Time to consider "Worst Administration Ever"?

[PB the Deplorable]

...   profiteers, who show remarkably little discretion where money is involved, are being payed with MY TAX DOLLARS to gather information that can be bought and sold for whatever purpose.  That's the real rub, and it started long before Obama organized his first community.

I'm with you on this.  It's unbelievable to me that especially the financial institutions think the information regarding our transactions with and through them are theirs to sell.  When did we decide that was ok?  And not just the banks, but everyone else - certainly Google and the various web pages we visit.

I'm 'not even convinced it's legal.   Has anyone ever filed a criminal complaint?  At the very least it should be that we are required to 'opt in', rather than being made to go through the hassle of 'opting out' on an annual basis.  Most of the time we aren't even given that choice.

All that being said, it's at least possible for government to step in and put an end to it all.  When it's the government doing it, who stops them?

[Juan]

A decade or more ago, the State of Florida began selling drivers license information, including the individual photographs.  Public outrage forced the state legislature to ban that practice, but some wonder if it really stopped.

[Sardondi]

This isn't technically part of the "Worst Administration Ever", but it is consistent with the trend of Americans believing they are being ruled by a grotesquely incompetent and corrupt federal government in which they have little trust. It seems that this Congress has the honor of being that in which Americans have less confidence than any other Congress since Gallup began polling this attitude in 1973. http://blogs.rollcall.com/hawkings/congress-craters-in-poll-question-that-matters-most/

Congratulations, boys and girls, you've made history. Quite appropriate as the Senate stands on the brink of passing an Immigration Bill which is simply another Obamacare, in which no one knows more than a handful of things that are in it. Except that it is unique in the history of modern government in simply making millions of illegal aliens citizens by the stroke of an autopen. There is no other nation on the face of the earth which would do this, because there is no other nation on the face of the earth which hates itself enough to commit suicide.

The Romans at least fought the Ostrogoths. This bill is as if the Roman Senate met Odoacer at the Rhine and handed him the keys to Rome, saying, "Please come utterly destroy us."

[PB the Deplorable]

... the Senate stands on the brink of passing an Immigration Bill which is simply another Obamacare...

The Romans at least fought the Ostrogoths. This bill is as if the Roman Senate met Odoacer at the Rhine and handed him the keys to Rome, saying, "Please come utterly destroy us."

Where do people think the money to pay for all this is going to come from?

All the debt and all the new spending (farm bill, ObamaCare, illegals eligible for more handouts) - at all levels of government - all the new money being printed up = Crisis coming.  And as they say in Chicago - never waste a good crisis.

[PB the Deplorable]

For decades the ploy has been to cut popular and necessary programs - instead of actual waste, or non-essential spending - in order to cynically pass new tax hikes.  How often do they come around for more school money, yet every year or two they come back for still more money to address the same problem because the money raised the last time went somewhere else.  Currently the first thing our near-bankrupt cities cut is police and fire, not paper shufflers down at city hall and other non-essentials.  So they can go for new taxes more easily.

So now we hand over the decision making of what medical tests and procedures we are going to get to a bunch of bureaucrats.  It turns out medical care costs are increasing, as opposed to decreasing like Obama and the Ds told us.  And insurance is going up substantially, despite Obama and the Ds telling us it would go down.  And due to costs, companies are cancelling or cutting back on employee insurance, despite Obama going out of his way to insist that if you already had insurance you liked - you could keep it.  It was all lies, and they knew it at the time.

And it turns out there ARE going to be panels to determine who gets what tests and procedures - including life and death decisions.  Dumb ol' Sarah turned out to be right about the Death Panels, and Obama and the Ds turned out to be lying about them.  Who would have guessed.

So now we find out the worst of the government agencies - the IRS - is going to be heavily involved.  Since the IRS can compel a person to testify against themselves, can demand financial information without a warrant, can take property without due process, etc, etc, it's no wonder they were chosen for this.

We also learn the IRS is being used to punish Obama's friends and punish his enemies, and we learn just how unaccountable they truly are.

And a substantial minority of people are still behind ObamaCare. 

This country is so off track. 

[Sardondi]

...Where do people think the money to pay for all this is going to come from?

"Rich people" will pay. Who are "the rich"? It's not the actual most wealthy Americans who, as crony capitalists, have become the financial mainstay of the Democrat Party. The idea that the GOP is the party of business is long gone. With free enterprise dead and replaced by government regulation of every aspect of business, it becomes much more important to be in bed with the pat in the White House. "Business" is now in bed with Obama as more and more huge corporations realize they can accomplish much more with the government crushing their competitors than in the old days when they had to actually compete.

What the Dems call "the rich" has little to do with wealth, and all to do with race, party affiliation and envy. Because for the Dems "the rich" is code for non-Democrat white people who have more than you do.

[NowhereInTime]

"Rich people" will pay. Who are "the rich"? It's not the actual most wealthy Americans who, as crony capitalists, have become the financial mainstay of the Democrat Party. The idea that the GOP is the party of business is long gone. With free enterprise dead and replaced by government regulation of every aspect of business, it becomes much more important to be in bed with the pat in the White House. "Business" is now in bed with Obama as more and more huge corporations realize they can accomplish much more with the government crushing their competitors than in the old days when they had to actually compete.

What the Dems call "the rich" has little to do with wealth, and all to do with race, party affiliation and envy. Because for the Dems "the rich" is code for non-Democrat white people who have more than you do.

You know, Sardondi, you are one of the smartest people I've ever read in any forum, anywhere.  Your posts on so many other threads in this forum alone are insightful and astute. Without trying to be a jerk about this, I have to say this is the most disconnected post I have ever seen.  GOP no linger party of business?  As of when?  Crony capitalists the mainstay of the "Democrat" Party?  Let me see, George Soros and...
This economy generates of $17 trillion annually but somehow we can't squeeze out a few sheckels for a few programs to help a hell of a lot of people? 
You are right on one point.  "The Rich" is code for non-Democratic whites.  This is because that's exactly who they tend to be. And we've had the run of the country, of this planet for several hundred years.  Now that other races and the feminine gender are catching up, we're blaming "government" for taking away our primacy, when really our greed and "self-interest" in excluding everyone from our fun times is starting to catch up to us.

[MV/Liberace!]

Because for the Dems "the rich" is code for non-Democrat white people who have more than you do.

they do appreciate the right type of rich people, don't they. 


i don't remember the exact source, but i recall a study where they added up the net worth of every senator and representative, and the dems waaaaay outpaced the republicans in the personal wealth department.  it seems there's a lot of money in the class envy business.

[onan]

they do appreciate the right type of rich people, don't they. 


i don't remember the exact source, but i recall a study where they added up the net worth of every senator and representative, and the dems waaaaay outpaced the republicans in the personal wealth department.  it seems there's a lot of money in the class envy business.

The top 2 members of congress (6/18/13) both republican are worth over 500 million. Of the top 50 richest congressman, Darrel Issa and Michael McCaul garner more than the democrats in total. Not that means much. But if one has over 10 million, I doubt they have any connection with us common folk.

[MV/Liberace!]

But if one has over 10 million, I doubt they have any connection with us common folk.

you won't get any argument from me.  almost without exception they're all elites, and that's what people need to understand. 

it's just that i think this perception of "republicans for the rich, democrats for the poor" is soooo oversimplified and generally worthless as an axiom.

[PB the Deplorable]

you won't get any argument from me.  almost without exception they're all elites, and that's what people need to understand. 

it's just that i think this perception of "republicans for the rich, democrats for the poor" is soooo oversimplified and generally worthless as an axiom.

To me it's about how they vote, what policies they would implement given the chance, what appointments they'd make or ratify.  It's not about their personalities, how much money they have, what baseball teams they like, whether they are smooth talkers or make the occasional harmless gaff, how much like me they are as far as their non-political life, any of that. 

Are they for a smaller, less intrusive government, or aren't they?  Do they support a foreign policy that benefits the US and the greater good of the world, or don't they?  Do their policies ultimately offer opportunity or long term dependence on handouts?  Do they lead in those direction or are they cowards that back down and go along to get along just to further their own careers when things get tough?  Do their solutions make sense based on my understanding of how human nature works, how the world works?  How do their policy suggestions line up with what been tried before in various scenarios?  Do they tell you where they want to take the country and act accordingly when they get into office, or will they lie and say anything to get elected?  Etc

Even looking at them from that perspective, it's hard to know sometimes.  So consider who their friends are and who their enemies are.  What comes out of their mouth when the mask drops a bit and they speak extemporaneously?



How much money do they have - show me one single Democrat that opposed Ted Kennedy solely because he was filthy rich.  Or Feinstein or Boxer or Pelosi (to name the 3 extremely wealthy influential Ds in the Congress from here in SF).  Or a single Leftist/Occupy type that dislikes Soros because of his money.  Give me one.   The money thing is just the Media trying to find reasons for people to note vote for specific people they don't like - they never make the same argument regarding wealthy candidates and operatives they do like.

[NowhereInTime]

...How much money do they have - show me one single Democrat that opposed Ted Kennedy solely because he was filthy rich.  Or Feinstein or Boxer or Pelosi (to name the 3 extremely wealthy influential Ds in the Congress from here in SF).  Or a single Leftist/Occupy type that dislikes Soros because of his money.  Give me one.   The money thing is just the Media trying to find reasons for people to note vote for specific people they don't like - they never make the same argument regarding wealthy candidates and operatives they do like.

Spot on.  My only contention is that most of these people have used their position to try to help other people (themselves, to be sure, but others, also) where the Darrell Issa's of the world are hell bent to make sure nobody helps anybody who needs a hand up.  I just don't understand that level of misanthropy.  Do we really think this country will thrive if we leave 47% of it behind?

[West of the Rockies]

It does bespeak a curious world view, doesn't it, Nowhere?  I got mine, now get your own.  Look, I'm not against personal wealth.  I wish I had more money than I do!  But for some people, there simply is never enough.  I recall hearing a story on NPR a couple years ago.  They spoke to people with a million dollars.  Almost all of them said they'd be happier if they had two million dollars.  They interviewed people who had ten million dollars.  They all said they'd be happier if they had 20 million.  A hundred-foot yacht?  Well, that's nice, but if I had a 150-footer, then I would be happy.  Oh, you say I can have that 150-footer?  Excellent... I don't suppose you have a 200-footer I could have instead? 

I hope that if I ever would be considered "financially solvent" by Wall Street standards, I don't become a total asshole.

NO, I do not think that people should be life-long welfarers.  I think people should work for what they get.  But there are times when the social safety net is essential.  The Darrell Issa's of the world pay lip-service to such a notion.  And let me try to head off the objections of -- I don't intend to single you out exactly -- Paperboy and the like:  Yeah, I doubt very much that Ted Kennedy gave a steaming crap about "the little guy".  In the same way that draft-evading Rush Limbaugh, Ted Nugent, and Dick Cheney all talk a strong U.S. foreign policy (with no actual skin in the game), you can point to lots of Democrats who are not the big philanthropists they'd have you believe they are.

As has been pointed out by those on the right and on the left in this forum, most politicians are out for themselves and say what must be said to assure their (often under-informed) base will turn out and vote.  Some of them wrap themselves in the flag and play uber-patriot.  Others embrace Redwoods and identify themselves as environmentalists.  Some are photographed praying to their God (Rick Perry?) and claim to be the most pious cat on the block... you get the idea.  I think most of them, ultimately, are corporatists.  They've got their cash and they want more.

Cynical little bugger, aren't I?

[stevesh]

Cynical little bugger, aren't I?

Not cynical enough if you can still say 'most politicians are out for themselves'

[Sardondi]

...I think most of them, ultimately, are corporatists.  They've got their cash and they want more....

My brothah! Let us drink to our solidarity!

[Sardondi]

Incredible. So the IRS sends refund checks...
1) to 24,000 illegal aliens
2) totaling $46 Million
3) at the same address in Atlanta
No problem! Now let's get back to grilling these Tea Partiers about the content of their prayers. A citizenry which sits back and permits this kind of despotism deserves everything that happens to it.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-sent-46378040-refunds-23994-unauthorized-aliens-1-atlanta-address

[PB the Deplorable]

Incredible. So the IRS sends refund checks...
1) to 24,000 illegal aliens
2) totaling $46 Million
3) at the same address in Atlanta
No problem! Now let's get back to grilling these Tea Partiers about the content of their prayers. A citizenry which sits back and permits this kind of despotism deserves everything that happens to it.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-sent-46378040-refunds-23994-unauthorized-aliens-1-atlanta-address

Don't forget the 'greed' of these people that think the government is too big, too powerful, too wasteful, too arrogant, and want to cut it back to a more reasonable level.

[NowhereInTime]

Don't forget the 'greed' of these people that think the government is too big, too powerful, too wasteful, too arrogant, and want to cut it back to a more reasonable level.

Sure, lump in fraud as a defense for your cut throat policies.  This is why we have inspectors general.  This is why we have an FBI.  So use the excuse of criminal behavior as a catch-all reason to slash all social spending.  I hope your bomb shelter has plenty of eFoods direct stocked up because people are not just going to sit around waiting to starve just because you want some sheckels back from the government.

[PB the Deplorable]

... cut throat policies... slash all social spending...

So there is no ground between wasteful/out-of-control spending and slashing all social spending?  We have to pick one of those or the other?

[NowhereInTime]

So there is no ground between wasteful/out-of-control spending and slashing all social spending?  We have to pick one of those or the other?

There's always ground but, really, do you honestly support most or any social spending programs?  And why the assumption that they are wrought with fraud and waste?  Do any conservatives really support any social spending?  From what I see and hear every day it is a challenge to one's conservatism to concede the need for any social spending. 

[PB the Deplorable]

...  And why the assumption that they are wrought with fraud and waste?...

Lol, thanks, you made my day with that.

Ok, seriously - we learned during the campaign that 47% of the households in this country are supported or at least partially supported by the other half.  Assuming that's even close to being true, do you think that's the way it should be?  Sustainable?  Fair?  Not filled with waste and fraud?  How about all the people working for all the agencies doling it out - is that productive use of their time, or could they be doing something else more useful to the overall economy?

Given this level of handouts, would any sane person not argue for cuts?  Everyone has a limited amount of time, a limited chance to get a point across.  The people that look at the current situation and think it's outrageous are not going to spend much time arguing for more.  Who saying we should eliminate everything?

The people in this country are very generous.  We give to charities, we volunteer, we rally whenever there is a disaster either here or abroad.  We allow plenty of legal and illegal immigration.  We send aid to the 3rd world, fund the UN, World Bank, and IMF.  We are (foolishly) trying to 'nation build' in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia.  We created all these programs.  Then the politicians figured out that by expanding them as much as they possibly could - well into the middle class, and even the rich (check the farm bill) - they could buy votes.  With our money.   

So no, we aren't 'greedy'.  Or 'selfish'.   Or want to 'eliminate everything'.  But we are borrowing $1.5 trillion every year of Obama's Presidency, and hundreds of Billions in the years before that, and we can't afford all this anymore.  We are on course to bankrupt the country and ruin the currency.  So the Ds (and some of the entrenched Rs) can get the votes to win elections.  It's enough already.

[NowhereInTime]

 
...Given this level of handouts, would any sane person not argue for cuts?  Everyone has a limited amount of time, a limited chance to get a point across.  The people that look at the current situation and think it's outrageous are not going to spend much time arguing for more.  Who saying we should eliminate everything?...

Let's assume these 47% are solely people (which they're not, but just to say) on the dole you resent so much.  Wouldn't a sane person argue that the best way to get them into productive roles would be through aggressive spending that creates actual work?  Couldn't we employ a massive group of people to fix our roadways and bridges?  What about building high speed rail?  What about restoring the intercoastal waterway?  Why not invest in training some people how to build micro processor boards or in computer aided drafting? 
Europe (the bane of conservative existence) tried austerity and it has failed.  The EU and the IMF are calling for a rollback of our (sequester inspired) cuts because the real way to get the "burden" off your back PB is to get people to work and not into the street.

[PB the Deplorable]

Let's assume these 47% are solely people (which they're not, but just to say) on the dole you resent so much.  Wouldn't a sane person argue that the best way to get them into productive roles would be through aggressive spending that creates actual work?  Couldn't we employ a massive group of people to fix our roadways and bridges?  What about building high speed rail?  What about restoring the intercoastal waterway?  Why not invest in training some people how to build micro processor boards or in computer aided drafting? 
Europe (the bane of conservative existence) tried austerity and it has failed.  The EU and the IMF are calling for a rollback of our (sequester inspired) cuts because the real way to get the "burden" off your back PB is to get people to work and not into the street.

I think you mean Europe tried Socialism and failed.  As far as those new projects, we don't have the money.  And we can no longer do massive projects - environmental reports, decades of lawsuits, a new wasteful bureaucracy that comes with it and drains funds away, stretching things out so it's as expensive as possible, everything has to be done at prevailing wage, on and on.


By the way I don't resent those people, I resent the politicians and bureaucrats that have sucked them in and addicted them to the handouts.  These people are miserable and will never reach their potentials as long as they are stuck on this track.  And stuck they are.   It all started off well meaning but wrong headed, decades later it's turned into a vote buying operation.  Everyone else sees that, a general corruption descends on society, and more and more people decide to rip the system off any way they can in large ways and small - everything from fraudulent use of handicap parking placards to BS disability claims to Wall Street banksters.


As far as jobs and training, I think you are onto something.  First let's agree there is plenty of opportunity in this country for those that take advantage of free education K-12, and by working, getting assistance, grants, scholarships, and loans anyone can go to college.  There are plenty of job training centers.  Anyone can easily start a small business without a lot of red tape - it's not like that in other places.  It's all a matter of a willingness to do it.  People have to have some ambition and motivation.

As for working for their benefits, great idea, put the word out, let's do it.  When I was in HS and college I picked fruit in the summer.  I made good money for a kid.  I worked at Pizza Hut.  All this stuff about 'jobs Americans won't do' is crap.  Instead of handouts, these are the jobs these people should be taking.  Not only do entry level jobs lead to better jobs, they serve as an example of why people should take school seriously.  They aren't meant to be careers, just short time employment for kids and for people looking to get back on their feet.  We don't need foreigners taking these jobs, we have an idle workforce collecting govt checks while staying home, watching TV, and bitching about 'the rich'.

After all that is done, we can talk about who truly needs assistance.

[Sardondi]

Let's assume these 47% are solely people (which they're not, but just to say) on the dole you resent so much.  Wouldn't a sane person argue that the best way to get them into productive roles would be through aggressive spending that creates actual work?...

Nowhere, this statement is an excellent example of why you might think that P-B or myself will never be willing to accommodate our views to yours. Because that statement reveals that you have such a diametrically opposed concept of such very basic understanding of "where jobs come from" and how they are "made". You assume that "aggressive spending" (presumably by government) "creates actual work".

My view, and I assume P-B's, is that nothing could be further from the truth. Real jobs are created not by government spending but by men and women who are allowed to respond to market forces. They see what goods and services people want; they assess which of those goods or services they can provide; and once they decide what business they're going into, they create and sell those goods or services. Ultimately that is done by paying people to provide the goods or services they have identified as being needed by (optimally) persons the businessman/woman has made clients. This is what a job is.

You on the other hand presume Big Brother somehow creates jobs, as if all that is needed is to legislate a Jobs Program, where government agrees to pay tax money to people to do what is usually some kind of glorified busy work, without taking into account what the market is saying people really want and needs the most.

[Yorkshire pud]

My view, and I assume P-B's, is that nothing could be further from the truth. Real jobs are created not by government spending but by men and women who are allowed to respond to market forces. They see what goods and services people want; they assess which of those goods or services they can provide; and once they decide what business they're going into, they create and sell those goods or services. Ultimately that is done by paying people to provide the goods or services they have identified as being needed by (optimally) persons the businessman/woman has made clients. This is what a job is.

To a point I would agree; Please let me explain.


As you may or may not know, one of the legacy's that two of the former Prime ministers of the UK, Thatcher and Major was the privatisation of utilities (water, gas, electricity) and our railways, airports and other hitherto state owned companies and infrastructure. Using tax payers money huge and expensive advertising campaigns took place, inviting the British tax payer to buy shares in said companies. The way it was sold was that it would enable the tax payer to hold a stake in their country's utilities and infrastructure...


Let's think about that: The tax payer owns the companies, and is invited to buy shares in what they already own. Soo those who had disposable income and were inclined, registered an interest. A very well paid retained accountancy firm over saw all the sales, and decided the share prices on their release. Those who registered were allocated shares which they elected to buy or not.. Naturally the condition was that they had to hold the shares for a given time period..The market settled and private companies were set up, boards were appointed and the companies 'competed' on the open market.


So several separate gas, electric and water companies went on the market. The reality was prices went up, (we were promised the new 'market' would ensure they'd be a lot less) and we had and have essentially  private monopolies. The reality of course is they now were working for the share holders, not the customer. That is business law. The directors have to work in the best interests of the shareholders.


The railways went the same way but the kicker with that, was as it became after WW2; British Railways, it had next to no investment made in it. The rolling stock was in many ways decades old, the infrastructure the same. Poorly maintained stations and platforms made it look like it was..sick. The privatisation theory was private investment (keep that in mind) would give the UK the railway it deserves.


Not exactly. The thing is with railways is that the trains cannot change direction unless the rails take them there, and a duplicate set of rails won't suddenly be built because another company wishes to use it. So the UK is essentially split up, with various franchises using a particular part of the rail network (now privately owned).. Such investment costs lots of long term motivation (such as a very long franchise term in decades) OR...motivation by subsidy from the government... Go on...guess which it is?


Consequently all the private companies who now answer to their shareholders (and whose board f directors draw vast salaries and bonuses) have more money spent on them from the grateful tax payer since privatisation than BR did from the end of the war till the start of the carve up.


Shareholders are a fickle bunch; perfectly understandable...S they do what all shareholders do, wait for the market to go up and sell...get a return...


Guess how many water companies are now UK owned?  Zero..Electricity? You got it... Even British Gas is a front name for Centrica, that's American.  Surely the railways will be patriotic? 2/3rds are foreign owned: The irony? At least two are owned by German or French railway companies..which are state owned!! Building German or French rolling stock in German and French factories to run on British railway lines, paid for by.....The British tax payer!!!


But the kicker (and this is hilarious)..Of the franchises that run, one failed, several times under different owners..But because it's a vital part of the network, the government bought it back; and makes a profit now. So it's putting money back into the economy. Meanwhile all the others are leaching it out, because their shareholders come first, and fares go up and up and up...Most expensive rails fairs in Europe.


This expense is passed on to everyone of course. So when a locomotive at one end of the country that is unmovable because of breakdown needs to go to the workshop it's cheaper to put it on the back of a low loader and take it by road than tow it on the tracks it was designed to traverse on! Yep...Network rail who own the tracks charge a lot of money to use the rails.

I'm still waiting for my share of the original sell off of my share of the UK that was sold without my permission.


So..private ownership isn't Latin for 'The best move' every time.

[NowhereInTime]

...Because that statement reveals that you have such a diametrically opposed concept of such very basic understanding of "where jobs come from" and how they are "made". You assume that "aggressive spending" (presumably by government) "creates actual work".

My view, and I assume P-B's, is that nothing could be further from the truth. Real jobs are created not by government spending but by men and women who are allowed to respond to market forces. They see what goods and services people want; they assess which of those goods or services they can provide; and once they decide what business they're going into, they create and sell those goods or services. Ultimately that is done by paying people to provide the goods or services they have identified as being needed by (optimally) persons the businessman/woman has made clients. This is what a job is.

You on the other hand presume Big Brother somehow creates jobs, as if all that is needed is to legislate a Jobs Program, where government agrees to pay tax money to people to do what is usually some kind of glorified busy work, without taking into account what the market is saying people really want and needs the most.

If I had the time or inclination I would cite to you the various transportation projects people are clamoring for (like Metro North Train line extension to East Stamford) here in CT.  I would cite to you the number of bridges and tunnels receiving danger grades from engineering reviews.  I would cite to you the number of bridge collapses and damaged tracks from around the country.
How you believe that repairing the millions of miles of roads in this nation, the thousands of miles of new track to meet demand (did you know in October two years ago Wal-Mart leased nearly all of the cargo train capacity out of the Ports of New Orleans & Miami to the Northeast?  We couldn't get Corona except by truck from the West.  Expensive.) is "glorified busy work" confounds me?  Here in CT some of the work is done by our DOT but much of is hired out to contractors from the region.  Taxpayers get stronger bridges (google the "Q River Bridge") and hard working people provide for their families.
Finally, with due respect, I have hired (and fired) hundreds throughout my career.  I have managed a store from $3.9 million in sales 3 years ago to $4.7 this past year.  We are on track to do over $5 million this year.  I have worked in retail for 20 years, mostly in management.  I work with the consuming public every day and am grateful for it. I know what its like to work very long hours, nights, weekends, and holidays and to receive meager compensation (compared to, say, a prosecutor).  Please do not presume to tell me what a job is or how it is created.

[onan]

I don't pretend to have the knowledge base on the issues of economics, capitalism, or for that matter which political side is better for the welfare of every citizen.


But I do have a modicum of perspective. Here is what I have seen: with the privatization of hospitals, salaries for a majority of hospital staff have stagnated. Staffing numbers have decreased and patient care has suffered. All nursing staff has an attrition rate of less than 10 years. All of that is connected to private companies and their management placing profit over everything else.


Calling work done by state employees a government handout is good propaganda but it has been ruinous for every state in the nation. There are many jobs that are better handled by management not interested in profits. Public utilities should never be owned by a few instead of all.


I know the answers are difficult but it is irrational to think one way works for all things. Especially when we see how  corporations give little to no concern to the safety and welfare of those employed.


Time Warner a few years ago made a net profit of several (I think 40) million dollars. What did they do? They told middle management they needed to make more the next year and instructed a reduction of staff. Several hundred in the Raleigh area alone lost their jobs. Is the company better? I don't know. I do know that several hundred others are not.


Like it or not capitalism in this country is broken and it is more broken than those 47% that somehow are less than.

[Juan]

Capitalism is, indeed, broken.  Far too much corporatism has taken its place.

I'd ask, and I don't know the answer - did those hospitals in Raleigh actually make more profit?  Or did they have additional expenses they had to cover and that's the reason for the reduction in staffing? 

As for corporations having no concern for safety and welfare, I think workers comp is partly to blame for that.  Workers comp was supposed to be a deal in which the employee gave up his right to sue the company for negligence in return for guaranteed fast medical care.  Companies have worked over the state legislatures to reduce claims while arguing there is a lot of fraud.  The companies say they want to eliminate Workers comp - I say let them do so.  Open up worker injuries to personal injury suits (including punitive damages) and see how quickly the insurance companies force corporations to adopt tough safety standards.  As famed Georgia lawyer Hank O'Neill once said, "Give me a good damage suit and I'll show you consumer protection."

Time Warner, at least the cable division, is another example of a corporatist monopoly.  Why do city governments restrict who can provide cable service?

[Sardondi]

Capitalism is, indeed, broken.  Far too much corporatism has taken its place....

Boom. When corporations make business decisions based on government regulations and whether the company can get a waiver of a particularly onerous program; or if they can get funding handed out at the sole option of the President of the United States or his representative, there is something badly, badly broken in a system that made this country economically strong and independent. It astounds me that we now have a government which treats money not as a symbol which is representative of the nation's wealth, but as magic pieces of paper that automatically become wealth merely because they are printed. This government, and its supporters, believe that if we want to have more money, we simply print more. There are actually Obamaite economists and finance figures who have literally said this - all we need to do is to print more money and we'll just print ourselves out of the deficit and every financial difficulty.

Words fail me. The reckoning for this kind of insanity will be terrible. I am so afraid for my children and grandchildren. I really see their future as something out of The Road. I selfishly hope I die before it all goes to shit, as I am absolutely certain it will unless we have massive, sweeping changes in our country; changes which will completely obliterate the leftist Obama philosophy from the face of our nation.

But I have so little confidence this will occur. Number 1 because we have become so lazy, soft and expectant of government to handle it for us. Number 2 because our media is completely invested in socialism and the leftist ideology, and will do everything in its power to see that our collapse in that direction continues. Number 3, because I fear it's already too late, even if the whole nation wanted to change from the disastrous path we're on.

We're done for. The only question is who will own us.

[PB the Deplorable]

...  Why do city governments restrict who can provide cable service?

That was the deal in the early days of cable - a cable co would spend the money and take the time to wire the whole town in exchange for the monopoly.  It was supposed to be done by competitive bid, and for a certain period of years.

The cities all get a 'franchise fee' (tax) collected by the cable company from each cable subscriber.  It's part of the agreement the city has with he cable co.

Now days I think many or maybe most of the original agreements have expired, but the cities like having to deal with just one provider.  One company to deal with and make sure they are collecting the Franchise Fee.  One company to jump through their hoops and do whatever they tell them to do.  So they still put the cable monopoly out to bid every few years when the old agreement expires.

It's the same with the garbage companies (if they are outsourced and not a department of the city).  The cities want one company to deal with and collect the Franchise Fee for that.  That's why they have the various cans for various waste, run recycling centers, turn food waste into compost, etc - it's all part of the deal they have with the city. 

Not that there is anything wrong with any of this.




There is a place for government to do certain jobs - roads, bridges, public safety, court system, etc.  There is a place for strong regulation of natural monopolies - trains, utilities, etc.  There is a place for regulation of other industries for things such as pollution, food safety, fairness in  hiring or lending, etc.  As a wealthy nation with well meaning people, we make sure everyone has access to things like at least HS education, a certain level of medical care, a safety net.   There is nothing wrong with cities insisting we recycle more and waste less through their contract with the garbage company. 

But much is best left to the free trade system and individual initiative.  Too much govt interference in the economy distorts supply and demand - by affecting prices (which send producers and consumers important signals) and  wages (a type of price - the price of labor), too high or the wrong type of taxes slows economic output and increases unemployment, too much borrowing weakens the currency and destroys savings.  These laws are as solid as the laws of physics, if not as precise and not as well understood.

Crony Capitalism is just another name for Fascism and it's gotten way out of hand - the rats in corporate America and in politics should be flushed out.  So when and by who?