roy

Medicare works very good weasle ryan wants to do away with it give the old a little voucher and let them buy their own policy,there goes your ss check.

Richard94611

SuperDave, it is clear enough that your analysis is faulty. Rich people taxed heavily are NOT turned into poor people. They are generally turned into slightly less rich people. Furthermore, something like 2/3 of the jobs in this country are created through small businesses, not by rich people, but by average citizens who want a chance to earn money on their own without having to depend on a corporate employer. Trickle-down economics doesn't work. It has been shown not to work. You are a tool of rich folks and corporate interests, spewing propaganda they want you to spew. Did you nopticve that Trump claimed he was for the common man, but has picked only billionaires and millionaires for his cabinet ? You folks have been fooled. mUnfortunately the entire country must suffer thanks to your stupidity in sizing up our President-elect.

Richard94611

When it comes right down to it, Ryan wants to do away with most federal programs. He would do away with social security if he could.

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

Trickle-down theory don't work you say. Were you around in the 80's?....if you weren't working back then you were not born yet, locked up or lazy. Jobs everywhere. This was done by small government and all that goes with it. People who ignore the trickle-down effect on society are pretty damn stupid.

roy

And he will if trump doesnt stop him

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

OK, Let's take a quick looksie at what's required for national defense:

Firstly, people. Nope, no people produced by government. They are drawn from the general populace and thus detract from more productive endeavors. In times of war, many are ens***ed for a term of years by a system called 'conscription'.

Weapons and equipment. Sorry, government does not produce weapons either. That's a function of private enterprise. Government simply spends money forcibly taken from productive people and gives it to weapons manufacturers. Money that could have been more usefully spent by the people who actually earned it.

Operational supplies. Government does not produce the food, clothing, fuel, etc. essential to an army in the field. That is also purchased from private enterprise using the money purloined from private individuals at bayonet point.

Information gathering. That's a job for the journalist, and they're very good at it. There's an old saying that 'military intelligence' is an oxymoron. Having spent some time in the employ of the US military, I can concur...

Military training and discipline. Once again, nope. Government facilitates training and discipline through it's standing army, navy, air force, marine corps, etc. but other systems exist that are perfectly adequate to train any aspiring m*****aman in defense of his homeland such as this:

https://88tactical.com/civilian/

If not for governments worldwide, there would be far fewer conflicts and considerably fewer deaths as a result. Between the years 1901 and 2000, war was the number one cause of death throughout the planet. Bureaucrats and politicians are constantly looking for ways to justify their existence and there are fewer more effective ways to do this than pointing to a group or country and making them the bogeymen government will protect the populace from. A frightened population is more easily controlled and besides, war is a very profitable undertaking.

So, no, National defense is not something private enterprise cannot improve on. In fact, if not for private enterprise, people would still be throwing rocks at each other.

Big Bass

Your myopia is only bested by your naïve stupidity. Until you realize that a smart boss wants his workers to get more money, because a happy workforce will do a better job, thus making him more money. You must belong to, and love unions. They are the scourge of the working class.

roy

The unions helped make the middle class,you think they milk the worker,if the worker pays alittle dues so they have some voice.as unions have declined,so has wages and benfits,so has worker moral.you are not against every lobbiest buying off our goverment so who ever they represent,basically whoever they represent pays dues,doctors lawyers,insurance companys,just about any bussiness so they get their say,so bascially you dont want workers to have a say.you say bosses want to pay the worker more to make happy,tell that to the people working 70 hrs a week,because the boss want hire more people,because most bosses now figure now they just work the hell out of the people they have puts more money in their pockets,things are not what they used to be,creed has taken hold.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

You're not understanding...

I didn't say that government workers were being used exclusively in making the shovels that dug the minerals that made the metal that they then personally forged into weapons. I didn't say that they cut down the trees that they made into paper that they wrote the specs for the weapons on.

But the fact is that Government must run National Defense.

Who do you think would be CIC if Government weren't running National Defense? Who would decide on what Generals were in place? Who would order the airstrikes? Who would order the aircraft to be armed? Who would determine what arms? Who would decide who to buy the arms from? Who would pay for it?

There is no way the private sector can manage the US Armed Forces.. Period.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

There's a TV program called 'Shark Tank'. It's an interesting take on what all these idle billionaires do with their money. You should take a look sometime. Not only do they put their hard-earned cash on the line but they provide information and advice to the budding entrepreneurs they support. This idea of making 'the rich' pay their 'fair share' is bunkum. The top 1% of earners paid nearly half of all taxes in 2014. The bottom 80% paid 15% of the total. The remainder paid no taxes at all or were subsidized.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html

To put it on a more personal note, how would you react if you won the lottery and found out that 2/3rds of your millions is gone before you even get the check?

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/what-percentage-lottery-winnings-would-be-withheld-your-state

Imagine how an entrepreneur feels after he works his 70-hour weeks for years, finally gets his big break and the government shows up and helps themselves, all in the interest of some misguided 'fairness'. There was no 'reverse tax' when he lost money and had a negative income, just his own losses. He shoulders all the risk and reaps 1/3rd of the reward. How 'fair' is that?

Big Bass

Unions were an excellent shield to protect the worker against oppressive management. Fortunately that kind of boss went the way of the dodo. Unfortunately unions did not, instead they have become a shield to protect mediocrity, laziness, and a host of ailments detrimental to a motivated workforce.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

You're right, the private sector would not manage the armed forces. There would be no 'armed forces' as we now know it, but there would be an armed force. The Japanese never attacked the US mainland because they knew there would be 'a rifle behind every blade of grass' (http://www.skylighters.org/quotations/quots6.html). The N**is never attacked Switzerland for a very similar reason (In Switzerland, there is a government issued rifle in every home). Don't think that just because nobody's ordering 'air strikes' that the United States would be defenseless. Far from it.

My point is that government makes any endeavor (not just the military) far more inefficient and therefore less effective. By taking government out of the equation, everything becomes more efficient and better managed.

I once had a guy asked me how, in the absence of government, roads would be built. My reply was simple, "There are several different approaches to this problem. Generally, though, they involve the removal of obstacles, the flattening of ground, the laying down of a bed of sand or gravel and a hard surface on top of that (optimally imparting a very slight lateral slope for drainage as a best practice)". To say he was not happy with my answer would be an understatement, guess it never dawned on him that government does not actually build roads, people do. I took the quote on how roads are built directly from Brad Spangler's collection 'S******n on the Installment Plan' (https://sites.google.com/site/s******nontheinstallmentplan/). Tom De Lorenzo wrote:

"It is a collection of brief treatments of topics that are often points of contention in government vs non-government solution discussions. Reading through these notes will spur many thoughts and ideas that can ultimately assist in the understanding of the issues associated with a free society".

I highly recommend it for both education and entertainment.

roy

You believe that every union worker is lazy,and not motivated,hey look at any place union or not you have that,hell the milatary and every place its not just a union workers,did you ever wonder if some country fired a nuke at us ,would ours work to fire back,.and for oppressive management,thats mostly what we have now ,some still good but mostly bad

Big Bass

Now where did I say that? Please refrain from twisting words and lying, or simply put me on your ignore list. I have a very low tolerance for idiocy.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Major roads cannot be built without the use of 'imminent domain'. This cannot happen without government. And yes, people build the roads. People also write, pass, and enforce the laws. The government is made of people. Nobody suggests that a personless entity that is created with nothing touched by human hands does these things.

How do you suggests people defend their homes against missile attack? Offshore shelling? Bombers? I suggest we use a government run military, that yes, is comprised of people and stuff made by people.