Socialism’s Greatest Lie: Government Can Give You Everything for Free
leona...@gmail.com
High taxes
Nanny States
Socialism’s Greatest Lie:
Government Can Give You Everything for Free
By Daniel Greenfield Monday, January 4, 2010
Socialism’s greatest lie is that it promises the people something for
nothing, services and programs of all kind that will either be “free”
or more affordable than the free market variety. But just like the ads
promising you a free iPod or a chance to make millions from home while
you yawn, socialism is not something for nothing, instead more often
it’s nothing for something.
The idea that the government will take care of you is appealing,
entire nanny states have been built on that proposition. But the
government can’t take care of you, it can’t even pay its own bills
without you. It can’t run a television station, a toll bridge or even
an off track betting service, or any venture that in private hands
would be profitable, without using taxpayer funds to prop it up.
A legitimate enterprise never needs to fool its customers into
thinking that they will receive something for nothing. It is only the
scammers that need to do that. What a promise of something for nothing
really indicates is a venture that is run by people who are incapable
of hard work, who get by on tricking others out of their hard earned
money. And that in short is what socialism looks like, with its
monolithic bureaucracies where incompetence is the order of the day,
its offices upon offices that never need to produce their results or
show their books, and its embedded corruption that insures the money
never goes where you think it does.
The promise of free health care though is far more devilish than a
free iPod, because it doesn’t simply promise people a gadget, but
promises that the government will keep them alive. And because
government free offers not only tend to cost a lot, but have a way of
being universal and with no opt-out clause available, they’re a scam
in which participation is not optional to individual foolishness, but
mandatory to everyone.
Free or cheap health care of course is appealing, but there is no such
thing as “free” or “cheap” because everything the government does is
paid for twice over. Everything you get from the government you pay
for, either directly through taxes and fees, or indirectly through
rising costs and black market prices. Taxes of course are the most
obvious way in which you wind up paying more for the same services
that the government provides you with.
Taxes are a fool’s credit card, in which he spends and spends without
thinking about the cost, until suddenly the bill comes due, and he
simultaneously agonizes over the cost without connecting it to all the
spending. Those who supported Obama and his proposals, without
realizing their cost while complaining about their taxes are paying
with a fool’s credit card at the ballot box, incapable of even
understanding what the bill means when it comes due.
But politicians are generally smart enough to assure voters that they
won’t be paying for the program directly. No, they assure us, the rich
will pay for it. Big business will pay for it. Or we’ll just borrow
more money instead of raising taxes. If the regular fool’s credit card
is Visa, this indirect form of payment is Washington D.C., Idiot’s
American Express card. Because paying indirectly just adds a few
layers of expenses between the taxpayer and the bill.
Raising taxes on big business and “the rich” is popular, but big
business and the upper income tax bracket will ultimately pass down
the cost to consumers in the form of high prices on goods and
services, in the form of job cuts and outsourcing. Socialism’s trickle
down poverty approach insures that taxing the rich will still tax the
poor and the lower middle class, it will just do so indirectly.
Less available products and jobs don’t come with a tax bill. The tax
is an invisible one in which depressing business, trickles down to the
lower and middle classes who end up with fewer and more expensive
product and service choices and fewer job opportunities. To balance
this out, governments will begin offering tax breaks to businesses,
and since something has to give, taxpayers end up footing the bill for
business tax breaks impelled by business tax hikes. Governments find
this convenient as the route between the government and program and
higher individual taxes has become too indirect for most people to
realize why their taxes are going up, and because this allows
politicians to claim credit for saving jobs and benefiting from the
donations sent their way by business lobbyists.
It would have been cheaper and simpler for individual taxpayers to see
a direct tax hike, instead of the complicated way in which the
government moves around money, while the politicians still benefit
from covering every angle for a problem that they created.
And then of course there’s the loan package. If you don’t want to
raise taxes on anyone, you have to borrow money, which is the
Lunatic’s MasterCard, because while taxes remain the same, the amount
of debt being carried rises, and that debt has to be paid off. So
instead of actually paying for a government service through higher
taxes, the public takes on a huge load of debt, whose rising interest
rates are far more expensive than direct taxation would be. But
politicians don’t care since they can keep passing the fiscal football
until they’re out of office. At which point the next set of
politicians look at the debt figures and their own polls, and keep on
doing the same thing, until the entire public has been reduced to a
sharecropper society, working to pay off a debt to foreign lenders. A
debt that they can never pay off because politicians keep borrowing
more money to cover the cost of a constantly expanding government and
a population that keeps consuming more government services.
But directly or in-directly, in any of these ways, the free or cheap
government program quickly turns out to be mind-blowingly expensive.
And there is a simple reason for that, because while government is
officially non-profit, which seemingly suggests that by cutting out
the profit motive, the government would be able to offer the same
services at lower cost—the joker in the deck is that government
programs are administered much less efficiently than their free market
equivalents.
While free market companies have to be efficient because profit motive
requires cutting expenses, government programs don’t have to be
efficient, they just have to “be”. A corporation has to increase the
value provided to its customers and shareholders to remain
competitive. The best way to do that is by cutting expenses. By
contrast government programs don’t have to increase the value provided
to customers, as they are non-competitive, and while the public may be
government’s unofficial shareholders, the politicians insulated them
from the actual bureaucrats who run the programs. And the bureaucrats
are the “expenses”, which allows them to save themselves from ever
being cut.
And where free market businesses may cut staff first and customers
second, health care unions along the lines of SEIU or the California
Nurses Union insure that staff can never be cut without triggering a
shutdown of all health services. By centralizing health services,
health care unions gain a great deal of power that makes them
effectively unstoppable. Jobs are padded and expanded. Unions win
concessions at the expense of the people the government programs are
provided for. That means teacher’s unions gain, while schoolchildren
lose out. Nursing unions gain, while patients lose out. In the balance
between a union and a customer, the union always wins because it
wields more clout and brings more money to the table. And that means
there is no way to control staff expenses without a prolonged
political battle.
Furthermore government programs are not actually non-profit, they just
appear that way. A common argument made by socialized health care
advocates is that the public should not be spending money on health
care that will be used to fund some CEO’s yacht. But the thing is that
under government health care, the money is still being used to fund
someone’s yacht. It might be the yacht of top health care advisers who
pull down six figure salaries, it might be the yacht of allied non-
profit executives who frequently pull down six and seven figure
salaries, it might the yacht of a health care union bigwig, or finally
it might be the yacht of the CEO of a medical contractor who wins the
chance to provide the government with surgical tubing, at twice the
cost, thanks to some help from his buddy, Senator X or Congressman Y,
whose campaign fund he just happened to donate to. But either way
there way there’s always a yacht. And you’re always paying for it. The
difference is that with the government there are a lot more yachts and
you have no way to opt out of paying for them.
The profit motive in government programs frequently takes the form of
corruption, with no bid contracts and sweetheart deals, jobs for the
sons and daughters of the donors to Senator X and Congressman Y. Sure
the program itself is non-profit, until you look at how much it cost
to build that hospital vs how much it should have cost. It’s non-
profit until you look at that nice house that Company Z helped Senator
X pick up in exchange for his off the record chat with the Chairman of
the Department of Y that insured that Company Z got the contract, and
the taxpayers got screwed.
This is not non-profit, it’s a kleptocracy. And a kleptocracy is for
profit, the profit is just under the table. The more government
expands, the more the kleptocracy grows. Naturally the kleptocracy
just loves the idea of expanding government programs. Why shouldn’t
it? Free market companies make money by selling products to consumers.
The kleptocracy make money by exchanging government contracts for
donations, favors and payoffs. Externally a kleptocracy may look like
it’s booming, but in reality it’s rotten to the core, and nothing is
done well anymore. Doing anything requires knowing a friend of a
friend in the government. Because the only way to do business under a
kleptocracy is to be part of it. Or be its victim.
The result of all this is that government services are actually
fantastically more expensive than their free market counterparts, the
way you pay for them however is often indirect, which makes them seem
cheap or free. But like a credit card whose payments don’t come due
right away, it feels good to spend the money if you don’t realize the
connection between the bill and the money being spent.
Government health care means that you’re actually paying twice for the
same program. Once for the cost of the basic resources that make up
the program, and once for all the government inflation of the actual
cost of the program. The government cannot actually cut the basic
costs of of the resources of the program, which may be the staff, the
supplies, the facilities and the administration of the program.
Government administration is more expensive than its free market
counterparts. Government contractors that provide the supplies and
facilities are invariably much more expensive, because of corruption.
Government staffing tends to be a more expensive and lower quality
operation dominated by unions and bureaucracy.
Since the government cannot reduce the actual base costs of the
resources, and in fact inflates them, the result is a more expensive
government program. What it can do however is hide those costs
directly in your taxes, in indirectly someone else’s taxes or in the
national debt, which will trickle down to you anyway but at a higher
cost. Essentially this makes socialism into a three monte card game,
in which whatever card you pick, you lose. The only question is how
much you lose.
Nothing from the government is ever free. The only question is how
much you lose.
Hiccum Blurpaedius
wrote:
> Liberalism =Socialism = Fascism = Big government = Rigid controls =
> High taxes
It baffles me how the largest socialist oganization, the police
destroy freedom while pointing guns at my head telling me I have to
pay for it.
Exterminate god god dammit
Bob LeChevalier
>Socialism�s greatest lie is that it promises the people something for
I guess that the recent ex-President was a socialist, since he
promised a "free" war against terror, and even gave tax cuts. And
then there is quitter governor Palin, who loved to give government
money to the people in the most socialist of all the states. All
those "free" oil royalties.
>But just like the ads
>promising you a free iPod or a chance to make millions from home while
>you yawn, socialism is not something for nothing, instead more often
>it�s nothing for something.
Good thing no one these days is advocating socialism, other than
perhaps members of the Socialist party.
>The idea that the government will take care of you is appealing,
It made Palin very popular - all those government checks.
>But the government can�t take care of you,
Well, maybe we shouldn't shortchange the VA hospitals with budget
cuts. Taking care of those who were hurt serving their country should
indeed be better taken care of.
And maybe we shouldn't go starting wars without providing the supplies
that the soldiers need to protect themselves while serving their
country.
After fixing a few things like that, then maybe we'll raise veteran's
care up to the level of Medicare. Oh, wait, the government can't take
care of us, you say.
>it can�t even pay its own bills without you.
Of course not. This is the land of "we the people". Our government
is US, so of course our government needs US.
>It can�t run a television station, a toll bridge or even
>an off track betting service, or any venture that in private hands
>would be profitable, without using taxpayer funds to prop it up.
There aren't many private toll bridges that are profitable without
taxpayer funds having been used to reduce the costs to the profit
takers. TV stations wouldn't be profitable, if the government charged
for broadcast spectrum that it owns, the amounts that the private
sector would charge for that spectrum in order to make profits.
>A legitimate enterprise never needs to fool its customers into
>thinking that they will receive something for nothing.
Then why do so many private firms do so?
>It is only the scammers that need to do that.
And they abound in the private market, especially in those markets
that are insufficiently regulated. Witness the derivatives market
last year.
>What a promise of something for nothing
>really indicates is a venture that is run by people who are incapable
>of hard work,
I don't see how that follows.
>who get by on tricking others out of their hard earned money.
Sometimes that IS hard work. Or do you claim that Republican
fundraisers don't work hard to convince people to part with their
hard-earned money?
>And that in short is what socialism looks like,
And the poster's experience with socialism is ...?
>with its monolithic bureaucracies where incompetence is the order of the day,
Wall street bankers are socialists???
>its offices upon offices that never need to produce their results or
>show their books,
That sounds like every privately held corporation in existence.
>and its embedded corruption that insures the money never goes where you think it does.
Good thing that outside of the classified arenas, the government has
completely open books.
>The promise of free health care though is far more devilish than a
>free iPod,
Who has promised free health care?
>because it doesn�t simply promise people a gadget, but
>promises that the government will keep them alive.
When has ANY health care system made that promise?
Heck, the Republicans were claiming (without merit) that earlier
versions of the health care plans had "death panels". Obvious the
Republicans didn't think those health care proposals were socialist,
since they claimed that the plans weren't promising to keep the people
alive.
>And because government free offers not only tend to cost a lot,
What free offers? The government rarely offers things for free.
>but have a way of being universal and with no opt-out clause available,
I don't know of any government program with no opt-out clause. You
can opt out of earning income and thereby be exempt from income taxes.
You can opt out of committing crimes, and thereby never be sent to
prison. No one is obliged to file for and collect government
benefits.
>they�re a scam in which participation is not optional to individual foolishness, but
>mandatory to everyone.
Nope.
>Free or cheap health care of course is appealing,
But no one is promising it.
>but there is no such
>thing as �free� or �cheap� because everything the government does is
>paid for twice over. Everything you get from the government you pay
>for, either directly through taxes and fees, or indirectly through
>rising costs and black market prices.
Yep. That is why we want the government to pay for medical services
directly, rather than waiting for people without insurance to show up
in emergency rooms, thereby requiring the hospitals to find ways to
recoup the costs that are NOT paid by the government.
>Taxes of course are the most
>obvious way in which you wind up paying more for the same services
>that the government provides you with.
Of course you pay taxes. But if the tax system is progressive then
the burden falls more on those who can afford to pay more.
>Taxes are a fool�s credit card, in which he spends and spends without
>thinking about the cost,
No. That is private health insurance paid for by private sector
employers.
>Those who supported Obama and his proposals, without realizing their cost
But of course Obama has always made clear the cost.
>But politicians are generally smart enough to assure voters that they
>won�t be paying for the program directly.
I guess the ones in Washington aren't very smart then.
>Raising taxes on big business and �the rich� is popular, but big
>business and the upper income tax bracket will ultimately pass down
>the cost to consumers in the form of high prices on goods and
>services, in the form of job cuts and outsourcing.
Well, then maybe we should put a tax on job cutting and outsourcing
then, to make that a less economically lucrative option.
>Socialism�s trickle
>down poverty approach insures that taxing the rich will still tax the
>poor and the lower middle class, it will just do so indirectly.
Trickle down economic theory has been demonstrated to be wrong in
reality. That applies to both sides of the equations.
>Less available products and jobs don�t come with a tax bill. The tax
>is an invisible one in which depressing business, trickles down to the
>lower and middle classes who end up with fewer and more expensive
>product and service choices and fewer job opportunities.
Which is why the economy was suffering after Clinton raised taxes, and
in the post-WW II era when the top marginal tax rate was something
like 90%.
>It would have been cheaper and simpler for individual taxpayers to see
>a direct tax hike,
I agree.
>And then of course there�s the loan package. If you don�t want to
>raise taxes on anyone, you have to borrow money, which is the
>Lunatic�s MasterCard, because while taxes remain the same, the amount
>of debt being carried rises, and that debt has to be paid off.
Why didn't you speak up when Reagan, and father and son Bush
collectively built most of the current national debt?
>the joker in the deck is that government
>programs are administered much less efficiently than their free market
>equivalents.
Often claimed, but seldom proven, except of course when the government
privatizes the service delivery, in which case it can't help but be
more expensive and inefficient.
>While free market companies have to be efficient because profit motive
>requires cutting expenses,
Not necessarily.
>A corporation has to increase the
>value provided to its customers and shareholders to remain
>competitive.
Nah. Smoke and mirrors works even better in the unregulated private
market.
[remaining gobbledy gook deleted]
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
None4U
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:f5a5k5lo1i09th4uk...@4ax.com...
> "leona...@gmail.com" <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Socialism's greatest lie is that it promises the people something for
>>nothing, services and programs of all kind that will either be "free"
>
> I guess that the recent ex-President was a socialist, since he
> promised a "free" war against terror, and even gave tax cuts.
He never did any such thing. You said its free , not me or any of theother
80% of middle class Americans who pay for everything. Tax cuts are good.
And
> then there is quitter governor Palin, who loved to give government
> money to the people in the most socialist of all the states. All
> those "free" oil royalties.
Is not Socailist. Its a contract worked out by Palin and the oil
companies to return money to the citizens if the greedy oil companies maker
to much money. The oil companies do NOT have any control or say on how the
citizens spend their hard earned cash. Its not free. Its free enterprise
The money comes from excess PROFITS. The money is already there. The
government and business has no control or say abouty it. It is not
Socialist. Free healthcare is not profitable and does not pay for itself.
Therefore the people get nothing for their 5 years of payments to the
government to spend overseas on wars. Why is it you hate oil and the people
getting money from oil profits . But you want the poor peope to ive5
yars of payments to the government for nothing in return.
>
>>But just like the ads
>>promising you a free iPod or a chance to make millions from home while
>>you yawn, socialism is not something for nothing, instead more often
>>it's nothing for something.
>
> Good thing no one these days is advocating socialism, other than
> perhaps members of the Socialist party.
>
>>The idea that the government will take care of you is appealing,
>
> It made Palin very popular - all those government checks.
There are no government checks. Except tax refunds to those who work. And
welfare checks to those parasites who live off the gubment.
>
>>But the government can't take care of you,
>
> Well, maybe we shouldn't shortchange the VA hospitals with budget
> cuts.
Agreed wholeheartedly.
Taking care of those who were hurt serving their country should
> indeed be better taken care of.
KaChing.
>
> And maybe we shouldn't go starting wars without providing the supplies
> that the soldiers need to protect themselves while serving their
> country.
KaChing.
>
> After fixing a few things like that, then maybe we'll raise veteran's
> care up to the level of Medicare. Oh, wait, the government can't take
> care of us, you say.
KaChing
>
>>it can't even pay its own bills without you.
It cant pay its own bills with us, either.
>
> Of course not. This is the land of "we the people". Our government
> is US, so of course our government needs US.
Ka Ching.
>
>>It can't run a television station, a toll bridge or even
>>an off track betting service, or any venture that in private hands
>>would be profitable, without using taxpayer funds to prop it up.
Ka Ching
>
> There aren't many private toll bridges that are profitable without
> taxpayer funds having been used to reduce the costs to the profit
> takers. TV stations wouldn't be profitable, if the government charged
> for broadcast spectrum that it owns, the amounts that the private
> sector would charge for that spectrum in order to make profits.
>
>>A legitimate enterprise never needs to fool its customers into
>>thinking that they will receive something for nothing.
Ka Ching
>
> Then why do so many private firms do so?
Its advertising. Only idiots and young people believe the lying ads.
>
>>It is only the scammers that need to do that.
>
> And they abound in the private market, especially in those markets
> that are insufficiently regulated. Witness the derivatives market
> last year.
No. the government regulations created this situation.
>
>>What a promise of something for nothing
>>really indicates is a venture that is run by people who are incapable
>>of hard work,
Ka Ching.
>
> I don't see how that follows.
>
>>who get by on tricking others out of their hard earned money.
Ka Ching
>
> Sometimes that IS hard work. Or do you claim that Republican
> fundraisers don't work hard to convince people to part with their
> hard-earned money?
Ka Ching
>
>>And that in short is what socialism looks like,
No it doesnt. Your attempt to confuse is dulely noted. And not
appreciated.
>
> And the poster's experience with socialism is ...?
>
>>with its monolithic bureaucracies where incompetence is the order of the
>>day,
>
> Wall street bankers are socialists???
They are now. As the government has taken over the banking system.
>
>>its offices upon offices that never need to produce their results or
>>show their books,
>
> That sounds like every privately held corporation in existence.
>
>>and its embedded corruption that insures the money never goes where you
>>think it does.
NO , thats the government with its off limits homeland security budget
that took over evry seperate and accountable goveernment and created one
big fat off limits budget that cant be touched.
Its why FEMA didnt and still hasnt rebuilt New Orleans. Because it didnt
actually have any money. And it still doesnt.
>
> Good thing that outside of the classified arenas, the government has
> completely open books.
Everythings classified under the patriot act and homeland security . All
agencies have been put iunder homeland security to keep their budgets off
limits and secret.
>
>>The promise of free health care though is far more devilish than a
>>free iPod,
>
> Who has promised free health care?
The government did. And it aint free.
You are so full of crap. You want the same government that is trying to
kill us through the FDA and EPA to then have the right to deny us care for
issues that they caused themselves. It aint happening.
>
>>Taxes of course are the most
>>obvious way in which you wind up paying more for the same services
>>that the government provides you with.
>
> Of course you pay taxes. But if the tax system is progressive then
> the burden falls more on those who can afford to pay more.
>
No it doesnt . It falls on all the unborn Ameican babies to pay the bill.
You wish to create and not pay for. Its heinous and evil.
>>Taxes are a fool's credit card, in which he spends and spends without
>>thinking about the cost,
The government spends and spends. The American fools are forcee to pay
the bills. Or pass it on to their kids.
>
> No. That is private health insurance paid for by private sector
> employers.
Thats right profits returned to those peope that work for it. Until the
government makes a profit. Thers nothing to pay for healthcare.
>
>>Those who supported Obama and his proposals, without realizing their cost
>
> But of course Obama has always made clear the cost.
No he hasnt. He lies and hides everything.
>
>>But politicians are generally smart enough to assure voters that they
>>won't be paying for the program directly.
>
> I guess the ones in Washington aren't very smart then.
>
>>Raising taxes on big business and "the rich" is popular, but big
>>business and the upper income tax bracket will ultimately pass down
>>the cost to consumers in the form of high prices on goods and
>>services, in the form of job cuts and outsourcing.
Ka CHING.
>
> Well, then maybe we should put a tax on job cutting and outsourcing
> then, to make that a less economically lucrative option.
No maybe we should cut off foreign trade to countries that use slave labor
and refuse to comply with environmental requirements to clean up their act.
And foreign trade only is done on non food, or non security items. And only
the excess capacity we dont use ourselves.
>
>>Socialism's trickle
>>down poverty approach insures that taxing the rich will still tax the
>>poor and the lower middle class, it will just do so indirectly.
>
> Trickle down economic theory has been demonstrated to be wrong in
> reality. That applies to both sides of the equations.
It failed because the government sent the jobs overseas.
>
>>Less available products and jobs don't come with a tax bill. The tax
>>is an invisible one in which depressing business, trickles down to the
>>lower and middle classes who end up with fewer and more expensive
>>product and service choices and fewer job opportunities.
>
> Which is why the economy was suffering after Clinton raised taxes, and
> in the post-WW II era when the top marginal tax rate was something
> like 90%.
>
>>It would have been cheaper and simpler for individual taxpayers to see
>>a direct tax hike,
>
> I agree.
It would of been easier and better to have the govenment increase the
value of the dollar to foreign currency and controll its spending.
>
>>And then of course there's the loan package. If you don't want to
>>raise taxes on anyone, you have to borrow money,
No you do not. You need to lower expenditures. And dont borrow. Period.
which is the
>>Lunatic's MasterCard, because while taxes remain the same, the amount
>>of debt being carried rises, and that debt has to be paid off.
Se above.
>
> Why didn't you speak up when Reagan, and father and son Bush
> collectively built most of the current national debt?
Because everyone was working, fat dumb and happy. And the people paid
their bills already., People speak up when its time to pay the bills the
government created. AFTER we get into a recession. Its the governments
responsibility to save cash for downturns. During boom times. They did not
do that. They are responsible for their fuckups. Not the people. The bill
must be paid by lowering governments expenditures. Or they go bankrupt and
lose their possesions. thats the law the government created for the people.
Its ther law they will follow.
>
>
>>the joker in the deck is that government
>>programs are administered much less efficiently than their free market
>>equivalents.
>
> Often claimed, but seldom proven, except of course when the government
> privatizes the service delivery, in which case it can't help but be
> more expensive and inefficient.
Its always proven. Every single government program is bankrupt. But not
closed. Every single private enterprise is profitable . Or closes.
>
>>While free market companies have to be efficient because profit motive
>>requires cutting expenses,
>
> Not necessarily.
>
>>A corporation has to increase the
>>value provided to its customers and shareholders to remain
>>competitive.
No it doesnt. Its only one of numerous ways to sell products. Companies
can offer less value cheap foreign products made by slave labor at cheaper
cost then high value goods. To poor people.
Topaz
A "nanny state" sounds pretty pussified and not good. But those who
fail to fight against the capitalists are the ones who are pussified.
See the movie "Monte Walsh". The cool guys were not the capitalists
and they were by no means selfish. The guy who lost his job and had to
become an outlaw was a cool type. The money grubbing pansies from the
east were capitalists. We should have a state that looks out for cool
people and not one that is run by the money grubbers.
http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
tenjets
wrote:
> Liberalism =Socialism = Fascism = Big government = Rigid controls =
> High taxes
>
> Nanny States
>
> Socialism’s Greatest Lie:
> Government Can Give You Everything for Free
>
> By Daniel Greenfield Monday, January 4, 2010
>
> Socialism’s greatest lie is that it promises the people something for
> nothing, services and programs of all kind that will either be “free”
> or more affordable than the free market variety. But just like the ads
> promising you a free iPod or a chance to make millions from home while
> you yawn, socialism is not something for nothing, instead more often
> it’s nothing for something.
>
conservative nutcases.
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:f5a5k5lo1i09th4uk...@4ax.com...
>> "leona...@gmail.com" <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Socialism's greatest lie is that it promises the people something for
>>>nothing, services and programs of all kind that will either be "free"
>>
>> I guess that the recent ex-President was a socialist, since he
>> promised a "free" war against terror, and even gave tax cuts.
>
>He never did any such thing.
Increasing spending while providing a tax cut is pretending that the
spending is "free". That was the apparent point of the article - that
government spending isn't free.
>You said its free , not me or any of theother
>80% of middle class Americans who pay for everything. Tax cuts are good.
Not in war time, and not when there are record high deficits.
> And
>> then there is quitter governor Palin, who loved to give government
>> money to the people in the most socialist of all the states. All
>> those "free" oil royalties.
>
> Is not Socailist.
It is, as much as anything else the article in question discussed.
>Its a contract worked out by Palin and the oil
>companies to return money to the citizens if the greedy oil companies maker
>to much money.
The Republicans call this "redistribution of income" when they attack
Democrats for it, and call it "socialism".
>The oil companies do NOT have any control or say on how the
>citizens spend their hard earned cash.
Never said that they did.
>The money comes from excess PROFITS.
How does that differ from taxing the wealthy for their excess income?
>The money is already there.
Where?
>The government and business has no control or say abouty it.
Of course it does. The money that is taxed could be spent in other
ways rather than given as welfare checks to the citizenry.
>It is not Socialist.
It is just as socialist as the other things mentioned in the article
responded to.
>Free healthcare is not profitable and does not pay for itself.
Duh. Unfortunately the hospitals cannot turn away people from
emergency rooms who cannot pay, so there is "free" health care
delivered at the highest possible cost. The hospitals will recoup
that money somehow.
>Therefore the people get nothing for their 5 years of payments to the
>government to spend overseas on wars.
Therefore?
>Why is it you hate oil and the people getting money from oil profits.
Who says I hate oil. I just hate lies like the post that I responded
to.
>But you want the poor peope to ive5
>yars of payments to the government for nothing in return.
I didn't say I wanted anything.
>>>But just like the ads
>>>promising you a free iPod or a chance to make millions from home while
>>>you yawn, socialism is not something for nothing, instead more often
>>>it's nothing for something.
>>
>> Good thing no one these days is advocating socialism, other than
>> perhaps members of the Socialist party.
>>
>>>The idea that the government will take care of you is appealing,
>>
>> It made Palin very popular - all those government checks.
>
>There are no government checks. Except tax refunds to those who work.
They are government checks, and they go to every resident of the state
who wasn't incarcerated the previous year, whether they paid taxes or
not.
>And welfare checks to those parasites who live off the gubment.
In Alaska, that is pretty much everyone. The Federal government gives
Alaska some $14000 per resident every year. There aren't that many
Alaskans who pay anywhere near that much in taxes (and remember that
these numbers are per resident - someone with a large family gets more
money).
>>>A legitimate enterprise never needs to fool its customers into
>>>thinking that they will receive something for nothing.
>
>
> Ka Ching
>>
>> Then why do so many private firms do so?
>
> Its advertising. Only idiots and young people believe the lying ads.
Since businesses seem to feel that the advertising is cost-effective,
apparently most of the country consists of idiots and young people.
>> And they abound in the private market, especially in those markets
>> that are insufficiently regulated. Witness the derivatives market
>> last year.
>
> No. the government regulations created this situation.
There were no government regulations in the derivatives market.
>>>with its monolithic bureaucracies where incompetence is the order of the
>>>day,
>>
>> Wall street bankers are socialists???
>
> They are now. As the government has taken over the banking system.
No more so than before.
> Its why FEMA didnt and still hasnt rebuilt New Orleans. Because it didnt
>actually have any money. And it still doesnt.
It is not FEMA's job to rebuild New Orleans, and never was.
>> Good thing that outside of the classified arenas, the government has
>> completely open books.
>
> Everythings classified under the patriot act and homeland security.
Nonsense.
>All agencies have been put iunder homeland security to keep their budgets off
>limits and secret.
More nonsense:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/browse.html
Hundreds of pages of unclassified detail on the current year's budget.
For actual expenditures, there is a humongous data base.
http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/index.php?reptype=a
There are also various summary documents put out every year, totally
hundreds more pages.
>>>The promise of free health care though is far more devilish than a
>>>free iPod,
>>
>> Who has promised free health care?
>
> The government did.
The government has never promised free health care. Nor do either of
the current health reform bills.
>>>but there is no such
>>>thing as "free" or "cheap" because everything the government does is
>>>paid for twice over. Everything you get from the government you pay
>>>for, either directly through taxes and fees, or indirectly through
>>>rising costs and black market prices.
>>
>> Yep. That is why we want the government to pay for medical services
>> directly, rather than waiting for people without insurance to show up
>> in emergency rooms, thereby requiring the hospitals to find ways to
>> recoup the costs that are NOT paid by the government.
>
> You are so full of crap. You want the same government that is trying to
>kill us through the FDA and EPA
Your evidence is lacking.
>to then have the right to deny us care for issues that they caused themselves.
Why would I want that?
Under the current health care system, private insurers can deny paying
for a claim for any of a large host of reasons.
I don't want that.
>>>Taxes of course are the most
>>>obvious way in which you wind up paying more for the same services
>>>that the government provides you with.
>>
>> Of course you pay taxes. But if the tax system is progressive then
>> the burden falls more on those who can afford to pay more.
>
> No it doesnt . It falls on all the unborn Ameican babies to pay the bill.
That only happens with deficit spending, which is not the same thing
as progressive taxation.
>You wish to create and not pay for.
You keep on telling me what I want, or what I wish for, and you
haven't come close. Maybe you should stop trying to play mind reader.
>>>Taxes are a fool's credit card, in which he spends and spends without
>>>thinking about the cost,
>
> The government spends and spends. The American fools are forcee to pay
>the bills. Or pass it on to their kids.
Then maybe we should pay the bills. Which requires taxes.
>> No. That is private health insurance paid for by private sector
>> employers.
>
> Thats right profits returned to those peope that work for it.
No. The profits go to the health insurance companies, not necessarily
to the health care providers (some of which are non-profit).
>Until the government makes a profit. Thers nothing to pay for healthcare.
Incoherent
>>>Those who supported Obama and his proposals, without realizing their cost
>>
>> But of course Obama has always made clear the cost.
>
> No he hasnt. He lies and hides everything.
You apparently haven't been listening.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
While Obama has kept several dozen promises made during his campaign,
and has a couple hundred more "in the works", this independent site
only finds 9 promises broken, and some of those were things that
turned out to be not under his control (e.g. the president doesn't
decide what Congress will televise on CSpan, and Congress gets upset
when the president tries to override its prerogatives)
>> Well, then maybe we should put a tax on job cutting and outsourcing
>> then, to make that a less economically lucrative option.
>
> No maybe we should cut off foreign trade to countries that use slave labor
>and refuse to comply with environmental requirements to clean up their act.
Cut off our nose to spite our face, you mean?
You obviously are not a fan of free markets.
The US lives off of foreign trade.
Walmart would go bellyup if it couldn't get stuff from China. So
would several other firms.
We are not anywhere near self sufficient in oil. We'd have a hell of
a time paying for what we need, without foreign trade.
>And foreign trade only is done on non food, or non security items.
There goes most of our export market.
>And only the excess capacity we dont use ourselves.
>>>Socialism's trickle
>>>down poverty approach insures that taxing the rich will still tax the
>>>poor and the lower middle class, it will just do so indirectly.
>>
>> Trickle down economic theory has been demonstrated to be wrong in
>> reality. That applies to both sides of the equations.
>
> It failed because the government sent the jobs overseas.
"The government" did no such thing. Private enterprise sent jobs
overseas, because foreigners work much more cheaply than Americans.
(And this has nothing to do with the failure of trickle-down economic
theory)
>> I agree.
>
> It would of been easier and better to have the govenment increase the
>value of the dollar to foreign currency
It is not within the power of the government to do that. And indeed,
we need to lower the value of the dollar if we want our economy to
recover, because only then will enough foreigners buy our overpriced
stuff faster than we buy their underpriced stuff.
>and controll its spending.
If that were so easy, one would think it would have been done more
often.
>>>And then of course there's the loan package. If you don't want to
>>>raise taxes on anyone, you have to borrow money,
>
>No you do not. You need to lower expenditures.
That's nice. The American public doesn't want lower expenditures -
they like the government services that those expenditures pay for.
>And dont borrow. Period.
Gotta pay the bills somehow.
>> Why didn't you speak up when Reagan, and father and son Bush
>> collectively built most of the current national debt?
>
> Because everyone was working, fat dumb and happy. And the people paid
>their bills already.
Only because the bills were reduced by tax cuts, while expenditures
increased. If the people had been billed for the things Reagan and
the Bushes were spending more money on, the deficit would be a
fraction of its current size.
>People speak up when its time to pay the bills the
>government created. AFTER we get into a recession. Its the governments
>responsibility to save cash for downturns. During boom times.
That's nice. Now all "we the people" have to do is elect
congresscritters who will do so, rather than provide us with tax cuts.
>They did not do that.
WE did not do that. WE are the government. WE elect the people who
make the decisions. WE are responsible for replacing them if they
don't do what WE want.
Of course WE prefer to pretend to get something for nothing, and thus
encourage people like Bush to start trillion dollar wars while giving
us large tax cuts.
>They are responsible for their fuckups. Not the people.
WE THE PEOPLE are responsible, because WE are the primary
accountability measure on OUR government.
>The bill must be paid by lowering governments expenditures.
Let's start with all the programs that benefit YOU first.
>>>the joker in the deck is that government
>>>programs are administered much less efficiently than their free market
>>>equivalents.
>>
>> Often claimed, but seldom proven, except of course when the government
>> privatizes the service delivery, in which case it can't help but be
>> more expensive and inefficient.
>
>Its always proven.
Your unsubstantiated nonsense is noted.
>Every single government program is bankrupt.
Not hardly.
>But not closed. Every single private enterprise is profitable . Or closes.
Not hardly.
All they have to do is keep suckering new investors into giving them
more money.
Hiccum Blurpaedius
God is a piece of shit.
The judicial system does not work. IT is a church.
Exterminate god god dammit
Topaz
What if we try to find out what gripes you have with those who believe
in God, and see if we can make you any happier? I say there is already
enough things to disagree about, and whether people believe in God or
not, hopefully doesn't have to be a reason for people to shoot each
other.
Hiccum Blurpaedius
THe facts are obvious. THe more you maggots seek to help the more
obvious your destruction is evident. Start with student loans and the
need to destroy higher education.
God is a piece of shit. Flush twice.
Exterminate the department of education.
Topaz
Students who score high in high school should go to college for free.
Students who are a disgrace is high school should not go to college,
even if their parents are millionaires.
Bob LeChevalier
>Students who score high in high school should go to college for free.
>Students who are a disgrace is high school should not go to college,
>even if their parents are millionaires.
And then there are people like you, a disgrace to humanity, who seem
to belong in perpetual kindergarten.
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Speaking for myself I was tortured multiple times by the police for
reporting being tortured. I got off lucky though others around me were
being slaughtered by government trained sex perverts.
The Department of Education taught me that my great great great great
grandparents chased the British out of Boston for my Bill of Rights.
Something I found false and proven to be false after the Reagan
administration kidnapped me and inquisitioned me in 1982.
This has been proven repeatedly everytime I report a crime against me.
Exterminate God and the Department of Education for treason and crimes
against weak and vulnerable citizens of the United States of America
Hiccum Blurpaedius
I forgot to add that my torture was when I was a child. My coworker
was abducted by a government trained phony tortured and killed. For
that I was punished
Topaz
"Anything good in Western civilization is said to have been stolen
from Black Africa including the English language. Professors claim
that Egyptians were blacks and that Aristotle stole his ideas from the
Egyptian library in Alexandria. The "distinguished scholars" who make
these claims are not sufficiently learned to know that the library was
built after the death of Aristotle. One know-nothing, Martin Bernal,
at Cornell (of course) ignores the Mycenaen, Achaean, Dorian and
Ionian wells of ancient Greek culture in
order to attribute the origins of Greek culture to Africa.
The white kids who attend Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell,
Stanford, Michigan, University of California, Duke, wherever, are
enculturated into a pathology of guilt over evils allegedly
perpetrated by their forebears. They are brainwashed into accepting
unequal rights and limitations on their speech as atonements for the
sins of their fathers. Those who resist are sentenced to "sensitivity
training," accused of various harassment crimes, and expelled.
"Academics have buried Western civilization under a mountain of
lies. The great books are not burned, but they are discredited with
the charge that the great thinkers in the past were apologists for a
"white hegemonic order."
The erasing of our culture progresses rapidly. Several years ago
it came to light that students in an Illinois public school were being
taught that the ancient Egyptians were blacks who flew among the
pyramids until whites arrived and killed the blacks who could fly. The
reasons given for teaching this nonsense was to improve the
self-esteem of black children and to explain to them why they don't
live in the big houses."
Paul Craig Roberts is a columnist for The Washington Times and is
nationally syndicated.
Topaz
I'm no fan of the government we have now, but I don't think they have
"government trained sex perverts" who slaughter people.
Why did the Reagan adminstration kidnap you?
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> "Anything good in Western civilization is said to have been stolen
> from Black Africa including the English language. Professors claim
> that Egyptians were blacks and that Aristotle stole his ideas from the
You are obviously black simply because everytime I talk with a black
they got to shove it down my throat they are black.
Enough said. The first written words were in Iraq.
So fuck your black.
Exterminate the Department of Education
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:34:42 -0800 (PST), Hiccum Blurpaedius
>
> <hic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Speaking for myself I was tortured multiple times by the police for
> >reporting being tortured. I got off lucky though others around me were
> >being slaughtered by government trained sex perverts.
> >The Department of Education taught me that my great great great great
> >grandparents chased the British out of Boston for my Bill of Rights.
> >Something I found false and proven to be false after the Reagan
> >administration kidnapped me and inquisitioned me in 1982.
> >This has been proven repeatedly everytime I report a crime against me.
>
> >Exterminate God and the Department of Education for treason and crimes
> >against weak and vulnerable citizens of the United States of America
>
> I'm no fan of the government we have now, but I don't think they have
> "government trained sex perverts" who slaughter people.
The fuck they do not.
One example John Wayne Gacy was government trained and sponsored. 4
out of 5 murders remain unsolved. Sure your black head can add.
>
> Why did the Reagan adminstration kidnap you?
For taking a break from hitchicking in the Florida Keys. They accused
me of being a spy and questioned(or should I say inquisitioned) me in
multiple languages. After reviewing my heritage it turned out my
ancestors started the Secret Service.
So fuck your black.
>
> http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
>
> http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
>
> http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
You must make an oath to god to spend money. And saying god dammit is
illegal in florida. Let alone describe sexual reproduction, fuck.
I do not trust god god dammit
Hiccum Blurpaedius
>
> <hic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >THe facts are obvious. THe more you maggots seek to help the more
> >obvious your destruction is evident. Start with student loans and the
> >need to destroy higher education.
>
> >God is a piece of shit. Flush twice.
>
> >Exterminate the department of education.
>
> Students who score high in high school should go to college for free.
> Students who are a disgrace is high school should not go to college,
> even if their parents are millionaires.
In "africa" they invented slavery. IT is still widely practiced. As
well as baning little children fromt he family for being witches.
Witches have black eyes.
A friccan american
Dom
wrote:
> Liberalism =Socialism = Fascism = Big government = Rigid controls =
> High taxes
>
> Nanny States
>
> Socialism’s Greatest Lie:
> Government Can Give You Everything for Free
>
> By Daniel Greenfield Monday, January 4, 2010
>
> Socialism’s greatest lie is that it promises the people something for
> nothing, services and programs of all kind that will either be “free”
> or more affordable than the free market variety. But just like the ads
> promising you a free iPod or a chance to make millions from home while
> you yawn, socialism is not something for nothing, instead more often
> it’s nothing for something.
May I suggest that you and Greenfield stop being hideous ignorance-
peddlers and start doing some elementary reading on this subject,
starting with "Bismarck's social legislation" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Bismarck.27s_social_legislation
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Exterminate the Department of Education
God must be forced from the courtroom for freedom to exist.
Barb Knox
<37b1406f-5bfc-4791...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Hiccum Blurpaedius <hic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 6:55�am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > � �"Anything good in Western civilization is said to have been stolen
> > from Black Africa including the English language. Professors claim
> > that Egyptians were blacks and that Aristotle stole his ideas from the
>
> You are obviously black simply because everytime I talk with a black
> they got to shove it down my throat they are black.
> Enough said.
If you weren't such a moron you would have noticed least one of the
following: (1) The cited source of the quoted article is The Washington
Times, a right-wing newspaper; (2) The quoted article is *against*
Black-wash; and (3) "Topaz"s contribution at the bottom consists of URLs
to White Power / Nativist sites. So, s/he is hardly likely to be Black.
Sheesh.
> The first written words were in Iraq.
> So fuck your black.
I guess you missed the lesson on nouns.
> Exterminate the Department of Education
I guess you didn't do too well during your time in school, eh? Did you
end up in "special" classes with a lot of poor Blacks?
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum videtur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> In article
> <37b1406f-5bfc-4791-b53a-b14a72a3c...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
You are a moron. The blacks started slavery. They also started white
power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsbZ2C9bH1k
And I also did very well in school. However the black government
prohibited me from attending and advancing. My School Counselor Mr.
Kuberka told me that no matter how well I did in school all the
college money was going to black people.
The school is now closed.
Topaz
<hic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 10, 6:55�am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> � �"Anything good in Western civilization is said to have been stolen
>> from Black Africa including the English language. Professors claim
>> that Egyptians were blacks and that Aristotle stole his ideas from the
>
>You are obviously black simply because everytime I talk with a black
>they got to shove it down my throat they are black.
I'm not Black.
>Enough said. The first written words were in Iraq.
>
>So fuck your black.
>
>Exterminate the Department of Education
http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
Hiccum Blurpaedius
I am not white. I am a minority, Peach.
Benjamin Franklin didn't rescue my ancestors from freezing to death in
Valley Forge. He just stopped in Paris to rub elbows with big wigs who
introduced him to Marie Antoinette and then King Louis. Just by chance
they sent more bong hits to the troops.
Yet he did get some credit: A picture on the $100 bill.
I want freedom and I have knowledge but am incriminated from
exercising my rights to enforce judicial proceedings.