Obama: selfishness is not a virtue

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

You saying your demagoguery has more than one dimension?

He uses good populist rhetoric, but poor economic ideology. As I was riding this morning, I was contemplating his clever but misguided rhetoric.

What is misguided is to devise an economic system not focused upon economics but social engineering.

It is populist rhetoric to argue, "I'm going to tax the other guys." But the fault of socialist economics is the compression of economic performance. It doesn't raise the overall economic status but compresses the separation in the strati, making us all worse off, and the better off not just as well off.

Obama's not investing in children, he's investing in votes. Whereas an economic plan which embraces volatility has the chance to make it better for everybody. Unfortunately it can also have down cycles. That's when the public screams, "Do something, anything!" And the obamas of the world love to comply.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Tex

Unbelievable. If you don't want to let Obama take your money away and welfare to other people, you're selfish.

I'd be more than happy to donate some money to this guy, though I understand that their are certain selfish people who don't.

[YOhio]

Speaking of selfishness, this lady cracked me up.

[BlueHair]

I am going to "waste" my vote like I do every election and vote Libertarian. However, if I had to choose between spending billions or trillions waging war in foreign lands or using that money for social programs, I choose the social programs. The choice between killing people or feeding people isn't that hard. Either way, taxes will have to go up.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I am going to "waste" my vote like I do every election and vote Libertarian. However, if I had to choose between spending billions or trillions waging war in foreign lands or using that money for social programs, I choose the social programs. The choice between killing people or feeding people isn't that hard. Either way, taxes will have to go up.

And how many people are left worse off through mindless, ill-conceived social programs?

We assume people's lives are made better through poorly managed social programs. How about some empirical proof.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I am going to "waste" my vote like I do every election and vote Libertarian. However, if I had to choose between spending billions or trillions waging war in foreign lands or using that money for social programs, I choose the social programs. The choice between killing people or feeding people isn't that hard. Either way, taxes will have to go up.

If we don't kill our enemies, who will?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And how many people are left worse off through mindless, ill-conceived social programs?

We assume people's lives are made better through poorly managed social programs. How about some empirical proof.

Again, disclaimer, I am a nobody, but one of my clients bought a small rural hospital, which was losing beaucoup bucks, so they allowed it to privatize. After a lot of headaches, and work, they are turning the corner. But one of the slashings was easy, administrative overhead. The government had forty administrators doing the job of what two persons do now. And from my anecdotal experience, this is not unusual.

but unfortunately, there is no talent or motive to cut waste in government spending. None. Any person who endeavored to do so from the inside, would be run out, and anybody doing so from the outside, would not have the insight.

We expect NO accountability from our social programs. Key: look at administrative personnel and budgets.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is populist rhetoric to argue, "I'm going to tax the other guys." But the fault of socialist economics is the compression of economic performance. It doesn't raise the overall economic status but compresses the separation in the strati, making us all worse off, and the better off not just as well off.

First of all, the addage "the rich get richer & the poor get poorer" is proving more true with time. Widening income & wealth disparities are not good for our society, culture and definitely not good for our economy. Pure economic darwinism leads to social instability, increased crime & lowered economic performance, especially as times get tough & the more wealthy still have plenty of cash to flash.

Secondly, it is precisely things like public education, the G.I. Bill, Student Loans, Head Start, unemployment insurance, et al, that have helped the middle & lower middle classes become more affluent, more productive. This helps the entire economy.

An Econ professor once observed, "the market is a cruel, cruel mistress".

Instead of being the gambling, risk-taking skirt chaser, why not settle down, have a nice home & family, help out in the neighborhood, contribute to the common wealth.

Corvettes & mistresses are overrated.

[Indy Coug]

How many of you guys honestly deal with the poor on a daily basis? Seriously?

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And how many people are left worse off through mindless, ill-conceived social programs?

We assume people's lives are made better through poorly managed social programs. How about some empirical proof.

I am opposed to social programs. I am hardcore Libertarian. The point I am trying to make is that is the lesser of two evils. If I had my way, there wouldn't be any government social programs and taxes would be a portion of what they are now. We wouldn't be tangled in all these treaties and we certainly wouldn't have our military spread so thin. However, Americans like to be told what to do and be taken care of. So the two choices we are left with are war or bad social programs.