State of the Union: Will Obama Tell Young People He's Screwing Them Big Time?

Probably not, but they should listen up anyway.

(Page 2 of 2)

courtesy AEIcourtesy AEIBut this sort of thing is relatively easy to fix compared to the real long-term damage that Obama's reckless spending-and-debt binge will almost certainly cause. In a paper released last year, economists Carmen M. Reinhart, Vincent R. Reinhart, and Kenneth Rogoff documented that periods of "debt overhang" - when accumulated gross debt exceeds 90 percent of a country’s total economic activity for five or more consecutive years - reduce annual economic growth by more than 1 percentage point for decades. Surveying over two dozen debt overhang episodes, Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff, found that the typical episode of sharply reduced growth lasted 23 years. In other words, kids: You're screwed.

The U.S. economy has been in a debt overhang since the 2008 financial crisis and there's no reason to believe that President Obama is going to do anything soon to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. It's fair to say that it's not all his fault. As I never tire of saying, George W. Bush was a big-government disaster, but that can only take you so far. Obama owns the debt every bit as much as he owns the White House for the next four years. And, as the experiences of countries such as Canada and Sweden in recent memory and the United States after World War II attest, there are clear and proven ways to reduce debt-to-GDP and help goose the economy. But because that involves actually changing the status quo and cutting year-over-year spending, Obama is not interested. Indeed, he's even bellyaching about the sequester - which was his idea, by the way. And younger Americans are willing to give him a pass, despite absolutely dismal results under his leadership so far. Does unemployment among 18-to-29 year-olds have to go up to 15 percent (it's already hit 13 percent!) before they get pissed?

The question young people should be asking Obama now is not how much more he might extend their student loan repayments but this: What are you going to do, Mr. President, so that we are not resigned to living in the phantom zone between strong economic growth and sluggish, debt-weakened economic growth?

If you're under 30, look at the chart above and ask yourself whether you'll be lucky enough not to be trapped in that wedge between the blue and red lines? And if you're a parent or grandparent, ask yourself whether your Medicare and Social Security and all the rest is worth consigning your kids to a future of dreams deferred to pay for your benefits. How many of us would prefer to live in a world that's 25 percent poorer than we are right now? Because that's where Obama is leading us.

There's no reason to question The New York Times' finding that folks between 18 and 29 years old are far more likely to believe that government "should do more to solve problems." But until that same group starts recognizing how many problems government is causing - especially for younger people - their future will be far bleaker than they seem to understand.


Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    But Obama is so cool. And we were all part of history in 2008. This is our moment!!

  • Suki||

    We are the people we have been waiting for!

  • BarryD||

    It's only a bummer when you find out that the people you've been waiting for have 6-figure student loans and no jobs.

  • Suki||

    +1

  • Vapourwear||

    I'm a 26 year old attorney. *hide*

    I actually had a conversation earlier today with my mother about how I am considering concealing the fact that I have a professional license, or even an advanced degree, so that I am not overqualified for jobs that will pay me more than the job that I spent the money getting the professional license to do.

    How fucked up is that?

  • $park¥||

    How fucked up is that?

    Fucked up that you'd need to. Sensible that you would.

  • MoreFreedom||

    I find it hard to believe you can get a better paying job than as an attorney, with just your undergraduate degree (pre-law?). Is it in plumbing? You need some skills and training to do that.

    Perhaps you can't get a job as an attorney, or you've hanged out your shingle and aren't getting the income you hoped for? It takes time to build a business and clientele.

    Good luck.

  • Tim||

    Woe upon your Cylon heart.

  • DarrenM||

    We are the people we have been waiting for!

    Apparently, they had low expectations.

  • BarryD||

    Be the spare change you wish you had!

  • Suki||

    +1

  • Jgarcia||

    Hahahhaha! Perfect!

  • AlexInCT||

    "Squel like a pig suckers", SOOOOWEEEE.

  • MoreFreedom||

    And you'll be paying for it via higher taxes, and less benefits when you retire, that is if the dollar doesn't become worthless and the government collapses since no one will work for worthless currency. If that happens, there is sure to be change, and often it's not good change.

  • BarryD||

    1. Dumb down education so that even the smarter young people can't think critically.

    2. ?

    3. Profit!

  • John||

    I hate to be an old man. But there is a lot of truth to number one. The young people I interact with seem incapable of understanding a rational argument. It is not that they are liberal. Young people usually are. It is that they seem to put so little thought into their beliefs. They know the talking points and that is it. They have been trained to give specific answers that people want to hear.

  • sarcasmic||

    Sounds to me like their parents don't make them eat dinner at the table.

  • John||

    You know I had to eat with my parents. And we talked about current events a lot. And my father was brutal. He didn't care that I was 12 or even 10. If I said something stupid or wrong, he would tell me about it. There was no "oh isn't it neat our little snowflake is interested in politics". Somehow he was never too concerned about my self esteem.

  • $park¥||

    Or even talk to them other than to find out what new toy to appease them with. We don't eat dinner at the table, but I do talk with my kids every day. Especially when I hear them spouting some bullshit they picked up at school. Sometimes it's like trying to pull a tick that got stuck in the fat folds of an 800 lb old man.

  • sarcasmic||

    We usually eat at the table. I want it to be a habit since I figure at some point in the future that will be one of the only times I have a chance to interact with the little shit.

  • $park¥||

    I told my son he has to learn something new every day. I start bugging him about it when I get home from work and keep on him until he can tell me something. If he can't come up with anything I tell him he better come up with something soon or stuff is gonna start disappearing from his room.

  • John||

    That is a really powerful descriptive metaphor Sparky. I think I could have done without hearing it. But it certainly made its point.

  • T||

    Yeah, it really paints a vivid mental picture, doesn't it? Props to you for that one, Sparky.

  • Killazontherun||

    We didn't sit at the table, but dad was pretty engaged when he wasn't off on a job site for months at a time (constructed nuclear reactors and oil rigs as a high pressure steam fitter). He would take me hiking for entire weekends and teach me what he learned as an Army Ranger. Though for a hard as nails guy you would never want to tangle with he had a soft heart and didn't treat us either as idiots or brow beat us to get off on pushing us around.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But John Stewart is so funny and cool! I totally trust him as a news source. /generation retard

    Most of my friends are...like this, but I am working them slowly with some success.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The sad thing about that is that the Daily Show is more honest in it's skewed reporting than so called legitimate news sources.

  • Bam!||

    No it's not, for one simple reason: Stewart never admits he takes himself seriously. When questioned, he still says, "Hey, I'm a comedian! Fuck off!"

  • Bill||

    Stewart will go through phases where he is more even handed in his selection and treatment of guests. I like him better than Colbert. The first few months Colbert did his schtick it was funny and clever as he was seriously trying to fool people into thinking he was conservative. Now it's just retarded, progressive nonsense. Is that redundant?

  • Rich||

    They have been trained to give specific answers that people want to hear.

    This seems to be what goes as education today. Critical thinking is going the way of that quaint counting back change thing.

  • BarryD||

    No Child Left with a Mind

  • John||

    +1000

  • $park¥||

    Critical thinking is going the way of that quaint counting back change thing.

    We don't have time for that! We have to teach to these unrealistic tests the state forces on us!

    /teachers everywhere

  • Rich||

    We have to teach to these unrealistic tests the state forces on us!

    Why exactly is that?

    /wiseass student soon to be suspended

  • NoVAHockey||

    that was actually the point this teacher made in yesterday's post.

    http://tinyurl.com/bxtx25c

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And if you read the article and comments, you pretty quickly catch up to the fact that the major complaint is that how badly they've botched lower-order skills, let alone critical thinking or rational analysis, is being measured.

    Oh, and give us more money!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Making performance on standardized tests the be all and end all of education is certainly not helping.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Meh,

    Not so sure that rational analysis or critical thinking was much ever on the public school curriculum. Every now and then, if you were lucky, you might run across someone teaching such skills by accident. But, it's always been a matter of chance and purely coincidental.

  • T o n y||

    But all you do is repeat bullshit you heard on a.m. radio. Your prepackaged political beliefs are evidence in and of themselves that you are in no position to scold young people for lacking critical thinking.

  • Cytotoxic||

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • John||

    "My opponents just repeat talking points they hear on the evil AM radio".

    Yeah Tony, you have that talking point down pat. Thanks for giving an example of the kind of irrational unthinking bullshit I am talking about.

  • T o n y||

    First, it's not inherently virtuous to have opinions that nobody else just for the sake of the difference. The problem is that everything you believe is wrong. And that's not a bizarre coincidence, it's that you believe things specifically because your political opponents believe the opposite. But your political opponents believe in facts and evidence, so you end up believing in a whole lot of bullshit.

    The day that conservatives (and libertarians especially) discovered that Logic 101 text gathering dust in their closet was a bad day. That was when they started believing they could just hurl random bits of vocabulary from it and not have to actually say anything.

  • $park¥||

    The problem is that everything you believe is wrong.

    Greatest. Statement. Ever. Good work Tony, glad you didn't have to engage your brain.

    But your political opponents believe in facts and evidence, so you end up believing in a whole lot of bullshit.

    Wait, which party are you talking about here?

  • T o n y||

    If you're not aware of the anti-intellectualism of the right by now, then you've had your head somewhere warm and dark for a very long time.

  • fish||

    If you're not aware of the anti-intellectualism of the right by now, then you've I've had your my head somewhere warm and dark for a very long time.

    Because I like it.

    FTFY

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    FACT: Tony believes in facts.

    Tony wins?

  • Jordan||

    FACTPWNED

  • wareagle||

    FACT: Tony believes in facts that he finds convenient.

  • T o n y||

    I find global warming extremely inconvenient, but because I believe in proportioning my beliefs to evidence, I have no choice but to accept it as fact.

    What do you guys do with it again? Peddle ridiculous conspiracy theories and refuse to consult any reliable scientific source on the matter no matter how easily accessible they are? Was that it?

  • Brubaker||

    Here in Northern Virginia our climate has been unusually warm for two winters and we've had essentially no snow.

    In 2010, our weather was unusually cold and we got a boatload of snow.

    Notice, first, that cold equals "weather" while warm equals "climate," at least in the jargon of the true believers.

    Second, if we actually are experiencing global warming, I'm all for it. I hate shoveling snow.

  • KPres||

    I find global warming extremely inconvenient, but because I believe in proportioning my beliefs to evidence.

    You don't know anything about the evidence. You're operating on an appeal to authority.

  • SugarFree||

    And $park¥ held the sign high above his head, sank to his knees and opened his mouth. The sign said, in sloppy lipstick letters "Please, Tony. Please shit in my mouth again."

  • $park¥||

    And $park¥ held the sign high above his head

    Sorry, I couldn't resist. I accept the flogging that is due.

  • SugarFree||

    Say five Hail Wartys and make an act of contrition.

  • $park¥||

    Say five Hail Wartys and make an act of contrition.

    Fuck off, slaver.

    Good enough?

  • SugarFree||

    You must also be free of the intention to sin again to be truly contrite.

  • Chaos||

    Hey Sparky:

    Now you know why so many Italians are named Tony. When they were walking around in a daze on the docks of Italy in the early 1900's, immigration officials would stamp TONY on their foreheads. In other words, To New York!

  • John||

    The problem is that everything you believe is wrong.

    And by implication you know this because you know everything that is right. Good thing you don't have any delusions of grandeur.

    And that's not a bizarre coincidence, it's that you believe things specifically because your political opponents believe the opposite.

    Yes Tony, if you can't make a rational argument much less win an argument just question the other person's integrity and act like that says anything about the validity of their positions.

    But your political opponents believe in facts and evidence, so you end up believing in a whole lot of bullshit.

    And then pretend that bald assertions and invective count as argument.

    Thank you Tony for giving an perfect example of what I was talking about. The worst part is not that you are so uninformed. The worst part is that you are so uninformed and so irrational that you have no idea how bad off you actually are. You really are living in the depths of Plato's cave.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Tony is the perfect microcosm of how liberals view the world and their place in it. They really see themselves as martyrs nailed the AM radio cross.

  • Government Hack||

    The day that conservatives (and libertarians especially) discovered that Logic 101 text gathering dust in their closet was a bad day.

    Have you ever studied formal logic? Nothing in your posts on this site suggest you have.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Thanks Tony. Your argument's lack of validity and unsound structure proves John's point.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And that's not a bizarre coincidence, it's that you believe things specifically because your political opponents believe the opposite. But your political opponents believe in facts and evidence, so you end up believing in a whole lot of bullshit.

    Best parody ever!

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "First, it's not inherently virtuous to have opinions that nobody else just for the sake of the difference. "

    And yet you're still fucking here.

  • anon||

    Oh shithead, the irony of your post amuses me to no end.

  • BarryD||

    Oh that's right. I DO think that the most important threats to America are Mexicans and Atheists.

    I'd almost forgotten.

    Thanks Trolling Tony, for reminding me!

  • ||

    LOL. Like anyone here really listens to AM radio.

    My favorite radio station is C-SPAN.

    Young people regurgitate the leftist bullshit they get taught in high school and college. That's all that is going on. They get the socialist message rammed down their throats. Eventually a few of them wake up and become libertarians.

  • T o n y||

    That's not how it works in my experience. People go through a libertarian phase sometime in middle or high school. Most grow out of it, especially the ones who go on to higher education (unless they major in computer science or engineering, taking a pass on all the courses that teach critical thinking). Some don't ever grow out of their adolescent flirtation with libertarianism (the perfect philosophy for an adolescent, after all, as it rewards total self-absorption) and grow up to attach tea bags to their tri-corner hats.

  • ||

    Engineering doesn't teach critical thinking?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • fish||

    DesigNate..If had deigned to take a KriTIKal ThinKING course at
    T o n y T e c h you would know that these vital skills only come from the intense study of Womens, Queer and Feminist dance theory.

    Philistine!

  • T o n y||

    Why would it?

  • ||

    You really don't know much about anything, do you sockpuppet?

  • BarryD||

    No shit.

    Engineering and CS are some of the ONLY classes where critical thinking is required -- not just writing what the prof wants to read. In these fields, things work, or they don't work. Think about them wrong, and they don't work.

  • Jordan||

    We all know that "GIMMEDAT" is the one true philosophy.

  • Zeb||

    "the perfect philosophy for an adolescent, after all, as it rewards total self-absorption"

    See, I never understand this claim about libertarianism. It seems to me that completely the opposite is true. When all the dangers in the world are supposedly taken care of by a benevolent government, that is when you can be completely self absorbed. Taking responsibility for your own self requires you to be engaged in the world and with other people in a much more significant way (or to go live in a cabin in the woods and be self-sufficient, but there aren't a lot of that kind of libertarian around here).

  • ||

    You're self absorbed because you want to be treated as an individual (individualism is the worst word in the english language to assholes like Tony).

  • ||

    For the record, everyone who goes to engineering school take liberal arts electives as a requirement. You have to have at leats two courses that qualify as writing focused, otherwise you get to pick. I took history of science, philosophy, and psychology.

    I don't see any requirement in the liberal arts curriculum to take physics or calculus though.

  • BarryD||

    There's no money in flunking out all your liberal arts majors in the first year.

  • JWatts||

    " everyone who goes to engineering school take liberal arts electives as a requirement."

    And generally most Engineers consider their liberal arts classes as Easy A's. Certainly, the home work is non-existent and the tests are a joke compared to Differential Equations, Electrical Circuits 2, Assembly Language, etc.

  • Loki||

    unless they major in computer science or engineering, taking a pass on all the courses that teach critical thinking

    Holy fucking shit. I don't even... wow. Just... wow.

  • AlexInCT||

    Talk about doubling down on making sure nobody doubts you are not just stupid, but really fucking stupid, Tony. As someone with an AE & EE BS degree, a masters in EE, and 2 decades of software writing & architecting experience, I must unequivocally state that the most illogical and stupid people that I ever had to deal with, totally incapable of any kind of reasoning whatsoever outside the leftist talking points they have managed to memorize, had degrees in those socialist indoctrination courses you want so desperately to pretend are what a critical thinking education is all about.

    Simply wow.

  • fish||

    Shhh....you're upsetting him.

  • T o n y||

    Well the stupidest high-functioning people I've known are engineers and computer scientists, but these data are just anecdotal.

  • AlexInCT||

    I am sure that you wrongly interpreted as stupidty was their disdain for you and the fact you aren't even smart enough to understand how stupid you sound and are Tony, but keep on living in that idiot cocoon of yours.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Obviously, they overdid talking down to your level.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "the perfect philosophy for an adolescent, after all, as it rewards total self-absorption"

    Because nobody could ever care about other people without a gun to their head! And the only selfless person is the guy holding the gun! Derp!

  • Briggie||

    (unless they major in computer science or engineering, taking a pass on all the courses that teach critical thinking).

    You do realize that most Computer Science programs require one to take abstract algebra and logic, and you also have to know how to do proofs.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Please, tell me the station that has a libertarian talk show.

  • anon||

    John, I'm not sure whether it's an education problem or an internet age phenomenon; Nobody thinks past step 1 anymore, or unintended consequences of their actions.

  • John||

    Maybe so. Kids don't read books anymore or when they do they don't read hard books. For most of them, Harry Potter is the highest level book they have ever read.

  • Invisible Finger||

    It's human nature. People stop thinking when they are emotionally satisfied.

    Probably the only useful thing I ever got out of catholic education was to have my emotional satisfaction crushed at every turn. The anti-self-esteem education.

  • John||

    Tony must be one of the most emotionally satisfied people on earth.

  • Loki||

    Considering his posts practically ooze smug self satisfaction, you're probably right. It's like a highly concentrated dose of George Clooney oscar acceptance speech smugness.

  • AZ||

    Self esteem is much more useful and productive when it's earned instead of given.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They know the talking points and that is it. They have been trained to give specific answers that people want to hear.

    Ding ding ding!!!

    Even young conservatives fall in to this pattern. In my experience teaching at UK (I taught ONLY incoming freshmen), students have absolutely no socio-political perspective outside of the handful of talking points concerning any given topic. The only non-traditional one I ever received was a very conservative Christian arguing that gay marriage shouldn't be legal because it robs the government of tax money by being able to file as married.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    ...students have absolutely no socio-political perspective outside of the handful of talking points concerning any given topic.

    Which isn't surprising at all.

    They've had little life experience outside of socialist indoctrination camps.

  • JWatts||

    "They know the talking points and that is it. They have been trained to give specific answers that people want to hear." "Even young conservatives fall in to this pattern."

    Absolutely. But at least the young conservatives have had to argue & defend their points. There are way to many on the left that don't even think they should have to defend their points. In their world view, they are self evidently right and anyone else is a kook, crook or liar.

  • John Galt||

    It's not that there's never a rare good youngster here and there, nonetheless, the vast majority are inheriting the future they completely deserve.

  • MoreFreedom||

    As our founders learned from examining history, democracies generally fail once the public starts voting itself benefits from the public treasury. I like to characterize this as the people starting to use government to steal from others, rather than government protecting our liberty (including the liberty of being free from those criminal types who want to use government to steal).

    So as the young vote to use government to steal, they will eventually learn that government will be stealing from them. Hopefully they'll learn sooner rather than too late.

  • Chaos||

    John: I agree with everything you say, but I'm actually glad I'm over 65 and on the backside of the mountain. Maybe I wouldn't feel that way if I had children, but I don't, so I don't really have a dog in the fight. That puts me in the enviable position of being able to sit back and take a sort of perverse pleasure in being able to view the inevitable train wreck that is coming unless things change really quickly. Someone once said, "You get the government you deserve", and I can't wait to see all the idiots who think Obama is the messiah get their just deserts. My nephew is one of the kids you speak of. Highly intelligent, but just another lemming when it comes to critical or individual thought processes. He voted in his first election last November. He let it slip that he was voting for Obama. When some members of the family asked why, he basically said, "Well, all my classmates said this about Republicans or that about Romney." Of course, like all kids today, most of his classmates have been brain-washed by liberal teachers or the like. As you said, today's kids only know the talking points spieled off by people like Jon Stewart or Bill Maher, and we all know they are so "fab and gear?"

    Thank God most kids grow out of Liberalism by the time they are 30 or so. I remember what it was like to be that young and that dumb. Don't know as I'd want to go through it again!

  • SugarFree||

    “Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”

  • T||

    Cicero, right? Some dead wop of some variety, anyway.

  • SugarFree||

    Socrates.

    "I drank what?"

  • John Galt||

    "Want the youth vote? Two words: Free iPhones!" --Plato

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Of course Athenian democracy elected a moron that got them in a war which ultimately destroyed Athens.

    So maybe those thoughts of Socrates weren't so wrong after all.

  • johnl||

    Just what we would expect a wrestler to say.

  • ||

    Everything except the last part. They uncritically accept the worldview passed to them by their teachers, think it's their duty to follow the marter plan authority tells them is good, and show more interest in reliving the heyday of their parents' youth than in creating something new of their own.

  • The Heresiarch||

    A misattributed quote of Socrates, apparently an alteration of a speech from Aristophanes.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Such youth won't be getting any respect from me until they earn it. Eventually they'll have to work for a living, and there they will learn to at least please customers and the boss, or lose their job.

    If the parents didn't do their job of teaching their kids to grow up, then at least the necessity of earning a living will. But we've created not a safety net, but a hammock. So expect many to get on the hammock, develop no marketable skills, and when the government goes broke and ends welfare, I expect many of them will end up on the streets or flipping burgers. If they riot, I expect they will be jailed, or potentially shot by those protecting their property.

    At least the free market produces better manners in people (compare servers in the US to those in the USSR where they didn't want you there, often didn't have products to sell, and treated you like dirt). Unfortunately, a bunch of youth will get what they unfortunately deserve.

  • Alan||

    It keeps the middle classes from threatening those who are already rich.

    Profit indeed!

    The rich will stay rich forever, so long as there are no other sources that might provide large numbers of well-educated and hard-working people who might upset the system.

    Sure, society as a whole will be impoverished, but the rich liberals who run things will be at the top of the heap, continuing to exploit not only those savages in third world places like India and China but also our new young savages in the United States!

    Wait, did I say India and China? it's almost like there's something I'm forgetting....

  • MoreFreedom||

    The rich don't say rich forever, and many go broke. Consider the wife of the founder of Jack in the Box, Maureen O'Connor, who was also mayor of San Diego from 1986-1992. She went broke gambling away the money her husband left her, and even stole money from a charity to do it.

    What is true, is that the more power government has to pick winners and losers, the more power the rich will have relative to the rest of us.

    The solution is to get government out of the winner picking business, and limit government to only dealing with criminals, foreign enemies, and situations in which someone has harmed someone else or their property (i.e. where force has already been initiated against someone). Otherwise, government force just increases the use of force against people in the world.

  • Rich||

    18-to-29-year-olds ... believe that by far-higher-than-average percentages that the government needs to be doing more, not less.

    BWAHAHAHAA!!

    /public education

  • Cytotoxic||

    100% serious: we need MASSIVE immigration. Only immigrants can save us from ourselves. The nativists are oh so culturally blinded.

  • kinnath||

    I tell this to people all the time. The only way to save Social Security and Medicare is to start importing young, healthy workers. And not just tech workers, but anyone that can dig a ditch, build a house, or manufacture a washing machine.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Yeah right. Most immigrants come from socialist backwaters but still want socialism-lite.

  • Skyhawk||

    Right, because, as we've seen for the last 30 years, we need to increase government spending on health care, education, welfare, and 1000's of other programs that increase with waves of low-skilled immigrants.
    We need more government spending to fix the economy.

  • kinnath||

    Of all the things that I a pissed about regarding Obama, I truly hate the muther fucker for what he is doing to my children and grandchildren.

  • DarrenM||

    Of all the things that I a pissed about regarding Obama, I truly hate the muther fucker for what he is doing to my children and grandchildren.

    It's not just Obama. It's the entire system that has evolved over the decades. It will take a lot more to fix it than getting rid of one person, only to be replaced by someone that won't be that much different. Government policy is much better at screwing things up than at fixing things simply by virtue of the type of people who make that policy.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Young people said yes to Obama twice, so it's technically not rape.

  • Rich||

    "Was she asking for it?
    Was she asking nice?
    Yeah, she was asking for it
    Did she ask you twice?"

  • BarryD||

    It is if you're on a college campus.

  • DarrenM||

    Young people said yes to Obama twice, so it's technically not rape.

    Not all young people. There is way too much generalization (of which I admit I'm just as guilty).

  • anon||

    Nick Gillespie: Will Obama Tell Young People How Much He's Screwing Them?

    No.

    Next question.

  • SIV||

    Under-30 voters are “the only age group in which a majority said the government should do more to fix problems,” the nonpartisan Pew Research Center reported in November.

    If only there was a way to distinguish just the ones who feel this way and conscript them all into a new green human-powered navy.

  • Rich||

    Patience, SIV. It won't be long until mandatory volunteerism kicks in big time.

  • ||

    The bright side is they can grow out of it...only to be replaced by the next generation of young idiots.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Modern triremes! Great idea.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "You exist to serve this ship. Therefore, row well...and live!"

  • Pro Libertate||

    And rowing is really healthy.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Are you sure you don't mean soylent green powered navy?

  • T o n y||

    “In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jan. 6, 1941

  • Cytotoxic||

    Spoken like a truly fascistic piece of shit.

  • T o n y||

    Really? Freedom of thought and freedom from aggression aren't explicitly libertarian ideals?

    I know "freedom from want" gets your panties in a twist, but some day you'll join the second half of the 20th century, I'm confident.

  • RG||

    Freedom for want. Let me know whose perfected that, then you might understand why you are mocked.

  • T o n y||

    I'm not sure but I don't think any one of the four freedoms has been perfected yet.

  • sarcasmic||

    The correct answer would be "no one" because it is impossible.

  • ||

    Plus, who gets to decide what you "want". Obviously not you because you don't know what's best you. I guess it will have to be TOP MEN.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Those first two are explicitly libertarian ideas that FDR didn't give a shit about. He put the Japs in camps.

    some day you'll join the second half of the 20th century

    I'm in the 21st actually and more importantly I live in the real world and don't want to enslave others to my needs and wants.

  • T o n y||

    No you just want to enjoy the fruits of modern civilization without having to pay anything for it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    No you just want to enjoy the fruits of modern civilization without having to pay anything for it

    Said the "rich white people can pay for everything!"-tard.

  • sarcasmic||

    The straw man looms! It looms!

  • T||

    I got a match, it won't loom for long.

  • Zeb||

    Tony is in opposite world today, it seems. Libertarians are the last people you could say that about.

  • Loki||

    you just want to enjoy the fruits of modern civilization without having to pay anything for it

    *checks projection-o-meter* "Wow, this thing is off the charts!"

    *projection-o-meter explodes*

  • Brutus||

    I'm happy to pay for everything I use, Tony. That's not what you're talking about, though.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The internment was for their own protection. If Japan had invaded the west coast the Army would have been riddling every Japanese-looking person with bullets, for obvious reasons. While it seems silly to us 70 years later to think that the Japanese navy could have reached california, it didn't seem silly in 1942.

  • Jordan||

    Irrelevant.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And yet the "Japs" that lived in Hawaii were not interned. And Hawaii was thousands of miles closer to the front, and could have been invaded.

  • Chaos||

    That being said, it wasn't likely to ever happen anyway. Emperor Hirohito had great respect for the wisdom of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto,and Yamamoto said, (“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”) Now there would be 3 rifles behind every blade of grass, and with 30 round magazines! LMAO!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I know "freedom from want" gets your panties in a twist, but some day you'll join the second half of the 20th century, I'm confident.

    Yeah, and some day you'll be able to do 5th grade mathematics. But that day, alas, has yet to arrive.

  • T o n y||

    The problem is macroeconomics requires mathematics at a little higher level than 5th grade.

    Which is not to suggest the corporate-funded think tanks and their legions of bleating sheep peddling deficit obsessiveness are even using basic arithmetic--which does in fact incorporate addition as well as subtraction.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The problem is macroeconomics requires mathematics at a little higher level than 5th grade

    No, the problem is that progressives think money comes from elves and unicorns.

    Which is not to suggest the corporate-funded think tanks and their legions of bleating sheep peddling deficit obsessiveness are even using basic arithmetic--which does in fact incorporate addition as well as subtraction

    Right, because neither the highest spending-to-GDP rate in the post-WW2 era, nor the fact that all GDP growth since 2000 has been financed with deficit spending and not capital accumulation, is anything to be concerned about.

  • T o n y||

    Another fun fact about arithmetic: in division you have both a numerator and a denominator. In the country's second deepest recession, of course spending over GDP will go up significantly. In fact in the biggest recession since WWII you might expect it to be the period with the highest spending/GDP ratio!

    So of course there's growing the economy to fix these problems, and then there's using the crisis as an excuse to cut government programs you've never liked anyway.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Another fun fact about arithmetic: in division you have both a numerator and a denominator. In the country's second deepest recession, of course spending over GDP will go up significantly. In fact in the biggest recession since WWII you might expect it to be the period with the highest spending/GDP ratio!

    Another fun fact about arithemtic--there's these things called "functions" where certain people believe that something can grow forever exponentially, and never bother doing the spreads between growth and debt.

    So of course there's growing the economy to fix these problems, and then there's using the crisis as an excuse to cut government programs you've never liked anyway.

    Gee, wasn't the stimulus supposed to do this? Considering we're spending 8-12% of GDP over the last four years in deficits to get a 1-2% growth rate, you think this is a successful rate of return?

    Shit, at least when Reagan was deficit spending to the moon he could claim that overall GDP growth was higher than the deficits he was racking up.

    Face it, Tony--math doesn't give a shit about your "social justice" nonsense.

  • T o n y||

    No Keynesian thinks the stimulus was big enough to return the country to sufficient growth to promote full employment.

  • KPres||

    BWAHAHAHAHAH!

    Please see below. Isn't this Q1 2013?

    http://www.therightsphere.com/.....s-graph-2/

  • Chaos||

    Thank you for finally admitting it. For a year,I've been telling people that Liberals are so stupid, that the only reason they think the stimulus failed was because it wasn't big enough! How does Paul Krugman's jizz taste Tony!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    No Keynesian thinks the stimulus was big enough to return the country to sufficient growth to promote full employment.

    Right, because a country that pays out $700 billion in Social Security, $800 billion in payments to the medical industry, a trillion in defense, and $571 billion in unemployment payments, out of a budget of $3.5 trillion, is caught in a liquidity trap.

  • Chaos||

    Right Red Rocks! That's why Obama pissed away the first stimulus by making sure that the blue states were bailed out of their financial problems and that all the public sector union workers got to keep their jobs. Now he wants another stimulus for what? Oh, I remember! Hire more public sector workers! Workers who produce nothing but added debt for the taxpayers who pay their salaries! That should get the economy restarted right? NOT!

  • KPres||

    "Another fun fact about arithmetic: in division you have both a numerator and a denominator. In the country's second deepest recession, of course spending over GDP will go up significantly. In fact in the biggest recession since WWII you might expect it to be the period with the highest spending/GDP ratio!

    So of course there's growing the economy to fix these problems, and then there's using the crisis as an excuse to cut government programs you've never liked anyway."

    None of this applies, however, when the President's names are Bush or Reagan.

  • anon||

    Nobody suggested you understand anything to do with economics. Sarcasmic's point stands.

  • Chaos||

    A monkey with an abacus could come up with a better economic plan than Keynesian Economics!

  • Vapourwear||

    And ignore the slavery freedom from want implies?

    Fuck off, slaver.

    Employ some critical thinking and see if you can grok the implications of "freedom from want."

  • MoreFreedom||

    While statists like FDR and Obama want to sell you freedom from want provided by government, I guarantee they will step all over the other freedoms in a sure to fail attempt to remove your want.

    To start, they will first take away your freedom to keep the fruits of your labor, so they can pay for it. They will also step on your freedom of religion (e.g. Obamacare forcing Catholics to pay for abortions and contraception). They already are stepping on freedom of speech: they recently confiscated walnuts from a company that said walnuts had health benefits, and the FDA claimed they were illegal drugs.

    Thus, the claims of support for freedom are just lies in pursuit of power and wealth.

  • John||

    so that is why Obama drone strikes anyone he thinks might be a terrorist. Big Daddy wants us all to be free from fear.

  • T o n y||

    You are such a sniveling little hack it's painful. I'm not saying liberals don't give Obama more of a pass than they'd give a Republican, but you take partisan pacifism to a whole new level.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The irony.

  • John||

    They don't give Obama a pass Tony, they support him for it. Drones are a blessing now according to liberals.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/n.....e-blessing

    Drone strikes and assassination of American citizens, that is your party now Tony. You own it.

  • T o n y||

    I accept it. I don't believe in human perfection so I think sitting in the cheap seats looking down my nose at real players is cowardly and pointless, as I think you do too.

    But if that means you want to take ownership of the Bush administration's several major crimes against humanity, be my guest. I'm comfortable being on a team that will probably never even be capable of reaching that level of evil.

  • John||

    I accept it. I don't believe in human perfection so I think sitting in the cheap seats looking down my nose at real players is cowardly and pointless, as I think you do too.

    Yeah Tony that is why you were so forgiving of Bush. Do you even listen to yourself? And Bush didn't commit any crimes against humanity. Do you really tell yourself lies like that? Yes you do.

    And nothing Bush did even approaches the level of ordering the murder of an American teenager solely because he happened to be the son of someone who was embarrassing to the Administration.

    That is what Obama did. He did something no President in history has ever done. He crossed a Rubicon that no one ever thought would be crossed.

    You own that dipshit. You defend him for it. You think it is okay or at least not so bad as to be something to worry about it. No amount of screaming about Iraq (a war that many Democrats voted for and Obama continued) changes that fact.

  • T o n y||

    Wow. It is utterly fascinating that you can maintain normal brain functioning with this much cognitive dissonance. Have Obama's policies resulted in civilian deaths? Yes. So did Bush's, only orders of magnitude more. You're making a moral distinction because Congress authorized his war based on lies? As if all those tens of thousands of deaths--which happened for no purpose--are forgiven because of a piece of paper or an arbitrary difference in doctrine? And casting blame on Obama for not ending Bush's war the day he took office is just obviously disingenuous.

    And how soon you forget the official Bush policy of torturing suspects, which is not only clearly a war crime we've prosecuted others for, but doesn't even work. Evil and stupid.

    Bush (and his people) lied to start a war. To me that means he might as well have murdered those 4,000 soldiers himself. That's more Americans dead than Osama bin Laden could manage.

    The Bush administration was radicalizing for many of us, and made right-thinking people accept that almost anyone would be better as long as he were not surrounded by the same war criminals who took this country's credibility and took a giant shit on it for all time, as most people in this country and nearly everyone else in the world understands--just not those of you tuned to a.m. radio.

  • John||

    BOOSH IRAQ. God you are pathetic Tony. Obama murdered two American citizens. Not metaphorically, but actually did it. He made the decision and sent a drone to do it.

    Suck it Tony. You are now part of the party of murder.

  • T o n y||

    Bush murdered more than 4,000. I'm not saying Obama's perfect, just a lot better.

  • John||

    Yeah Tony, sending troops to a war is just like deciding to assassinate someone.

    Just embrace it Tony. It is just a matter of time before Obama kills again and the next time it is likely to be on US soil. John Brennan said as much during his confirmation hearings. You might as well get ready to defend it.

  • T o n y||

    I've never defended Obama's targeted assassination policy. I believe in due process, even for terrorism suspects. I believed in it during Bush and I still do. What did you believe about how we should treat terrorism suspects during the Bush administration?

    But this is an imperfect world as as long as someone is in charge who is competent and not surrounded draft-dodging ideologues with a war boner who are itching to invade the next Muslim country, I'll take it. We only get, broadly, two choices. And your side fucked up so completely that it's a pretty clear choice.

    And yes I believe sending troops to die in a pointless war is the moral equivalent of assassinating them. Why isn't it? Because war is somehow noble? Even one waged entirely on mendacity?

  • John||

    I've never defended Obama's targeted assassination policy. I believe in due process, even for terrorism suspects.

    Yes you do Tony. You voted for Obama didn't you? You could have voted for Jill Stein. But you voted for Obama because you think your team winning and getting your socialist goodies are more important.

    Sorry, but when the issue is the least important issue to you and doesn't cause you to change your voting habits one bit, you have lost your right to disown the issue.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The left-liberals who stand by this war criminal and Wall Street shill have made their choice: better to have the militarism and police state, so long as it means a little more influence over domestic politics, even if that too is compromised by corporate interference, than it is to embrace a radical antiwar agenda that might complicate their domestic aspirations.

    http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory21

  • T o n y||

    Don't you start lecturing on moral purism in the voting booth. President Jill Stein would still have to make morally ambiguous decisions. I'm not arguing that there is a perfect choice, I'm arguing there is a better and a worse one. And you are on the side of the worse.

  • KPres||

    Bush murdered more than 4,000.

    It's a voluntary army, asshole (thanks to Richard Nixon). A soldier dying in a war isn't murder.

  • KPres||

    "So did Bush's, only orders of magnitude more....which happened for no purpose..."

    Aren't there 32 million Iraqi's living in a Democracy instead of cruel dictatorship?

  • MoreFreedom||

    I find Obama supporters and Bush supporters calling the other guy worse, thus, defending their guy, to be entirely missing the point.

    The point is politicians in both parties abuse the power of office, because we've voted to let our government get out of control. Government is a tool like fire, it can be very useful if you keep it limited to the fireplace, but if you let it out it will burn your house down.

    And I find both Obama supporters and Bush supporters letting the fire out of the fireplace, when they should be concentrating on keeping it in the fireplace.

  • Fatty Bolger||

  • Rich||

    And your point is ...?

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Yeah, he may as well have posted a Lady Gaga lyric.

  • T o n y||

    Just thought it a particularly libertarian sentiment from a past state of the union address and wanted to share.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Because "freedom from want" -- government stealing some people's shit to pay for the alleged needs of other people -- is such a libertarian value. "Freedom from aggression" -- government forcibly disarming people -- likewise.

  • MJGreen||

    In the terms FDR put it in that quote, it could be considered libertarian-friendly. The modern US has been and continues to be free from want.

  • sarcasmic||

    “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
    ― Thomas Sowell

    Evidence:

    The third is freedom from want
  • T o n y||

    "Except there's plenty to satisfy the obscene an endless greed of the superrich... we can't touch any of that loot, not even to feed one starving child."

  • tarran||

    Poow widdle Tony!

    His mommy didn't teach him how to ask, and use powite wowds wike pwease!

  • sarcasmic||

    "...the reading's off the chart... over twenty thousand. Even Master Krugnuts doesn't have a derp-chlorian count that high!"

  • T o n y||

    Ah the hallmark of elevated debate... I fondly recall from history the gentlemanly wrangling between John Adumbs and Thomas Buttfacerson.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Except there's plenty to satisfy the obscene an endless greed of the superrich...

    Actually, there isn't. Even among the superrich there are degrees. Some can afford a private plane, but not a 727.

    Basic economics. How does it work?

    we can't touch any of that loot, not even to feed one starving child.

    Wealth is not money, moron. How does stealing a rich person's airplane feed a starving child? Oh yeah, by selling it and buying food with the money.

    But now another rich person owns an airplane! That isn't fair! Better steal it to feed a starving child. Shit. The kid can't eat an airplane. Better sell it and buy food.

    What? No one wants to buy it? They're afraid I'll steal it back from them? This isn't fair! How do I feed the starving child?

    (see the difference between wealth and money yet, moron?)

  • T o n y||

    The problem is you know so much about so little.

  • anon||

    Care to digress, since you appear to believe you know so much about so much?

  • sarcasmic||

    He does know so much about so much. The problem is that most of what he knows is just plain wrong.

    For example he believes that wealth and money are the same thing. That if you steal wealth from the rich you can use it to feed starving children. Except that children don't eat wealth. They eat food. But he knows that you can feed children with a rich person's wealth. He KNOWS it! Because it just isn't fair that the greedy superrich have so much! It's not fair! So children must eat wealth instead of food! It must be true! His emotions say so!

  • T o n y||

    You seem to understand that the useful innovation called currency can be used to turn a rich person's luxury item into food for a starving child with little hassle, so I'm not sure what you're going on about.

  • iggy||

    If you want to help starving children, you should be advocating for 3rd world countries to become more capitalist. If that occurred, virtually all starving children would stop starving since famines never happen in capitalist countries.

    You're not going to do that though, are you?

  • iggy||

    I'd also like to point this out: Your argument that property rights are something that helps the rich is an utter lie. There's a reason why property rights were first advocated by a newly formed middle class. Property rights help the poor and middle class by stopping the rich from buying armies and taking their shit.

  • ||

    Property rights help the poor and middle class by stopping the rich from buying armies and taking their shit

    Exactly.
    Violating property rights to secure immediate needs is short term thinking. Property rights benefit everyone in the long run by incentivizing production and reducing risk. In a world with no property rights, you have more starving children, not less.

  • T o n y||

    Okay so you're throwing property rights at me as if it isn't explicitly a government institution enforced by what could reasonably be called big government. I believe in property rights. Property rights benefit the wealthy only when they exist and all other rights don't, which is libertarianism.

    I just see no moral justification for using government force to protect the luxuries of the rich but not to provide for the basic needs of the poor.

  • sarcasmic||

    I believe in property rights.

    No you don't. You believe that might makes right.

    I just see no moral justification for using government force to protect the luxuries of the rich but not to provide for the basic needs of the poor.

    You want government to protect property rights while also giving some a claim to the property of others.

    Do you not see the contradiction? Obviously not.

  • T o n y||

    The only contradiction, indeed paradox, is saying taxation is the theft of property, but we have to do it to protect property. The only way to get rid of the paradox is to say that taxation is the way people pay for things they buy collectively, and always has been, and, at least in a democratic society, is not the same thing as theft in any way.

  • iggy||

    'Taxation is the way people pay for things they buy collectively.'

    Okay, Tony. Then how is taking money from one person and flat out giving it to another 'something we buy collectively.' You're the one whose idea of taxation seems to be paradoxical.

  • sarcasmic||

    Then how is taking money from one person and flat out giving it to another 'something we buy collectively.'

    To this his usual response is to accuse you of not wanting policemen.
    He sees absolutely no distinction between taxation to fund government services, and taxation for the sole purpose of wealth redistribution.

    He is not good with distinctions.

  • T o n y||

    Transfer programs like Social Security are things we can collectively buy. It's a government administered service just like a court or national defense.

  • KPres||

    "Transfer programs like Social Security are things we can collectively buy"

    Good. Then I'd like to return mine and get my money back. Oh, can't do that? Well, then, I guess it's a little different than what everybody else in the world means by the word "buy".

  • sarcasmic||

    The reason that there is taxation is because once you have the last word in violence, no one will stop you from stealing. If someone does you can beat them or even kill them. No one will stop you. Since there will always be a group of men with the last word in violence (government), everyone else (society) will have to put up with their theft.

    Taxation is not how people buy things collectively. It's how the men with the last word in violence pay for things.

    Government is not society.

  • Zeb||

    There is no such thing as collective action on the scale of a state. The whole idea is bullshit.

    I accept that some degree of government is inevitable and probably even desirable. But you still have to deal with the moral implications of what is necessary to have a government. Taxation is one of those things. It requires taking people's resources; by force if necessary.

  • iggy||

    In America we've already met the basic needs of the poor, and we did it thanks to capitalism. Ever watch Hoarders, Tony? Our white trash hill jacks have enough money to pile rooms floor to ceiling with stiletto shoes and buy 7 refrigerators to fill with dead cats.

    The places that have the worst outcomes for people are places that have high levels of government intervention. This includes American inner cities, where the government can't keep their hands out of the business of people who live there, and as a result they have the worst outcomes of anywhere in this country.

    Try again, Tony.

  • Zeb||

    "Property rights help the poor and middle class by stopping the rich from buying armies and taking their shit."

    Yep. And the same thing applies to the idiotic arguments you get periodically that the police, etc. are just there to protect rich people's property, so using taxes to pay for them is just the same a redistribution through welfare or whatever. Completely the opposite is true. The rich people can afford to protect their own stuff. It is the poor and middle class who benefit.

  • sarcasmic||

    The rich people can afford to protect their own stuff. It is the poor and middle class who benefit.

    Except that they really don't. Have you ever been robbed or burglarized? I have. The cops took the opportunity to run me for warrants, search me for drugs, question me about drugs, then they left. I knew who did it, but they weren't hearing it. They wanted to bust me for something, anything, and when I failed to give them a reason, they left.

  • Zeb||

    "Except that they really don't."

    I see what you mean. But that's a separate problem. Or do you really think that poor and middle class people would be victimized at the same rate with or without police and laws and stuff?

  • sarcasmic||

    Because of the war on drug users, I believe the poor and middle class have more to fear from the police than from actual criminals. Cops care more about busting people with contraband and stealing their shit than about crimes with actual victims. Get rid of drug laws and cops might actually serve a useful purpose.

  • Zeb||

    "Get rid of drug laws and cops might actually serve a useful purpose."

    Agreed. I have been fortunate enough to have had almost no interaction with police in my life. But it is probably true that in many situations, anyway, poor people have more to lose than to gain from the police.
    If only things that actually hurt other people were criminal, we could probably have about half the number of cops doing twice the good they do now.
    I guess in my original post I was thinking more of how things ought to work than the reality now.

  • sarcasmic||

    I have been fortunate enough to have had almost no interaction with police in my life.

    There was a drug related incident in high school where apparently a report was filed, but there were no charges. However that must have come up when they would run my name. That's my guess anyway, because cops would be reasonably professional until they ran my name, and from that moment on they were just trying to find an excuse. There was one who would just follow me around. Didn't even attempt to hide it. If he saw me he'd follow me until I went indoors, and half the time he'd be waiting for me. Finally they succeeded in running me out of town, and since then the few times I've dealt with cops they actually treated me like a citizen, as opposed to an enemy combatant in the war on drug users.

  • KPres||

    "Your argument that property rights are something that helps the rich is an utter lie."

    Yeah, I love this argument. Minus the state, the wealthy would have no problem defending their property. It's poor people that would shit out of luck.

  • sarcasmic||

    But then a different rich person will own that luxury, and starving children will still exist. It's still unfair.

    All you're doing is shuffling luxuries around based upon politics.

  • sarcasmic||

    Talk about elevated debate.

  • fish||

    "Except there's plenty to satisfy the obscene an endless greed of the superrich... we can't touch any of that loot, not even to feed one starving child."

    Maybe if the members of TEAM BLUE could be talked out of gaming the OBAMAPHONE program there might be a few dollars available for Slim Jims and Cheetos for your starving children.

    No F'ing way you useless pole smoker not a penny more for TEAM BLUE to piss away on their c r o n y s!

  • KPres||

    "Except there's plenty to satisfy the obscene an endless greed of the superrich"

    Wealth = capital, dumbfuck. Consumption by the wealthy is a tiny fraction of the economy, not that I'd expect you to grasp that.

  • Brutus||

    Something tells me you could get the little nipper something to eat. Why not you, voluntarily, instead of taking something from someone you hate (and then congratulating yourself on your compassion)?

  • Tim||

    Freedom from fear? Good grief. This was decades before the media obsession with fear-global warming, asteroids, super flu, assault weapons, aging white men.

  • robc||

    There is nothing to fear except fear itself.

    Listen to liberal icon FDR and fear isnt an issue any more.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    "Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion." - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Executive Order 9066, February 19, 1942.

  • T o n y||

    Nobody's perfect. Ayn Rand took Medicare.

  • BarryD||

    She was also forced to pay for it.

    How refusing to take something that you were forced to pay for is some sort of litmus test for perfection, I'm not sure...

  • T o n y||

    She took it because she needed it.

  • ||

    Which only reinforces the point that everyone, without exception, will spend an unlimited amount of other people's money to stay alive.

    So what's the problem? A) The unwillingness of other people to spend an unlimited amount of money to keep others alive or B) the open ended commitment by people like you to FORCE other people spend an unlimited amount of money to keep others alive.

  • T o n y||

    Is your premise that there isn't a problem with letting people die for lack of resources to get medical care?

    There's a lot more we could do to save people money on healthcare without having to resort to unthinkable wealth-based social darwinism, but once we implement the known strategies for cost-saving, you are free to advocate for death panels.

  • T||

    Y'know, I'm still waiting for somebody to explain why health care is somehow different from every other good and service in the universe that it can't be made cheaper and allocated more efficiently by market mechanisms.

    I guess I'll keep waiting.

  • sarcasmic||

    Y'know, I'm still waiting for somebody to explain why health care is somehow different from every other good and service in the universe that it can't be made cheaper and allocated more efficiently by market mechanisms.

    I guess I'll keep waiting.

    That's not the point. The point is that health care is a basic need. Because it is a basic need, no one should profit from it. That isn't fair. Profit is waste that goes to rich people.
    Because government doesn't waste money on profits, the solution is to put government in charge of all health care. That way no one will profit.

    Cheap and efficient is not the goal. The goal is to prevent people from profiting off health care. Even if that profit motive results in cheaper and more efficient delivery of health care related goods and services, it must be eliminated.

    That way no one will feel bad about someone making a profit off of their health care.

  • T o n y||

    Healthcare is different because it's a product nobody wants to buy but that everyone has to buy at some point. Is that not a clear enough distinction for you?

  • Zeb||

    it's a product nobody wants to buy but that everyone has to buy at some point

    Really? No one wants to have a baby? Or get birth control pills? Or get vaccinated against dangerous diseases? Or just get a check up to see if there is anything wrong?

    There is lots of medical care that is not emergent and which people do want to buy. And almost everyone could plan and save for such things. You are just plain wrong. And the emergency stuff that no one wants or plans for could easily have been covered by a catastrophic insurance plan, which used to cost about $100 a month before the new requirements started to kick in.

  • ||

    EVERYONE dies for lack of resources to get medical care. Some cures havn't been invented yet.

    The known strategies for cost-saving are an illusion that will do little more than slow the inflation rate.
    People just want to convince themselves that the impossible is possible. They don't want to acknowledge the reality that resources are ultimately finite and it's not humanly possible to give everyone all the medical treatment they could possibly benefit from.

  • iggy||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_paradox

    Hey, Tony. Did you know that poor Hispanic immigrants are the least likely group to have health insurance in this country? Did you also know that they have higher life expectancy in this country than even white Americans? Meanwhile, the lowest life expectancy of any group in America is Native Americans, who have free health insurance.

    Given this: How can you argue that a lack of health insurance kills people?

  • wareagle||

    first thing we could do to save people money is to get govt the hell out of the health care business. But folks like you cannot wrap your heads around govt being the wellspring of cost inflation that it is.

  • T o n y||

    The marketplace is, by all evidence, the source of artificial cost inflation, not the government, which in every other industrialized country has managed to keep costs down relative to us even with government-run systems.

    Healthcare just isn't a normal product in the market, so it doesn't follow the same rules as a box of cereal. It's a product nobody wants to buy but everyone will have to buy at some point.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's a product nobody wants to buy but everyone will have to buy at some point.

    I can think of tons of things that could fit that description, yet market rules work for them.

  • iggy||

    And they keep prices down by rationing care. The reason health care costs in America are high is because Americans get far more tests done than people in other countries. The only way to drive down costs is to not let them buy such things. Also known as rationing care.

    Even Krugman said that the only way to pay for this stuff is through 'death panels and sales taxes.' Sales taxes are highly regressive, meaning poor people are going to be slammed by the higher cost of goods. Just like in Europe, where virtually all consumer goods are vastly more expensive than they are here.

    Explain again why this is a good thing.

  • iggy||

    In other words: Food prices would drop if we didn't let people buy food. The price of something being low isn't necessarily a good thing when A) The quality drops accordingly or B) People can't buy the thing they want.

  • sarcasmic||

    The reason health care costs in America are high is because Americans get far more tests done than people in other countries.

    And why not get all those tests? It's not you who pays for it! The insurance company does! Test away!

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, the market place where no one knows what anything actually costs.

  • ||

    Maybe it's because medical care is NOT A FUCKING RIGHT!

  • Zeb||

    Sure it's a right. If you can find someone who is willing to provide it to you at a price you can pay (or for free), no one should be able to stop you from getting any medical care.

  • T o n y||

    Begging the question. I think it should be a right. Just like you think deploying taxpayer-funded government guns to protect your shit should be a right.

  • Zeb||

    See, Tony, the problem is that positive and negative rights are completely different things. We are using the word "rights" to mean different, and often contradictory things.

    I could say "I think that elephants should be considered marsupials". And that may well be true if I have a completely different definition of marsupial than you do. But you know the difference between positive and negative rights and you know that when we say "rights" we mean negative rights.

  • ||

    Medical care is provided as a service to you by another human being. You DO NOT own other people, therefore you do not have a right to the services they provide.

    ahhh fuck it...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuGtxt84wPQ

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Begging the question. I think it should be a right.

    If you think it should be a right, any form of rationing or delays in treatment is a violation of those rights.

    You can't have it both ways.

  • KPres||

    Is your premise that there isn't a problem with letting people die for lack of resources to get medical care?

    Ah, then 100% of GDP should go to healthcare? Because otherwise somebody will be dying "for lack of resources to get medical care"

  • Doctor Whom||

    ... says the person who accuses us of parroting prepackaged political beliefs.

  • ||

    In some people's minds, the only freedom is freedom from reality.

    If only we lived in a world of infinite resources.

  • AlexInCT||

    To progressives we do, but the reason there is scarcity is evil rich people that hoard!

    Death to anyone that has more than me! Or lots of taxation to strip them off that unjustly owned/acquire wealth.

    /progressive off

  • Chaos||

    Hey Tony! I've got a few unicorns left over from my last trip to OZ. Wanna buy em?

  • RG||

    Denninger has a thread citing the NYPost on how bad Obamacare is gonna screw everyone.

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-.....st=3133749

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "But if we go back to a cash-based healthcare system, old people will be dying in the gutters!"

  • ||

    If we go back to a cash-based system some people might not get everything they need!

    It's SO UNFAIR that there's only so much shit on the planet!
    SO UNFAIR!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Poor Tony; it's like he's just going through the motions.

  • SugarFree||

    He doesn't have to put out anymore effort that that to get dozens of people to play along. OhioOrrin proved that all you really needed was "u sux libertard hurr" to get fed attention all day.

  • John||

    Whatever happened to Orin?

  • SugarFree||

    I'd like to think liver failure from eating his own shit every day, but he probably just got banned by handle-hopping after registration.

  • John||

    It is funny how the sock puppets show up on certain threads. They never show up on the straight drone murder threads. But they always show up on the "my God is this generation retard" threads. They do seem to have a method to it. I really think Tony, Shreek, Orin and the others are all just franchises of the same group of Mobies.

  • fish||

    Now be fair John....Shreeky isn't here because he's out battling in the world of HIGH FINANCE....T o n y is because there is a "free" computer in the teachers lounge at Upper Midwit Community College. Orin...well I kinda like your death by copraphagy supposition.

  • T||

    Decided we would never like him and went back to Ohio. But his factory was gone!

    He was good for the occasional one-liner, though.

  • pmains||

    His nurse won't type his messages for him anymore.

  • Tim||

    Yeah this thread is ruint and I am punching out.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    There are alot of stupid people of all ages, but the typical republican platform is so socially intolerant and hawkish, an antithesis of the youngest generation, how can you expect them to support most republicans (aside from Ron Paul's hordes)? At best they should abstain entirely or vote libertarian, but its easy to see the siren song of Obama luring them astray. But is the whole plan to blame a generation for misguidance??? Reagan didn't win by calling the youth morons, he won by showing a new optimistic path to republicanism. Maybe instead of tossing out vinettes of youth stupidity, try considering what will convince them to find a better path. Goddamn reason grumpy old farts.

  • ||

    You have a point.

    I can't understand why we can't have a socially liberal party that is consistently in favor of smaller government.

    Why does social tolerance have to be paired with a compulsive spending habit?

  • John||

    1. No one ever reads the platforms.

    2. After four years of Obama continuing and increasing every single one of Obama's policies, you have to really be retarded to view Republicans as any more or less hawkish than Democrats. If anything, you should want a Republican President on the theory that a Republican, unlike a Democrat, will actually be challenged on war and civil liberties.

    If Obama has taught the world one thing, it is that a Democratic President can get do pretty much anything they want when it comes to war and civil liberties.

  • John||

    And last I looked our current President was anti-gay marriage during his 08 campaign. And since gay marriage is now the single measure of all things tolerant, hard to say he is particularly tolerant.

  • wareagle||

    yeah, but he evolved. After the NC referendum on the issue, but evolved. And found states' rights religion.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You forgot open borders, which cosmos have elevated to near-equal status with gay marriage as a necessity for social tolerance.

  • Zeb||

    Open borders has nothing to do with social tolerance from a libertarian perspective. It is simple freedom of movement, freedom of contract and freedom to dispose of one's own property as one sees fit. Basic fundamental rights of the individual.

  • ||

    Did anyone actually believe that he wasn't pro-marriage equality from the get-go? He was on record in the '90s in favor of it. His evolution was just political theater. It was infuriating how many of my straight friends fawned over him after he "evolved" after making sure it was absolutely safe to do so.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Show me where the GOP platform is "socially intolerant" in a way the Dem platform isn't.

  • Sudden||

    While I'm not prone to agreement with Tulpa or John, they both raise interesting points here. The issue to me doesn't seem that the Dems are any more tolerant, it's just they're "tolerance" is of certain proclivities that the young seem to think important (largely because their parents and grandparents considered them taboo). Sure, the Left is broadly the side that agitates for gay marriage and drug reform. But the left is also actively agitating against free choice in food, tobacco, firearms, "hate" speech, etc.

    It's not simply a matter of tolerance, it's more like a matter of tolerating certain deified beliefs and condemning others. And I don't think that my generation is necessarily prone towards the same deified beliefs, they've just been spoon-fed a certain narrative of what is tolerant for their entire lives.

  • ||

    Kang: Abortions for all.
    [crowd boos]
    Kang: Very well, no abortions for anyone.
    [crowd boos]
    Kang: Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
    [crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]

  • The Unknown Pundit||

    State of the Union: Will Obama Tell Young People He's Screwing Them Big Time?

    Damn it Nick! Enough with the trick questions already.

    Sheesh!

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    [...] The third is freedom from want - which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants - everywhere in the world.


    The only way you can be free from want is by being dead. Unmet wants is what drives the economy and the price system, what in economics is called "Demand." There's NO way around it - people will WANT something, sometime, somewhere. Since there's no genie to conjure up goods and services at the snap of the fingers, what FDR was saying was totally fallacious and stupid. The musings of an ignorant oaf.

    FDR was a big economics-ignoramus, so I am not surprised another big economics-ignoramus - YOU - would even dare quote him.

    The fourth is freedom from fear [...]


    And so FDR was going to ban horror movies, I guess...

    Fear is an emotion produced by certain types of information bombarding the brain, coupled with millions of years of ognanic evolution. Saying that we can live free of fear is the epitome of arrogance and stupidity.

    Again, I am not surprised you would quote that uncritically. You are demonstrably the epitome of... well, you know.

  • T o n y||

    Your problem is you know so little about so little.

  • Sudden||

    Your problem isn't what you know (precious little that may be), it's what you think you know.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Your problem is you know so little about so little.


    Ha ha ha! Great comeback, buster.

  • Chaos||

    Agree OldMex, but FDR wasn't totally economically stupid. He was smart enough to realize that public sector unionism would be a cluster fuck, and that it should never be allowed to occur! Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while!

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    No you just want to enjoy the fruits of modern civilization without having to pay anything for it.


    Government did not create or invented civilization, nor is it the driver of it. The methods followed by all governments, anywhere, regardless of how government types fancy themselves - either good or perfect - run contra civilization. Governments take by force; governments kill and governments cheat. You can try to rationalize them but, in the end, you cannot obfuscate these facts.

    Civilization came to being thanks to the Division of Labor, achieved after the discovery of agriculture and the obtaining of food surpluses. With that, man was finally able to specialize and become more productive in other endeavors without fear of starvation, instead of living every day on the verge of potential starvation as a hunter-gatherer, subject to the vicissitudes of living directly from nature, leaving little time to produce other things. Government had NOTHING to do with any of this, so the suggestion that it is through taxation that people keep civilization alive is not only an egregious lie, it is also a disgusting, crass and incredibly stupid suggestion.

    You're a very stupid person, Tony. I pity you.

  • T o n y||

    I don't want to shock you, but government existed even among hunter-gatherer societies. And they weren't exactly free forms of it. For almost the entirety of human history in all places, humans have been governed by despots. It's just one of the quirks of our nature. We've managed to invent forms of self-government that have the effect of transferring both power and wealth from the hands of the few who were lucky enough to inherit it from their strongman ancestors to a broader distribution.

    You're right that governments use force, but pretending they didn't exist in one form or another at every point along the line of human history, for inescapably practical reasons, is to miss the boat entirely. It is almost logically impossible to envision human society without government in some form or another. You want government, you just don't realize it, and you want a form that is much less free than the one I advocate. You want everyone subject to the tyranny of a system that countenances no large-scale collective effort (i.e., taxing and spending), which would obviously be a nightmarish hellscape nobody would want to live in.

  • Sudden||

    Noting the existence of some form of government or tribal structure does not in any way prove that said govt fostered, developed, or led to the creation of the very thing that OM accurately claims as the birth of civilization: domesticated agriculture and the division of labor. .

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    [...]government existed even among hunter-gatherer societies.


    Really? Government like the DMV?

    You're a bigger fool than you think, Tony. You equivocate so easily it makes me wonder if you're breathing mold in that basement of yours.

    For almost the entirety of human history in all places, humans have been governed by despots.


    So what? How is that a case for justifying the notion that government drives civilization? It's like saying that disease drives health because disease is so ubiquitous!

    It is almost logically impossible to envision human society without government in some form or another.


    Again, so what? It is impossible to envision human society without disease in some form or another. That does not mean disease is preferable to total health, just like government is not preferable to total freedom.

    You want government, you just don't realize it


    So now you can read minds.

  • OldMexican||

    Continued,

    You want everyone subject to the tyranny of a system that countenances no large-scale collective effort (i.e., taxing and spending), which would obviously be a nightmarish hellscape nobody would want to live in.


    You must be jesting. What you're saying is that, sans the systematic and violent taking of property (taxes) and the waste (spending), people would live in a veritable Golgotha?

    Take care of that mold in your basement - it's killing your brain.

  • ||

    He's a left leaning statist shitbag. OF COURSE he can read minds (at least that's what his mommy tells him).

  • KPres||

    of the few who were lucky enough to inherit it from their strongman ancestors to a broader distribution.

    Uh, only 9% of billionaire's money is inherited.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Tony is listing off greatest hits. Do AM radio again!

  • OldMexican||

    The best part (or worst part, depending on your point of view) is Tony's insinuation that without the big taxing and spending state, we all would be living inside the novel The Road, killing and eating each other. Never mind that those scenes of desperation were and ARE routine in pleces where government is the most oppressive and ubiquitous, like the USSR, China and now North Korea. His world and concepts are totally 180 degrees of reality yet he's the one saying we're the crazy ones. I sometimes believe he goes around San Francisco, pushing a shopping cart around, with his trusty laptop and free WiFi.

  • T o n y||

    And they're universally known in areas with weak governments. It goes without saying that tyrannical governments can lead to misery. But minimal governments inevitably do. Or else perhaps you can name a society in the modern world that has both broad prosperity and a government that does as little as you think it should.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    And they're universally known in areas with weak governments.


    Sure, sure. So there's a happy medium of tyranny in your mind - as long as they don't kill you, then they can fuck you.

    Or else perhaps you can name a society in the modern world that has both broad prosperity and a government that does as little as you think it should.


    The US for her first 120 years. A government so weak it could not stop its people from the debauchery of invention and economic development. People came from Europe just to see the sorry affair! Awful, awful place.

    Today we have little invention, no development and a shrinking labor market. Certainly, we're in bliss.

    Imbecile. Imbecile.

  • iggy||

    I'd love for Tony to list all the examples of minimal government resulting in misery. He never actually gives us examples of this.

  • Chaos||

    Holy Shit Mex! Are you saying that Tony is from San Francisco? Because if that is true, it explains his dementia, at least for me. San Francisco! Home of the Pelosites, where you can dine bare-assed in public but can't buy or sell goldfish.

  • OldMexican||

    That conservatives are so inconsistent with their basic message - We want smaller government... except when we're talking about immigrants, the gays, and the ability to kill people overseas! - doesn't help matters, either.


    Indeed, and the awful thing about this is that those are not even conservative values. Limiting people's freedoms and killing overseas are staples of statists, socialists or imperialists. The sad fact is that today's true conservatives have been shushed by those that hijacked the movement and talk in their name. Unfortunately, since these conservatives have been convinced that cheering for empire is evidence of their patriotism and wanting to control people's choices is demontration of their conservative credentials, the movement is doomed, culturally.

    Which is why leftists HATE libertarians, since most of us (not all, alas) libertarians are committed to freedom as a matter of principle and enjoy the most solid of philosophical foundations that help us resist the encroachment from forked-tongued socialists.

  • OldMexican||

    Seems like there's NO end to economic ignorance...

    Re: Tony,

    The marketplace is, by all evidence, the source of artificial cost inflation,


    You have NO idea, NO clue or even a HINT of what is inflation, Tony. The marketplace responds to only two things: Supply, and Demand. Prices are know after the demand schedule is met, and that does not mean only goods or services, but also demand for MONEY. The market clears when the demand for a good or a service, and the demand (in recipricity) of money balance each other - i.e. the market clears.

    What creates inflation is the issuance of paper money by the central bank or the overemission of bank notes and credit by banks, beyond the available reserves. This increase in the money supply makes some people feel "richer" - suddenly - increasing the demand for goods or services, thus increasing prices in the maket. So rising prices are the RESULT of inflation, not the reason.

  • OldMexican||

    Continued from above,

    Healthcare just isn't a normal product in the market,


    WHY? Because you say? Medical care is a service just like any other, provided by a person that made an investment in time and money to learn marketable skills. You cannot call it "different" only because you apply a moral value on it. Your own delusion is YOUR problem, not everybody else's.

    so it doesn't follow the same rules as a box of cereal.


    YEs, it does. BOTH are subjected to the Law of Scarcity. if you don't believe me, then kill all the doctors.

    Imbecile.

  • Sudden||

    Tony defends the state with his every breath for one reason and one reason only: he knows that in the absence of the modern state, he would be too stupid to actually survive.

  • Loki||

    Shorter version: "18-29 year olds are stupid statist assholes."

    I've yet to meet anyone in this demographic who isn't a self absorbed entitlement minded douche nozzle. Hell I'm 34 and I think you extend the self absorbed douche demographic up to at least my age if not older. Truly we are Generation Derp. There's a reason I play violent video games.

  • Sudden||

    I turned 30 in August. And while it is one of those benchmarks where you feel old, I felt at least fortunate to leave behind my association with that wretched 18-29 demo that absolutely radiates delusion.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Loki,

    Shorter version: "18-29 year olds are stupid statist assholes."


    You would be surprised at the inanity of not just a few 30-49 year olds. My siblings and some of my friends from bak home included - they're like Tony except less insane.

  • $park¥||

    Careful, there are a number of posters here in that demographic.

  • Jordan||

    Yep. I'm 29 and a libertarian. My wife is the same age and not quite a libertarian, but close enough.

  • iggy||

    I'm 23. I accept his criticism. Old Mexican's argument is relatively accurate.

  • iggy||

    Sorry, Loki's argument is relatively accurate.

  • fish||

    I'm 23.

    Iggy you are way smarter than 23. Your intellectual beatdown of reasons favorite lefty sockpuppet was a thing of beauty!

  • ||

    Stupid work has been keeping me from seeing awesomeness like that.

  • Not a Libertarian||

    You know for all the grief given to commenter Shrike/Palin, if one reads his or her comments there will be some mode of (very) broadly libertarian reasoning (if not that flavor of this commenting group)

    Commenter "Tony", however, seems to come here to repeatedly state that you are all craven, stupid or evil. Or at the most kind, that you are all severely misguided.

    He or she must be most selfless as to so relentlessly attempt to illuminate your failings given how throughly he or she is attacked.

    The question is, why he or she comes back.

  • Jordan||

    I think he truly believes he's just one more logical fallacy-riddled comment away from enlightening us.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Not a Libertarian,

    The question is, why he or she comes back.


    My guess is that there's nothing else for Tony to do except pushing that shopping cart around San Francisco, dumpster-diving for scraps and magazines, and blogging in his trusty Pentium laptop with free WiFi.

  • ||

    trusty Pentium laptop

    While crying copious amounts of tears that they were produced by companies driven by the evil profit motive, when progressive government could have made those things by strategically redistributing wealth and as such "investing" in society.

  • T o n y||

    We'll call us even because I can't remotely fathom why people would come to a forum only to intellectually circle jerk one other. It seems quite easy to slip into groupthink in that situation. And my hypothesis is that is the problem of libertarians and so-called conservatives nowadays. They don't read anything that doesn't confirm what they want to believe. Say what you will about me but you can't accuse me of that.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    It seems quite easy to slip into groupthink in that situation.


    Funny thing is that this place does not. We're all individuals here, not Statist sheep.

  • KPres||

    Yeah, I've never seen forum under a single ideological banner where people disagree so much as they do here, and I mean that. And usually, the debates are cool and rational as long as everybody's arguing in good faith (ie, not Tony).

  • OldMexican||

    Re: KPres,

    And usually, the debates are cool and rational as long as everybody's arguing in good faith


    They're at least entertaining, as people here have original thoughts (either correct or wrong). You don't see endless iterations of the platitudes "Obama is so dreamy!" and "Fuck the rich/Business/conservatives/libertarians"

  • Sudden||

    They don't read anything that doesn't confirm what they want to believe. Say what you will about me but you can't accuse me of that.

    A fair enough point, but reading something only with the eye to find its weaknesses and tear them apart isn't exactly being open minded and considering information in an objective manner. I'd say that's largely what you try to do here. Moreover, Reason can be an echo chamber at times (as can any forum where the majority of posters agree on a set of topics: see: Huffpo, Kos, NatlReview, etc.) but there is also areas where there are debates that produce something of a valuable dialogue. The reason we come to reason is because we end up discussing issues with people who come from the same general priority background as us (i.e. liberty first), and then debate the issues around that general framework.

  • An0nB0t||

    Sockpuppet. Probably the sockpuppet of a reasonoid attorney with too much spare time. If you read enough of his/her posts, eventually the mask slips.

    Speaking of which, "Not a Libertarian" would be an excellent name for a sockpuppet account.

  • Ryan60657||

    This article should be required reading for every high school student every year.

  • Gladstone||

    Re: Freedom from want.

    I think FDR meant the old fashioned definition of want. That is lacking something as supposed to the modern definition of desiring something. Still stupid but in a different way.

  • Renfred43||

    like Edna said I am blown away that anybody can earn $6418 in 1 month on the computer. have you seen this link http://www.FLY38.COM

  • lap83||

    "I'd argue that what makes "the conservative message" resonate less among younger people is its, well, conservatism on things such as war, alternative lifestlyes, drug legalization, and immigration."

    That is such baloney.

  • lap83||

    I'll break it down,

    war: Young people are not all against war. They are against wars started by Bush and not endorsed by Hollywood.

    alternative lifestyles: Republicans=forced birthing camps, Democrats= diverse people with varying fashion sense holding hands under a rainbow

    drug legalization: I like drugs, but things I don't like should be illegal

    immigration: Republicans=racist teabaggers, Democrats = multiculturally sensitive

    It doesn't f'ing matter what Republicans do because Democrats OWN academia and pop culture. If you don't have any guidance from another source, you'll be a Democrat.

  • T o n y||

    Maybe Republicans should start being intelligent and creative, then they too can influence academia and culture.

  • KPres||

    Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

    And Hollywood is for phonies. That's why the call it showmanship.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Maybe Republicans should start being intelligent and creative, then they too can influence academia and culture[.]


    I blew my coffee out my nose after reading your suggestion that people in our current academia are intelligent and creative.

  • Chaos||

    Mex: You have to understand that it all boils down to one thing for Democrats/Liberals. They only have one reason to live. Their whole existence is predicated on being able to tell themselves and each other that they are intellectually and morally superior to anyone who does not share their ideology or agenda. That is why they tend to congregate in urban enclaves and pump sunshine up each others assholes.They don't understand what passes for mainstream America, because they think that they ARE mainstream America. Like the man said, "A fish doesn't know that its wet!" Liberals think that everything they know or will ever need to know, has already been imparted to them by those sages of Ivy League academia, or maybe Jon Stewart? They are all moist in the crotch now, because the greatest sage of all is going to be speaking directly to them in an hour or so. Unfortunately, we poor Libertarians and Conservatives will never possess the perspicacity or erudition necessary to fathom the wisdom of "The Great One"!

    It must be a tremendous burden to be a Liberal, and have to bear the awesome responsibility of being the only ones capable of possessing enough intelligence, culture and grace to take care of the poor misguided ignorant masses?

  • ||

    Well said. The thing is, they've built up a system of subventions that are covered over by moral arguments and ofttimes outright moralizing. Interestingly, the subventioneers started off with practical arguments [eg., "we need a minimum wage, else people will sleep in the public parks"] and moved into the morals game later.

    If you have a lot of free time on your hands and want to earn the coveted 'stupid' award, track down where the subventions actually go. And then ask pesky questions based upon those actual results.

    No wonder why there's so much economic doomsaying in libertarian circles. Methinks that most here have a wee suspicion that the unwashed masses which the liberals think all love them will show a different side when the subvention money gets tight.

    That said, a sustained stretch of austerity is the time when a polity is most at risk of outright fascism. Fascists promise the same moon the economic statists do, only their muscleheadedness and disdain for economic reality gives them a sincerity that an abashed subventioneer can no longer show. So, there's a case for hoping that the creaky system of present times keeps creaking along until libertarian ideas have spread more widely and grown deeper roots in the culture.

  • fish||

    Yes...it's incredibly creative to do little more than whine for more taxes each and every day. Thinking up new ways to wheedle for money you haven't earned is the highest of callings!

  • ChrisN||

    But health care is a right...

    There's a pile of rights here that the State has to grant and enforce..

    We'll pass this bill, find out what's in it, and it'll all work out.

    Trust us.

  • XM||

    If young people are libertarians who are turned off small government arguments made by "conservatives", then why don't they just vote.... libertarian? Or at least vote to limit the size of government, whether it has Republican support or not?

    I'm not even sure young people can even distinguish "conservatism" from "libertarianism". Advocating for libertarian agenda online is bullseye for "You got that from FOX news" or "you're a right winger" type of response from college kid. Outside of the die hard Ron Paul crowd (who won't vote GOP anyways) most kids are reliably left wing and endorses an active government that promotes social agenda. Drug legalization and gay marriage are popular leftist agenda that just happens to coincide with libertarianism.

    Conservatives snapped out of the illusion that Latinos and immigrants are "natural constituents" because they go to church and are "hard working". I don't know on what basis libertarians keep thinking "if either party was more like us, they would win." The country will be still broke if gays can marry and you can smoke dope.

  • stop telling lies||

    No need for this article. The United States will soon be unable to pay any bills. No one will get any of their "investment" back.

  • nolabels||

    Tonight, President Obama is going to have to be a uniter, not a divider.
    One thing that we can all agree on is that the Congress and the President need to work together.
    No Labels is committed to support party collaboration and resolve the congressional gridlock.
    Join us @ http://www.nolabels.org

  • fish||

    Join us @ http://www.nolabels.org

    That address doesn't work! Try this one.

    http://www.wereabunchof bigoldouchebags.org

  • Moridin||

    Is it just me or has Nick's articles read like rants lately?

  • Roderick||

    my buddy's half-sister makes $72/hour on the internet. She has been unemployed for nine months but last month her pay was $18223 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site http://www.FLY38.COM

  • Libertarius||

    Well you should hear what the kids are reciting in gubbermint skoolz deze dayz:

    Bernanke loves me yes I know,
    for FDR tells me so
    white guilt is my social crime
    open borders for all time

    no such thing as inflation, it's never happened yet
    and printing moneyz not the same as monetizing debt

  • دردشة عراقنا||

    Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the world
    http://www.iraaqna.com

  • دردشة بغدادية||

    Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the world
    http://www.iraaqna.com/vb

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement