, it is not a description of statism. Statism’s main principle is that the state should play a major role in economy, period. My idea is that the state should play a role only as much as that may improve the general state of affairs. State intervention should be a mean to an end used when necessary, not and end of itself.

As for unamerican, nothing I said in any way conflicted the passage you quoted, even if we assume it is the essence of “American-ness”. A government that governs in such a way that it improves the wellbeing of the people is in no way contradicting the concept of their equality, or their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“A government that governs in such a way that it improves the wellbeing of the people is in no way contradicting the concept of their equality, or their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

It is almost a textbook Nietzsche, and based upon your other posts, you must be a fan.

“Statism’s main principle is that the state should play a major role in economy, period.”

At what point would you say that state plays a major role in the economy?

US government (federal, state and local) is spending upwards of 40% of GDP, and climbing, and spending wealth that the economy is not likely to produce for decades.

petergrt, what percentage of that 40% of GDP is the military? And what do you think of that?

“2009 GDP = $14.370 T”

“Gates is recommending a $534 billion defense budget for fiscal year 2010 as part of the $3.4 trillion federal budget plan approved by Congress on Wednesday.”

3.72%, double that for war efforts = 7.4% of GDP

Actually, Peter, where are you getting the entire 40% bit? From what I’ve seen, tax revenue (from all agencies) in the US are less than 30% of the GDP.

However, it is not just taxes. Statism, as I understand it, implies the state having direct control over (some) major players in important fields. It would be like, say, major arms producers, construction companies, banks, and big players in other fields being state-owned (not just subsidized, owned). Not because this way they provide better service, but because the state needs to be able to control those sectors. That, imo, is a fundamental part of statism, and one with which I do not agree.

BTW, my philosophical education was unfortunately rather sketchy. I have read some of Nietzsche’s aphorisms, and like some of them, but that is pretty much it. To be quite honest, I have not read enough of his philosophy to express an opinion on it.

I looked it up on Polifact, and with current spiking most expect it to approach 40%. Currently more like 33-35%.

Thanks motivemagus.

4uk4ata:

Lets dispense with semantics. It really doesn’t matter what you or I want to call the government’s ‘participation’ in the economy.

More importantly, one needs to understand that government does not produce wealth / capital. It consumes the wealth / capital.

@ Peter: Certainly. A government is an administrative organ. It provides administrative services.