Big Government

[lukin]

How did it come to be that a majority of the citizens from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States have come to rely on big government for survival, rather than taking pride in earning one's money and contributing to society. As soon as a useless program is cut, which is going to be more and more necessary, people are ready to riot. There will be many more violent riots in Europe in the coming days, similar to, if not more violent than the London riots. These riots will make their way to the United States. How did we come to be such a lazy society relying on the government. I guess government wants us to rely on it, isn't that their ultimate goal? That's what Obama wants.

We are returning to the 1930s...only worse.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/09/22/panic/

Edited September 23, 2011 by lukin

[guyser]

I guess if right leaning governments would stop growing government we'd be ok.

[bush_cheney2004]

...These riots will make their way to the United States. How did we come to be such a lazy society relying on the government. I guess government wants us to rely on it, isn't that their ultimate goal? That's what Obama wants.

That doesn't even make any sense...what does "Obama" have to do with riots in the Eurozone or North America? The last big riot was in Vancouver after a hockey game.

[guyser]

That doesn't even make any sense...what does "Obama" have to do with riots in the Eurozone or North America? The last big riot was in Vancouver after a hockey game.

You havent heard? Blame Obama has replaced blame Bush/Halliburton.

[Black Dog]

How did it come to be that a majority of the citizens from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States have come to rely on big government for survival, rather than taking pride in earning one's money and contributing to society. As soon as a useless program is cut, which is going to be more and more necessary, people are ready to riot. There will be many more violent riots in Europe in the coming days, similar to, if not more violent than the London riots. These riots will make their way to the United States. How did we come to be such a lazy society relying on the government. I guess government wants us to rely on it, isn't that their ultimate goal? That's what Obama wants.

We are returning to the 1930s...only worse.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/09/22/panic/

I'm not sure how anyone could look at a financial crisis caused by free market fundamentalism and the rank greed of the capitalist class and conclude that it's the fault of the socialists.

[Shady]

I'm not sure how anyone could look at a financial crisis caused by free market fundamentalism and the rank greed of the capitalist class and conclude that it's the fault of the socialists.

Complete nonsense. Government lowering lending standards and forcing banks to loan money to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify, and can't afford to pay them back, has nothing to do with free markets. It's government manipulation of a free market that was the cause of the problem. Nice try statist.

[mentalfloss]

*sniff sniff*

Smells like ideology in here.

Must be the socialists.

Edited September 23, 2011 by mentalfloss

[Shwa]

How did it come to be that a majority of the citizens from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States have come to rely on big government for survival, rather than taking pride in earning one's money and contributing to society.

Other than huckstering for a blog visit, please demonstrate how "a majority" has depended on government for "survival." Oh wait, I see, another false premise.

[lukin]

That doesn't even make any sense...what does "Obama" have to do with riots in the Eurozone or North America? The last big riot was in Vancouver after a hockey game.

I did not say Obama had anything to do with the Euro riots. The riots in Europe are a result of Big government entitlements. Obama,along with other world leaders, is a "Big Government" supporter who wants more and more people to have to rely on the government for daily living. As soon as the government needs to cut programs, the people revolt, because they are used to big nanny taking care of their every needs. They are not self-reliant...they only survive on government perks and hand-outs. They become violent, destructive when Government has to make much-needed cuts. These riots can easily happen in major US cities very soon.

[Shwa]

As soon as the government needs to cut programs, the people revolt, because they are used to big nanny taking care of their every needs. They are not self-reliant...they only survive on government perks and hand-outs. They become violent, destructive when Government has to make much-needed cuts.

False premise.

These riots can easily happen in major US cities very soon.

Conclusion from a false premise, so no, you're wrong.

[Pliny]

I guess if right leaning governments would stop growing government we'd be ok.

Yep and left leaning governments. Pare it down to the bare bones, I say. Does that sound right wing?

[bush_cheney2004]

.....They are not self-reliant...they only survive on government perks and hand-outs. They become violent, destructive when Government has to make much-needed cuts. These riots can easily happen in major US cities very soon.

Well, let's test your theory with federal health care budget cuts for/to Canadian provinces (1990's). Did riots ensue from the angry Canadian populace? Were cars burned and store windows set ablaze? Nope.

If your calamitous fantasy only applies to Obama and the USA, it is still out to lunch. There were no such riots when welfare reform was implemented 15 years ago by Clinton and the US Congress.

Riots happen in US and Canadian cities for lots of reasons, but budget cuts ain't one of them.

Edited September 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Pliny]

ame='lukin' date='23 September 2011 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1316778523' post='711603']

Other than huckstering for a blog visit, please demonstrate how "a majority" has depended on government for "survival." Oh wait, I see, another false premise.

Teachers, firemen, Unions, Corporations, monopolies, lawyers, accountants, government employees, pensions, doctors, nurses are all either paid or subsidized or owe their existence to government regulation and you see no majority dependent upon government. Perhaps you are only looking at who gets "free" money or services for nothing. The North, Yukon and Nunavut, is almost all subsidized by government.

They will all work as "special interests" to get their "fair share" from government.

[eyeball]

Yep and left leaning governments. Pare it down to the bare bones, I say. Does that sound right wing?

It sounds just as self-defeating as concentrating wealth into as few hands as possible.

[eyeball]

Riots happen in US and Canadian cities for lots of reasons, but budget cuts ain't one of them.

Maybe not yet but according to the experts, budget cuts are the main reasons why austerity and anarchy correlate.

Does fiscal consolidation lead to social unrest? From the end of the Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1930s to anti-government demonstrations in Greece in 2010-11, austerity has tended to go hand in hand with politically motivated violence and social instability. In this paper, we assemble cross-country evidence for the period 1919 to the present, and examine the extent to which societies become unstable after budget cuts. The results show a clear positive correlation between fiscal retrenchment and instability. We test if the relationship simply reflects economic downturns, and conclude that this is not the key factor. We also analyse interactions with various economic and political variables. While autocracies and democracies show a broadly similar responses to budget cuts, countries with more constraints on the executive are less likely to see unrest as a result of austerity measures. Growing media penetration does not lead to a stronger effect of cut-backs on the level of unrest.

[Shwa]

Teachers, firemen, Unions, Corporations, monopolies, lawyers, accountants, government employees, pensions, doctors, nurses are all either paid or subsidized or owe their existence to government regulation and you see no majority dependent upon government. Perhaps you are only looking at who gets "free" money or services for nothing. The North, Yukon and Nunavut, is almost all subsidized by government.

Nope.

And to be precise, the quote was this: "majority of the citizens...Canada ... have come to rely on big government for survival"

Unless you are willing to equate employment and survival, which is absurd.

They will all work as "special interests" to get their "fair share" from government.

Special interests, regulations, dependencies... pfft. MLW is full of abandoned and dead threads on the subject of alternatives and this appears to be headed in that direction, more so since it is premised on something that simply is not true.

[lukin]

ame='lukin' date='23 September 2011 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1316778523' post='711603']

Other than huckstering for a blog visit, please demonstrate how "a majority" has depended on government for "survival." Oh wait, I see, another false premise.

Subsidies, welfare, numerous newly created gov't jobs. A growing number of people are relying more and more on gov't to get by.

In 18 months after the collapse of 2008, around 7 million Americans lost their jobs. However, the number of federal bureaucrats earning 100K or more increased from 14% to 19%. These parasites are paid for by members of the private sector. These gov't parasites can retire at 55 and live with a comfortable pension paid for by members of the private sector.

So in essence, the guy who works for the gov't checking citizens' thermostats can retire at 55, while his neighbour, the private plumber or electrician has to work until 65 or 70, because he doesn't have this wonderful gov't pension. The plumber has to pad his retirement, while his taxes pay for his lazy neighbour who has a great pension because he worked at a useless job created by the Top_Down gov't.

[jacee]

Subsidies, welfare, numerous newly created gov't jobs. A growing number of people are relying more and more on gov't to get by.

In 18 months after the collapse of 2008, around 7 million Americans lost their jobs. However, the number of federal bureaucrats earning 100K or more increased from 14% to 19%. These parasites are paid for by members of the private sector. These gov't parasites can retire at 55 and live with a comfortable pension paid for by members of the private sector.

So in essence, the guy who works for the gov't checking citizens' thermostats can retire at 55, while his neighbour, the private plumber or electrician has to work until 65 or 70, because he doesn't have this wonderful gov't pension. The plumber has to pad his retirement, while his taxes pay for his lazy neighbour who has a great pension because he worked at a useless job created by the Top_Down gov't.

You want a government job?

Get one.

You want to get rich?

Don't get a government job.

[lukin]

You want a government job?

Get one.

You want to get rich?

Don't get a government job.

You are wrong. Many people are rich because of gov't jobs. They have great pensions paid for by the people who don't have gov't jobs. Public employees don't generate true wealth for a country. private sector workers do. They keep the nation going.

[Bonam]

You are wrong. Many people are rich because of gov't jobs. They have great pensions paid for by the people who don't have gov't jobs. Public employees don't generate true wealth for a country. private sector workers do. They keep the nation going.

You can get a good salary and pension, sure, solidly "middle class", often for jobs that might get paid a lot less in the private sector, but you certainly aren't going to get "rich" working a government job.

[Topaz]

You can get a good salary and pension, sure, solidly "middle class", often for jobs that might get paid a lot less in the private sector, but you certainly aren't going to get "rich" working a government job.

[/quote

Oh yes you will IF you are a MP for 5-6 years, stay in longer and get more. Become the PM, Speaker or other higher ups. What other job, other than a CEO of a company, has a better pension plan than a MP. They only pay a $1.00 towards their own pensions, taxpayers pay $4-5.00! What other job can give themselves a increase in pay?

[Bonam]

Oh yes you will IF you are a MP for 5-6 years, stay in longer and get more. Become the PM, Speaker or other higher ups. What other job, other than a CEO of a company, has a better pension plan than a MP. They only pay a $1.00 towards their own pensions, taxpayers pay $4-5.00! What other job can give themselves a increase in pay?

When one talks about "government jobs" I was thinking more of typical government jobs, you know, public service, unions, etc. Guys who make 50-150k a year. A decent-good salary, sure, but by no means rich. MPs are rare, only like 308 in the country, and even that doesn't really make you "rich". As for pensions... the rich don't give a damn about pensions, except not wanting to be taxed to pay for other people's pensions. Why would you care about a pension when you have tens to hundreds of millions in investments that you can live off of indefinitely?

Perhaps we just have different definitions of rich.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Bonam

[waldo]

Subsidies, welfare, numerous newly created gov't jobs. A growing number of people are relying more and more on gov't to get by.

In 18 months after the collapse of 2008, around 7 million Americans lost their jobs. However, the number of federal bureaucrats earning 100K or more increased from 14% to 19%. These parasites are paid for by members of the private sector. These gov't parasites can retire at 55 and live with a comfortable pension paid for by members of the private sector.

more lukinFacts, hey? Since you can't be bothered to actually source your "facts", let me assist. Your numbers/comment (sans parasitic vitriol) reflects upon this USA Today story - Author Dennis Cauchon... which doesn't seem to jive with this Washington Post story - Federal salaries fall behind private sector

but wait, it gets better, much better: it seems the USA Today and in particular that same author Dennis Cauchon has a history, a pattern... one that FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) details quite succinctly: USA Today Targets Government Workers - Campaigning to cut their pay using bogus statistics. say what? Bogus statistics... er, lukinFacts!

[lukin]

Little man, you cite a Washington Post article by Obama lover Ed O'Keefe, of the Obama loving Washington Post. :lol:

WaldoWorld must be quite the place. :lol:

[BubberMiley]

WaldoWorld must be quite the place. :lol:

He pulled your pants down when from talking about the debt so you attack him in this thread?

Edited September 24, 2011 by BubberMiley