It's not that guy doesn't have a point. But he is wrong on some of the facts, which makes it easy for people to mock his deeper points. E.g.,

Wall Street execs are getting sweet bonuses at a time when millions of other Americans are unemployed? Well, instead of encouraging these financial concerns to pay back the Troubled Asset Relief Program monies and get the taxpayers off the hook, send in Ken Feinberg to set their salaries.

Partially as a result of this, the banks are racing to pay off the TARP money so they can throw loot at their execs like it was 2006. If we don't own a chunk of 'em, fine. And that's where things are going. According to a report I heard today, another big bank wants to pay of its part, and at present taxpayers stand to lose less than 40 billion of the massive bank bailouts. Considering the catastrophic conditions we were expecting this is pretty impressive.

Kathleen Sebelius would have the authority to decide... who could get an abortion under a government-run plan

This is technically true, but neglects the honest position, which is that one negative consequence of this bill (for progressives) is that when health insurance reform passes, that bill will almost certainly cut abortion out of insurance coverage altogether because dollars are fungible and there's no way to segregate pro-choice private money from anti-choice gov't loot. This will be the cost of buying some conservative Democrat's or moderate Republican's support.

Offtopic——
Wouldn't it have been cool, in so many respects, if Tiger had been interested in advice instead of physics in recent weeks?

PS-

> they just happen to be the party of
> less big government than the Democrats.

I'll take it.

See also this, I think from Reynolds a couple weeks ago.

"While we're at it, don't be too quick to think of the Republicans as the party of small government. They just say they are, and they just happen to be the party of less big government than the Democrats."

Entirely valid point. The Democrats say, "We'll expand government!" The Republicans say, "We'll expand government more slowly!" What needs to happen now is for the trend to reverse. No President of either party has done anything to make government smaller since Reagan.

I'd support a candidate who would pledge to make the following cuts in total non-military federal employment:

4% the first year
3% the second year

Ideally, I'd like to see 2% for the third and fourth years, but no candidate facing re-election will promise that. Note that the cuts do not have to be huge; they basically just need to reverse the growth trend. As we saw during the Clinton gridlock years, if the line can just be held on federal growth, the economy will catch up.

Some of my favorite demotivators (paraphrased):

Democracy: None of us are as dumb as all of us.

Government: If you think the problems we create are bad, wait until you see our solutions!

Not to imply that either of the above should be abolished, but instead, that the degree to which they are able to harm innocent people should be minimized.

The quote about the public voting itself largess from the treasury has bugged me more and more as I've gotten older and learned more history. It sounds reasonable on first reading, but if you actually look at history, kings and autocrats have a much, MUCH worse track record with fiscal policy than more democratic governments. Compare Republican Rome to Imperial Rome, parliamentary England with Royal France, The Dutch Republic vs. Hapsburg Spain, democratic USA vs. authoritarian Latin America, etc...

In a democracy, voters usually are aware they ultimately pay the bills. Sometimes they forget, and bad things happen. But those bad things happen even more often with every other form of government.

The constitution was actually created to protect the citizens against government intrusion.

The bigger government gets-the more potential power it wields over each citizen.

"millions of peaceful, law-abiding, hard-working Americans may finally reach the breaking point"

Violent revolution probably won't happen, not anytime in the near future. Helicopter moms taking to the streets? I don't think so...

More likely is that more and more of the upper-middle class and the wealthy will either leave, or else hide most of their assets abroad. The higher the tax rates go, the faster that will happen.

How many years until the USA is essentially bankrupt? Ten? Twenty at the outside, unless the Tea Parties really do force a major change.

bradley13 writes: "More likely is that more and more of the upper-middle class and the wealthy will either leave, or else hide most of their assets abroad. The higher the tax rates go, the faster that will happen."

That's pretty much what happened to Europe in the '60s and '70s. Practically every wealthy and famous person in Europe maintains their official residence in tax-free Monaco. The fleeing of wealth was one of the causes of the government nationalizations of most industry that occurred in Europe in the '70s, and ultimately killed off a lot of its industry.

More whiney blah-blah from the "entitled" right.
Let me see--you drive on public roads, in a society kept civil by public courts and police, in a country defended by a public (and lard-butted) military.
Your workforce is largely educated by the public, and the public welfare is protected through intelligent vaccination programs, and clean-water efforts (remember typhoid?)and other measures
But, like Dick Cheney, you are self-made, and your wealth is what you made. (Cheney went to public schools all the way through grad school, btw.)
So now, after enjoying the highest living standards ever imagined (does anyone ever look through those Sunday housing supplements in the LA Times--every house is $3 million, and requires full-time employees to keep up), the American right wants us to believe they are suffering.
Of course, they do not want to suffer on the actual front lines of a war, or even pay the taxes for those wars. But they are suffering. Suffering!
Boo-hoo-hoo and waa-waa.

I'm really getting tired of this clown and his multiple sock puppets. Amy, how about giving him a vacation? Please?

Yes, America does have some rich people, and it is hard to feel sorry for anyone who lives in a $3 million house, but who knows what someone's circumstances are. Many of these people inherited some money and have watched a lot of it dry up overnight. Others are living up to the gills on credit, and some of them actually have the money to back up their appearance of wealth. But it's important to remember how few of these people there really are.

They are far outnumbered by hordes of mouthbreathing dullards waddling around with broods of children. Even the ones that aren't on outright welfare will never, ever pay back into the system what they are taking out of it, and neither will their kids. Serial breeding on a large scale ensures that these people will continue to outnumber everyone else at an increasingly greater rate.

Then you have the little group in the middle that can go either way. I, for example, have never made that much money, but I've always kept myself out of debt, didn't have kids, saved money, and have been lucky with good health. I've always paid more into the system than I've taken out of it, but not on a very large scale. But last year almost half of my retirement accounts disappeared, and probably 25% of the value of my home. I lost my job three months ago, and although it would take a long time for me to burn through my savings, finding a job has been incredibly slow, and will most likely involve a pay cut.

It's astonishing to realize how much time I had to spend working for something that evaporated so quickly. Life in the USA feels increasingly expensive and grinding. Liquidating everything to go live in a trailer in Argentina sounds better and better all the time. An article I read recently on the subject noted that when you drive around Argentina, you never see 'Click it or Ticket' signs on the roads. I am old enough to remember when we didn't have them here, either. When did this country get taken over by a bunch of nannies who want to run things for everyone else?

Bradley 13 writes."...the wealthy will either leave, or else hide their assets abroad..."

Hiding assets abroad is less likely to happen. The UBS scandal, in which many rich Americans were turned in to the IRS by some disgruntled Swiss UBS employee, changed everything about safe havens abroad and hiding assets. The US government negotiated a treaty with off shore tax havens resulting in more transparency with those jurisdictions that aid foreigners with asset protection. Most, if not all, off shore tax havens will not even deal with Americans. This includes the Swiss

Unfortunately, there is no where to hide.

I am old enough to remember when we didn't have them here, either.

Me, too, Pirate Jo. And I miss those days. (Sometimes I still forget to "clicket" when I go to the store or wherever.)

When did this country get taken over by a bunch of nannies who want to run things for everyone else?

Seems to me all this crap started in the 80s, during the "me" decade, when everyone was out to screw everyone else, and the government said "hey! we want in on that!"

Remember the Reagan years? Back then we still had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash with us.

Now we have Obama, no hope and no cash. Sheesh.

o.O

Flynne, my parents are friends with a nice old guy who recently retired from teaching at a local university. He has a granddaughter in high school and says he doesn't feel sorry for her generation. He says she and her classmates have always grown up so coddled, with so much structure and guidance, they have never known what it was like to not be part of a program, to have things mapped out for them. He says it's the people in their 40s he feels sorry for, because they still remember what it was like to have freedom from micromanagement.

Heh. I don't feel sorry for us. I do quite well without micromanagement. It's when it's being imposed on me (read "crammed down my throat") that I start to wretch. But I know what he's sayin'. And he's so right about all these kids being molly-coddled. It does not bode well for the future. At the first sign of a global disaster (should one ever happen), they'll be running around like headless chickens.

Sometimes the oppressed do not overthrow their oppressors, but end up in gas chambers. Think about that.

Flynne - just look at 9/11. Look at all the people going "oh shit", "oh fuck" and hysterical, crying reactions when the planes hit the towers and when they came down. Most of them were like chickens without heads. Our enemies saw our hysteria and took note.

Maybe so, Crusader, but there were some who did not panic but got right into the thick of things and did what needed to be done. Those of us who can, do. Those who can't, freak out. Then there are those of us who freak out, and then get down to business. And our enemies need to take note of that too.

The Goddess writes: While we're at it, don't be too quick to think of the Republicans as the party of small government. They just say they are, and they just happen to be the party of less big government than the Democrats.

Are they? Democrats don't seem to want to legislate your bedroom or reproductive rights. I consider those to be major issues, and a place that the government has no business in. Democrats agree. Republicans don't.

Republicans also seem to want religion shoved down the throat of the citizenry...or at least Christianity. Democrats don't seem to care for that idea much, and when they oppose it, they're accused of being anti-Christian and trying to steal Christmas. Recall the laughable charade of enacting legislation to protect Christmas. But when asked if other religious holidays could be included, Republicans said no. Only Christmas. To say nothing of the fact that they are willing to intrude themselves on private family matters, such as the late Terri Schiavo.

I agree that Republicans are not the party of small government, but I will not concede that they want a smaller government than the Democrats.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: both parties have sold us out, implementing unconstitutional measures. Republicans violate the Constitution to curry favor with Christians, and large businesses. Democrats violate the constitution to garner support from the indigent, and other special interests.

Sure, I remember Reagan, joining with Gorbachev to fight any UFO invasion of Earth ...

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/04/24/reagan-and-gorbachev-agreed-to-fight-ufos/

Cousin Dave: I'm really getting tired of this clown and his multiple sock puppets. Amy, how about giving him a vacation? Please?

I think the guy's a pathetic troll, but why does he bother you so much that you want him banned?

When did this country get taken over by a bunch of nannies who want to run things for everyone else?

About ten minutes after the Constitution was ratified.

The first temperance organization was established in Connecticut in 1789. A national tax on alcohol was passed shortly after that.

In the 1920s, the temperance movement finally won its battle against demon rum and got Prohibition passed. As a reult, more people than ever drank alcohol and we got organized crime and Joe Kennedy.

Well obviously if earth was attacked from outer space we'd all have an interest in saving it, no matter which country was attacked.

I am what you would call a conservative and I have 3 members of my family who have doen multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and have multiple wounds to show for it, so shut the fuck up butt holier than thou troll fuck.

Ron-

You are a potty-mouthed right-winger, and that is not the same as being a true conservative.

True conservatives are very skeptical about the nature of all federally funded agencies, and rightly so: Unlike private sector agencies, public agencies never face free market competition, and are prone to patronage, corruption and fat.

The US military is funded by a political process--in the House and Senate. It never faces competition.

The US military is taxpayer supported, funded in common for the common good. Ironically, it is a communist-type organization, defending democracy. We do not contract out our military defense, although we hire mercenary soldiers. No more draft.

We saw in the Soviet Union how state-controlled enterprises perform. They become slothful, corrupt, defined by ossified lard and patronage. It is no different in the USA.

Real conservatives are leery of a permanently mobilized mercenary federal military, of the type we have now.

If you ever read the commentary of Thomas Jefferson or George Mason, both regretted that the US Constitution did not expressly forbid a permanent military. They detested standing militaries, as did many Founding Fathers.

Come now, we cannot put a man on the ground to fight for less than $1 milion a year--in marginal costs, not total costs. Every war, or occupation, becomes fantastically expensive, thus leading to defeat or settlement.

I am sorry your relatives or friends died in useless wars in overseas lands, in foreign entanglements of the very sort our founding fathers detested. I am even sorrier they are part of a permanent, mobilized mercenary force.

I am a libertarian on many issues, but I favor universal conscription of the best and the brightest. Let the Bush twins be nurses in Iraq.

If the upper-class had skin in this game, there never would have been Vietnam, Iraq or Arghanistan. Sheesh, they don't even want to pay the taxes to pay for these wars. We borrow money.

ron, if your relatives were here I would thank them for their service, and I'm sorry for their injuries.

How does BOTU get under everyone's skin? I find him tedious and I generally stop reading his posts about halfway through, once I realize I'm going through the motions of reading it, but not retaining much of anything.

I've seen many, many trolls in the various forums I've been on, and I would given him about a three on a scale of ten. But apparently, some would rate his abilities much higher.

Patrick, it's for two reasons: (1) he keeps repeating stuff that's been shown to be false, such as his oft-repeated lie that the military accounts for the bulk of federal spending, and (2) his main purpose for being here seems to be to insult and provoke other posters gratuitously. Oh, and (3) the fact that he keeps changing his handle to try to trick people into reading him. He's used, what, about 20 different aliases?

If you ever read the commentary of Thomas Jefferson or George Mason, both regretted that the US Constitution did not expressly forbid a permanent military. They detested standing militaries, as did many Founding Fathers.

i-hole, BOTU, Sphincter, etc.,

I've already explained to you that many of the Founding Fathers you so love to reference changed their minds about a standing professional military when they came face to face the reality of defending their country in a hostile world. Endlessly repeating that you're on the side of the Founding Fathers doesn't make it so.

Madison discovered in the War of 1812 that a group of militia-men could not stand toe-to-toe with professional soldiers. He should have consulted Nathaniel Greene or Daniel Morgan, both of them generals in the Revolution with extensive experience in the strengths and weaknesses of deploying regulars and militia.

I've also explained to you that in the days of our Founding Fathers, the skill divide between hunting weapons and military weapons was narrow. It takes too much specialized skill to operate military equipment and weapons today that it is no longer practical to leave the country's defense to a hastily gathered group of townspeople in the square.

And as far as the Founding Fathers detesting foreign entanglements, Jefferson discovered that sometimes keeping your country safe means deploying a semi-permanent military force overseas. Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, Madison, and Mason all wanted the US to send troops and join one side or the other in the fighting that broke out in the aftermath of the French Revolution. The only thing that prevented the US from sending a military force was that there was no consensus about which side to join. So much for detesting foreign entanglements.

i-hole/Sphincter: Some of your other "points" have already been addressed quite aptly here, so I'll take another tack: What's with calling the US military "mercenaries?"

A mercenary is a soldier for hire--from a FOREIGN COUNTRY. And while not every single member of the US military is a US citizen, the overwhelmingly vast majority of members are.

Even when the draft was in force, there is still monetary compensation involved. But because military servicemembers get financially compensated (and not nearly enough in the lower ranks particularly, who are doing so much of the heavy lifting)--does not make them mercenaries.

Nothing good comes from feeding trolls.

They know they are inadequate losers riding on the achievments of others. They need to bite the hand that feeds them, lest they question why they cannot provide for themselves.

It is pointless to argue. Our troll thinks a paid soldier is a mercenary. If we didn't pay them, he'd call them slaves.

Yes, I support a draft, universal conscription, and spartan living standards for soldiers. That's how we won WWII, in less time that it has taken us to lose most of Afghanistan and set up an Islamic government in Iraq.
Remember when soldiers lived in barracks?
Now, we have professional soldiers, or mercenaries, joining the military as the benefits are good, and the pay okay (the pensions are terrific). Your family will get taken care of.
A lot of good father types join the military for these reasons. I don't blame them as individuals, but it is horrible perversion of the right way.
Our Founding Fathers never envisoned large numbers of men joining a professional or mercenary military as a career path. This is poison to all involved, and a fantastic drain on our Treasury. We have now a huge class of people utterly dependent on taxpayers for their welfare--the US military, contractors and all their dependents.
A draft is better. Read Madison, Mason, Jefferson and you will know they all detested large standing armies.
Let me ask this of those who endured injuries in Iraq: How do you feel when you see on TV Maliki, the Iraqi Shiite leader we installed, going on his friendly visits to Ahmadinejad, the leader of Iran?
They have hugfests every few months or so.
When Maliki is hugging Ahmadinejad, what do you think?
You see, Iran and Iraq both have Shiite leadership now.
If you lost a body part in Iraq, how do you feel knowing you installed an Islamic government? Not a secular government as the Turks have, and are struggling to hold on to.
It is a bitter irony that Bush jr. accomplished what no jihadist has: The conversion of a secular government to an Islamic government.
Only a mercenary force would have done Bush's dirty and foolish work. Ordinary Americans would not have tolerated a draft or volunteered for such a perverted goal.
You can call me a troll. I just have a different point of view than you.
As this is a libertarian website, and I espouse free market principles and detest Islamic governments (especially the ones we set up) who is the troll--me or those who call me a troll?
I adhere to the true principles of free markets and free societies. I could call you intruders and trolls as well.

I support a draft, universal conscription....

The Founding Fathers didn't. Compulsory military service is not in the Constitution. In fact, the United States did not have a military draft until midway through the Civil War.

Famous Libertarian Ayn Rand didn't, "Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man's fundamental right--the right to life--and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state's discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom--then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man's protector any longer. What is there left to protect?" (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)

It's a fallacy to think that universal conscription will lead to peace or reduce military adventurism. For most of their history, European nations have had universal conscription and compulsory military service. The presence of these large conscript armies is one of the factors that led to World War I. When you've got a large army that has no choice but to do what you say, you tend to use it.

Only a mercenary force would have done Bush's dirty and foolish work. Ordinary Americans would not have tolerated a draft or volunteered for such a perverted goal.

And yet they did...in large numbers, too.

Extraordinary Americans did, too. Does the name Pat Tillman ring a bell?

Remember when soldiers lived in barracks?

You mean, yesterday?

Our Founding Fathers never envisoned large numbers of men joining a professional or mercenary military as a career path.

Which Founding Fathers do you mean?

George Washington? He sought a military commission from the governor of Virginia and aimed, through military service, to make a name for himself. He did. He also inadvertently started the French and Indian War.

Alexander Hamilton? He was Washington's aide during the Revolution, a position he sought for the exposure and connections it would provide for him. In fact, he turned down positions with Generals Greene and Knox, holding out for one with Washington. Hamilton later sought and obtained a command position (at the Battle of Yorktown), again as a career move.

Thomas Jefferson? He established the United States Military Academy at West Point for the training of professional military officers.

Conan:

Not one American volunteered to fight in Iraq.

We hired them all.

We have a professional military. It is a repulsive carbuncle on our body politic, a vile excretum from a decadent society.

Sphincter: Please add this link to your favorites and feel free to use it, if only occasionally.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

Once again, your reference to the U.S. military as "mercenaries" is entirely inaccurate and makes you look (even more) silly.

Furthermore, soldiers (servicemembers) DO live in barracks. At EVERY military installation. I can't speak for the other services, but in the Marine Corps, only when the occupancy rate for the barracks is above a certain percentage (usually 98) do junior enlisted Marines and non commissioned officers have permission to request to live off the economy. Depending on the size and location of the installation, there are similar rules for (single or geo bachelor) E6 and above.

Lastly, your contention that not one American volunteered to fight in Iraq is false to the point of being utterly ridiculous. If that were the case, there would not have been one single new enlistment following our initial involvement in spring of 2003. Nor would any member have re-enlisted following that time period; the aforementioned groups (new enlistments and re-enlistments) run in the hundreds of thousands.

Keep in mind, too, that what you call "a repulsive carbuncle on our body politic, a vile excretum from a decadent society" is largely, if indirectly, responsible for your ability to run your suck thus.

We have a professional military. It is a repulsive carbuncle on our body politic, a vile excretum from a decadent society.

Why don't you tell us about the time you served in the military for no pay?

Since you loathe a professional military and believe (as you claim the founding fathers did) that only an unpaid amateur militia should be available for our defense and that it should not be paid, tell us what preparations you're making now to be able to join that militia if called on to defend the country in an invasion. Are you studying small unit tactics? Have you mastered the weaponry you will need (assault rifle, RPG, etc.)? Do you and your neighbors participate in regular drills in the town square?

>

And....crickets....