NY Times Left Winger Says United States Is Like Pakistan & The Congo

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Funny that you make that statement in a one liner.

Funnier yet that I almost pointed that out in yet another one of those.

You want me to post a few paragraphs of why or how Rob doesn't debate ? I mean like ####### ?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You want me to post a few paragraphs of why or how Rob doesn't debate ? I mean like ####### ?

And there we go with yet another one liner.

Seriously, #######?

[The Dude 206]

You want me to post a few paragraphs of why or how Rob doesn't debate ? I mean like ####### ?

It's not that I won't debate, it's that I won't waste my time on a couple of derps like you or DJ herp

[Ban Hammer 12,830]

And there we go with yet another one liner.

Seriously, #######?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The problem is that you have it beaten into your head that the government can take care of your health, your welfare, etc. and that nothing else can.

I don't think anyone thinks this, we prefer doctors and nurses. Effectively some people want one large giant community insurance plan that is controlled like a utility, or people want the monopoly of insurance providers, and the medical field to be broken (see my post about medical schools in the other health thread).

It's a falsehood. The problem with our system as with so many things, is that government is too involved and restricts business, restricts growth in certain areas, and creates monopolies in areas where there should not be monopolies.

The above statement is a paradox. Government regulation is the only way to break up a monopoly. You cannot call for the reduction of monopolies and an end to business restriction. They are in direct conflict with one another.

Why is this? With every government regulation and/or tax, comes a cost to business. If you're a small business, it becomes increasingly hard for your to A) Start and B) Maintain. It all depends on your industry of course as some are more regulated than others. This doesn't effect big business/publicly traded companies, because they have the revenue stream to eat the costs or pass them off elsewhere because of their size.

As previously stated some government regulation can protect small businesses from larger ones. Clearly this is not balanced at the moment, however it could be so with the right leaders. However small businesses do not have the capital to pay for lobbyists, and the only way to be elected in the USA is to ####### yourself out to a few major corporations.

You have to stop and ask yourself, why do we need large-scale social programs? Why do so many people have to be on welfare/public healthcare assistance. If government were out of the way, if government didn't impede growth and the market system, then we'd see a much smaller scale of assistance needed only for those who are incapable or taking care of themselves.

How would the market system address the elderly, the handicapped, the maimed? Keep in mind that we are an industrialized nation where children are not always born in a high ratio to parents.

When able bodied people are living off of the taxpayers/government assistance, the problem isn't the private sector or the tax rates, the problem is the government. It always has been and always will be.

I'd blame the able bodied person who is scamming the government personally. Clearly, there should be more screening for people who fake disability etc. (clearly this is a problem)

Edited June 7, 2011 by Sousuke

[Zero Sum 305]

One of the central tenets of capitalism is for a capitalist enterprise to seek growth through monopolization of available capital sources. It seems Paul didn't think about that when he decided to defend a market that does precisely what he is criticizing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Paul, the author explains his point rather better than you do.

[The Dude 206]

Paul, the author explains his point rather better than you do.

I've tried, numerous times to tell Paul that his little blathering commentaries that he loves to post above articles do nothing but detract from the point of the article. When the focus is on Paul's ignorance and not the topic contained in the article, he does a disservice to whatever cause he is supporting. It's like David Duke showing up to support your cause.