Barack Obama

"To Obama, the State Can Still Solve Every Problem"

|

In his State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama perfectly articulated his vision of economic policy: The government can, and should, subsidize and regulate the demand side of a given market. Health care, day care, college, you name it. It's always about giving real and potential consumers the means (through subsidies, tax breaks, and price controls) to get more of what they want.

At the same time, Obama talked boldly that "tonight, we turn the page," and leave behind the past 15 years of WTF and march boldly into the 21st century. Except that as he long as he's running the show, that's not going to happen. Not as long as he's in that 20th-century mind-set where the state can solve every problem by making goods and services cheaper or more expensive through government manipulation.

It's time, I write in a new Daily Beast column, for Obama—and many ostensibly pro-market types in both the Democratic and Republican parties—to recognize that the first, best way to spur innovation and create broad-based prosperity is by growing the supply side.

We didn't get to cheap hamburgers by subsidizing their purchase through targeted tax breaks to working Americans. Fast-food chains drove down prices and upped quality in their desperate attempts to grab and keep customers.

The same thing is true of all sorts of consumer products and services. When VCRs, home computers, and cell phones first hit the markets, only wealthy people could afford them. Prices tumbled because manufacturers increased the supply and variety, not because the government gave us money to go purchase them. As the economist Joseph Schumpeter wrote in 1942's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, "The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens [but] in bringing [silk stockings] within the reach of factory girls."…

The Obama administration is instead throwing up more obstacles to day care options by requiring providers in federal programs to have college degrees. That's even though there's no evidence that such a requirement has any effect on the quality of care. Similarly useless constraints on the possible supply of health care exist. "Certificate of need" laws, which essentially let existing health care providers veto new entrants into the marketplace, are just one example….

Supply doesn't always create its own demand, but we really have little idea as to what goods, services, and technologies are going to emerge and stick around (do you still have a VCR, or even a DVD player?). Which makes it hard as hell to plan to subsidize demand via government programs. It's far better to reduce barriers to innovation and entrepreneurship than to use slow-moving, lumbering subsidy programs to move into the 21st century.

Read the whole piece at the Beast.

NEXT: No Asylum: Immigrants Locked Up in U.S. after Fleeing Violence

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.

  1. My girlfriend is dealing with this, or will be soon. She works in early childhood education, which is a fancy way of saying pre-school, which is a fancy way of saying day care. Anyway, she’s got a degree…in accounting. But soon, we don’t know when, she’ll be pushed out. So will many others. This is not a job that requires a degree. It just doesn’t. Maybe to be a director or a program coordinator or something, but to be a ‘teacher’ (it’s what they call it) a ECE degree is not necessary. It’s not a high paying job either. Who the hell goes to college and gets a bachelors degree to make $14-16 an hour? Some with more experience make $18 an hour. Totally stupid and all it will do is drive up the cost of day care.

    1. Who the hell goes to college and gets a bachelors degree to make $14-16 an hour?

      Women, mostly. But that doesn’t have anything to do with the “pay gap”. And don’t you ever forget it.

      1. They’ll tell you 1) that teaching preschool is so difficult that they should get six figure salaries like doctors, but only don’t because it’s a ‘woman’s field.’

        and 2) those female preschool teachers woul be cardiologists and applied mathematicians if on;y the patriarchy in those fields didn’t discourage them.

        No offense to any preschool teachers out there, but I’ve met enough to know that almost none of them could be or ever wanted to be adept at advanced differential equations or open heart surgery. It’s like saying the mail man would be a fields medalist if only he got free college education.

    2. She could put that accounting degree to use…

      1. She’s been trying. To get an entry level accounting job she’d need to quit her current job with quite good benefits and ok pay and either do an internship or temp work. She just can’t afford to do that. She’s not 22 living with her parents. Accounting is one of those fields where “entry level” means 5 years experience.

        1. Back it ’96 I was in school for accounting And working as a Production Manager in the construction industry. When I was layed off I went to a job fair and ended up scheduling an interview with Accountemps. Wasn’t looking for a temp job but needed some interview practice so I figured why. They called several times with crappy low paying bank teller jobs. I told them to not call me again unless they had at lesst a $15 an hour job. Next day had a job working for a large company in a temp position for an indeterminate period of time. A year later I was hired permanent and in still employed to this day. A lot of people don’t bother with temp agencies but you never can tell what they may be able to provide. Can’t hurt to talk to them.

          1. I worked for a few mos. thru a temp agency for 1 client of theirs, Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. The temp agency was declining even then, and since then basically found themselves with nothing.

          2. Similar story here. Temp job in the mail room in ’97 – now a senior IT position at the same company. I tell everyone to go thru a temp agency but they usually ignore me.

          3. some guy who posts here has a friend whose mom made $17564.23 last month working on her computer. She just bought a new Ford Pinto.

            1. New? They haven’t made Pintos since 1980. And I wouldn’t pay a cup of warm urine for one, let alone 17 thousand.

              1. Woosh! You didn’t even have to duck!

                1. That’s heightist you bigot.

        2. My friend Nadine was never able to make a living alone in bookkeeping, even though her father had been able to support a family that way, and it wasn’t attractive for her to push her career & training up to accounting. She wound up working for a succession of clients who could barely afford to pay her (or anyone else for anything, it seemed?and of course she was in position to judge that), and much of her work was obsoleted by computer programs. She and a colleague had an ambition to develop a general bookkeeping program, but it didn’t come to fruition, probably because they realized they’d come late to that game.

          Until she took up the books, Nadine had spent time as an aspiring stage performer (singing, acting?her family were opera nuts) working temp jobs in the meantime, then public school teaching, which was hell but didn’t require special training at the time. Her sister was a musician, married someone who made lutes, had 3 kids, divorced, and went into unrelated office work with nonprofits.

        3. She could moonlight on eLance. Has she any interest in freelancing?

        4. To get an entry level accounting job she’d need to quit her current job with quite good benefits and ok pay and either do an internship or temp work.

          With that degree, and if she’s got an acumen for a balance sheet (i.e., she’s actually interested in businesses), I believe she could get a gig with Fidelity or some-such where they would sponsor her taking Series 7.

          Its $300 and one long, banal test, but then she’d be a broker. There’s money in that. A lot if she’s good.

      2. No CPA would ever sign off on my work.

        My goal is to pay zero income taxes for 2014, and I’ll probably pull it off…

    3. My oldest son’s preschool teacher had 1 year of community college and was sub literate. But she did a great job, and got along well with 4 year olds. And she was hot. 4 year old boys respond well to hot chicks.

      1. My oldest son’s preschool teacher

        Did she bring home $7522 for just a few hours work, too?

        1. I’m not sure what minimum wage is anymore.

      2. 4 year old boys respond well to hot chicks.

        That’s awfully young to have already indoctrinated your children into the sexist woman hatred necessary to uphold the patriarchy.

        1. That’s awfully young to have already indoctrinated your children into the sexist woman hatred necessary to uphold the patriarchy.

          Only a fucking PC liberal could see sexism — which is precisely the opposite of admiration for a female teacher in control of 20-30 people.

          A patriarchy dominated by 4-year-old boys, the power-hungry bastards.

    4. “It’s not a high paying job either. Who the hell goes to college and gets a bachelors degree to make $14-16 an hour?”

      WELL WHEN OBAMA WAVES HIS MAGIC SUSIDIZIN’ WAGE-WAND EVERYONE WILL BE MAKING 6-FIGGURES BY WATCHING 4yr OLDS PLAY WITH BLOCKS

      1. And then 6 figures will be too little.

        1. If everyone starts to make six figures, go long on wheelbarrow stock. Everyone will need one to carry enough cash to buy a gallon of milk.

    5. Day care is a fancy way of saying baby sitting.

      1. It takes a village.

    6. Juice, your notes on your girlfriend are spot on to this 35-year education activist. You mentioned working for a degree to earn $16 per hour.

      My employer sent me to Canada in the early 70s. What I saw was so extreme I probably spent two hours confirming it.

      Certification of high school teacher in 1972 Manitoba.

      1) Received at least a B+ when you took the course in high school.

      2) College-level courses in teaching skills only (I want to say one year, but will say two to be safe.

      You know the subject matter and how to teach it. Period. I then researched Manitoba’s schools. They were slightly above median scores, among all the Provinces.

      Ironically perhaps, the top province was then Quebec, where the public schools were what we call Catholic schools.

      I later elected a slate of candidates to an Ohio local school board where we had to fight for marginal gains, even though we had the worst-ranked schools in the county. I moved to Seattle, so I’m sure there were continuing gains by the replacements we hired for the ones we fired.

  2. The Obama administration is instead throwing up more obstacles to day care options by requiring providers in federal programs to have college degrees. That’s even though there’s no evidence that such a requirement has any effect on the quality of care.

    On the other hand, it does give all those underwater basket weaving majors who whose tuition we’re subsidizing a marketable credential.

  3. You neglected a key point. Subsidizing demand in a situation where supply is constrained will cause prices to rise, thus negating the effect of subsidies.

    Keynesians make the obvious response that lack of demand will not motivate producers to increase supply. However this neglects the crucial point that there are many markets where the supply cannot rise either due to physical limitation or artificial constraints.

    For instance, the reason day care is expensive is not because there is a lack of aggregate demand for day care. It is because regulations prevent lower-cost providers from entering the market. Subsidizing day-care will thus not encourage more people to go into the day-care business. It will just cause day-care prices to rise further.

    Same for health care, same for housing, same for college. There are numerous markets where the government subsidizes demand, but those subsidies are ineffective in increasing “access” to those products, because the subsidies are applied in a market that cannot grow or innovate due to government regulation.

    1. You nailed it.

    2. Everything the government subsidizes has seen prices go through the roof. And unsurprisingly, in the cases of housing and college, it also means that people’s debt goes through the roof. In the case of health care, everyone’s care got worse while their costs went up. It’s great! The government should subsidize everything with this track record!

      1. it’s almost like no one notices the cause and effect. Then again, with the statist types, it’s never about efficiency or better service, it’s power and control.

        Too bad the language no longer matters to many people. Take the term ‘subsidy’ and chew it around. Fancy way of saying ‘other people’s money’ which is not a finite resource.

        1. It’s because cause and effect are to distant from each other. Most people can’t see rent control as reducing rent. Clearly good. End of story. Every subsequent step in the causality chain leading to less available housing, people moving out of the city, residential buildings going vacant, housing prices rising, all that just doesn’t occur to them. And even after you explain all that, they’ll forget an instant later and say “but lower rent is good, right?”

  4. We didn’t get to cheap hamburgers by subsidizing their purchase through targeted tax breaks to working Americans.

    Farm subsidies notwithstanding, right?

  5. If the market were capable of providing widespread access to college, healthcare, etc., then no liberal would be taking the position that government should step in. Yeah the market has done a fantastic job at providing cheap crap food. That’s why no politician is talking about subsidizing it. Good job market. One point for you.

    1. If the market were capable of providing widespread access to college, healthcare, etc., then no liberal would be taking the position that government should step in.

      What makes you think it isn’t capable? Get government barriers to innovation and new entrants out of the way.

      How do you feel about the “Certificate of Need” laws?

      1. How do you feel about the “Certificate of Need” laws?

        It’s Tony. He’s the one who informed me yesterday that ‘rights are made up’ therefore we have to base policy on ‘ethics.’

        You see, rights are meaningless because they are invented by people, but apparently ethics are ordained by God.

        Arguing with Tony is impossible because he doesn’t even know the meaning of the words he uses. He heard them on Rachel Maddow last night and just strings them together in incoherent, meaningless sentences in the desperate hope that people will be as dumb as he is and therefore won’t notice the fact that none of his arguments hang together.

        1. You’re wrong about Tony. He is quite intelligent, but disingenuous. He rationalizes his pre-existing biases constantly and adopts inconsistent position depending on which pre-existing beleif he needs to rationalize at any given instant.

          He’s basically been arguing the idea that rights are (and should be!) whatever the majority makes up because he’s been backed into that position, because he’s been unable to come up with any better argument for rights to healthcare or gay wedding cakes.

          Essentially he just wants what he wants and is willing to invent bullshit and change tactics in order to support whatever he wants to support. But he’s not stupid. The smartest people are generally the best at confabulating arguments to support their own biases.

    2. Cheap crap food is better than expensive crap food, Tony. It also has a ready supply, unlike in your socialist utopias.

      1. No, you don’t understand. Expensive crap food is better because then poor people (who are too stupid to know any better) will buy less of it. That’s why good liberals should be demanding a tax on cheap crap food, so as to discourage stupid poor people from buying it. Same with crap processed food and all that crap food that stupid poor people buy in their food deserts. Poor people are stupid, and they need government to help them. Same with blacks and women. Only smart, white liberals, using government force, can save stupid people from themselves.

    3. Which explains why access to those services has gotten so much better and more affordable since the government took over for the “failing” market.

      1. In Tony’s world, if prices rise, you just fix the price or increase the government subsidy because you are doing something he deems to be good.

        The state can adapt and overcome. Regular peons can’t.

      2. Fast food, College, Health Care. Two out of the the three have massive government intervention. Prices are hardly driven by free market forces. The lack of choice is the first indicator that the free market isn’t in control.

      1. God damn you, internet! Is there anything you can’t do?

    4. Venezuelan Tony: “If the market were capable of providing widespread access to food and toilet paper, then no liberal would be taking the position that government should step in.”

      1. ^THIS

    5. widespread access to college, healthcare

      You almost make it sound like its particularly HARD to get a college degree, or that there are no hospitals in America.

      Tell me more of this capitalist dystopia you live in, where everyone dies of easily-treatable illness and no one has access to any education.

    6. Yeah the market has done a fantastic job at providing cheap crap food.

      No, dolt, the market has done a fantastic job of providing food, as evidenced by our obesity ‘epidemic’. People choose what food they prefer based on their individual weighing of factors such as price and healthfulness, among other things.

      1. I like how effortlessly it shifts between “obesity epidemic/ugh disgusting Wal-Mart poor fatties gobbling overly-cheap fast food” to Matt Damon claiming that 1 in 6 Americans, even with jobs, are going hungry.

        1. If you ever want to make your head spin, look at where the data of “one in six Americans” or “one in four children in the USA” go hungry. These are typically based on surveys with questions like, “in the past year, was there ever a time you were worried about not being able to pay for groceries?” If perhaps you were changing jobs, moving or had a big unexpected expense, and looked at the household budget and said “honey, maybe we should consider cutting down on steaks and maybe go with some generics on the next Safeway run,” so answered the survey ‘yes’, you are now “food-insecure” per the government and you are one of those hungry people.

          Another way is when they look at income levels and then compare how many lower-income folks aren’t getting food stamps, they assume anyone with a low income who is not getting food stamps is also starving. This leads to a high percentage of residents of Stanford, CA (almost all students at Stanford University) qualifying as going hungry, because they have little or no income and also aren’t getting food stamps (they fact they are on a paid campus meal plan doesn’t get registered).

    7. The stupid is strong with this one.

    8. “If the market were capable of providing widespread access to college, healthcare, etc., then no liberal would be taking the position that government should step in.” Pah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Right. That is why the liberals are arguing to end the government policies that drive up the costs of things like college and healthcare. Oh, wait, no, they’re not.

    9. So because liberals thought they could do better by fiat, the market doesn’t work. Got it. Results of government intervention are irrelevant, actual outcomes are irrelevant, all that matters is if somebody somewhere complains. Are you getting stupider?

    10. If the market were capable of providing widespread access to college, healthcare, etc., then no liberal would be taking the position that government should step in.

      There is nothing liberal about government stepping in. The term liberal comes from liberty. There is nothing liberating about government control. I hate the way progressives turn words inside out to hide their evil controlling ways.

    11. Yeah the market has done a fantastic job at providing cheap crap food. That’s why no politician is talking about subsidizing it. Good job market. One point for you.

      See…

      Exactly what wareagle said:

      Then again, with the statist types, it’s never about efficiency or better service, it’s power and control.

      The market provided people, EXACTLY, the type of food they asked for, but that’s not what Tony wants people to eat. Tony wants to force his will upon the people and make them eat what he thinks they should be eating.

      As I’ve said, many times…immoral pig.

    12. If ‘cheap crap food’ is such a minor point, why don’t you move to Zimbabwe.

      And of course, if the market could provide *insert access to any product* then no communist would step in and demand that the Soviet Union take over that industry.

      Mr. Pangloss, we do not live in the best of possible worlds. Just because the government is doing something or liberals support the government doing something, doesn’t mean it should be doing something.

    13. Ahh, the purposeful, practiced unexamined existence on display.

    14. I disagree with you. First, liberals would never stop taking a position that government should step in since their entire ideology demands big government and government interference in all human acts. Secondly, if there weren’t so many government controls, demands, laws, rules, and regulations in education, health care, etc., the market certainly could be capable of providing more access to everything one needs and make them less expensive.

  6. Just to make an analogy, the supply of oil and gasoline is generally very rigid. If we subsidized gasoline purchases, would that increase the overall consumption of gasoline? No, because there is only X amount of gasoline to go around. It would just cause gasoline prices to rise, negating the subsidy.

    The point is that while there may be some markets where a lack of demand is driving lower production, day care, health care, and housing, are not those markets. These are all markets where supply is being artificially constrained and cannot rise to meet increased demand.

    1. Wellll, the higher price of gasoline would result in more players in the market trying to provide gas, so the supply would go up. There is X now, but the increases profits from the ability to raise prices would lead to capitalization which would create the ability to increase supply to the new, subsidized equilibrium. So in the free college case, since the colleges are getting subsidies for having students in certain areas of study at a certain grade level, you can expect that community colleges will expand those parts of their school(increasing supply), shrink the class sizes of the other parts (raising prices for the non-subsidized students) to push people into the subsidized areas. It’s a little different because the money doesn’t go to the student, it goes to the school, so normal supply/demand will still drive the price (though it will be cheaper due to increased supply…but not free. there are not infinite teachers). As i said, though, it will be more expensive if you don’t go for the government approved course of study.

  7. Tony’s here, but we can ignore him and enjoy the DB comments instead:

    Velociryx 21 minutes ago
    Yep. Just increase supply. Because that “always” works.

    Even when there’s no demand.

    And companies are in the business of increasing supply “just because.”

    I mean…look how well supply side economics has worked every other time it’s been trotted out by the right, yes?

    All the “high info” conservatives know this…why don’t you libz?

    /smirk

    1. Right, cause lack of demand is what’s wrong with the day care market.

      1. What they’re saying is that poorer people can’t afford to demand day care in the expensive, highly restricted day care market. But we can’t just let people without ECE degrees to keep an eye on people’s kids during the day, so we have to require master’s degrees for day care workers AND pay for the poor to send their kids there. Don’t forget to pay for the ECE master’s degree too. You know, to keep up demand.

        1. Let’s be honest here. Pre-school is a middle-class aspirational values thing. Day care for the “poor” is a TV turned to Sesame Street and a warning “not to open the door for nobody, Momma’ll be back for lunch”. Even if the government provided free day-care, unless they’re also going to provide for armed agents of the state to visit every home to pick up the children and then drop them off, you’re not going to see these poor kids in day care. Because Maury’s on and we need to pick up some cigarettes and beer first.

          1. You’re not supposed to speak of incentives, HM. Either one belongs to a victim group that needs government protection, or one is a racist. That’s all that matters.

            1. Either one belongs to a victim group that needs government protection, or one is a racist. That’s all that matters.

              Buttressed by tribal slogans from the opposing side.

          2. This is going to make raising a daughter a lot harder. “Honey, make sure you don’t drop out of school and get knocked up at 15 by some guy who’s name you don’t know, or you’ll end up… living in a free apartment, having to let the free day care service take care of your half dozen bastard kids while hang out at McDonalds getting dinner for all your friends with your food stamps while comparing each other’s unemployment checks.”

          3. Day care for the poor is quite real, quite natural, and totally unknown to many free marketers who never read Friedman.

            One woman, perhaps two, provides care for as many as 15 mostly toddlers and diapered babies. You’ll see maybe 7 babies on a bed, or 15 in blankets on the floor.

            In the mid-70s, I used it for my son in a Toronto high-rise condo. My only alternative. I almost shit when I saw the apartment with so many kids, but all was peaceful and I saw the type of loving care most parents would die for. The care givers were immigrants, mostly India, the only way they could afford to live where a school was on our grounds, an elevator and short walk away.

            When I later became a political writer, this was a favorite story. I was soon invited to witness similar arrangements in the Cleveland ghettos.

            It’s quite simple, like a commune. 15 women get a job, “share” a small portion of their earnings for care. Friedman used a similar example as one a possible opportunity from his negative income tax.

    2. And companies are in the business of increasing supply “just because.”

      No, they want to make money. They have a lot more incentive than “just because”. The government does the things it does “just because” and has no incentives other than self-perpetuation, which is why everything it does is an inefficient clusterfuck.

      1. They also seem to presuppose that unit costs are fixed and there is no way to make things efficiently enough to set a price point that will stimulate demand.

        1. Nah. The politicians who endorse this stuff just know it sounds good and noble so it sells. I mean, who can oppose FREE daycare? Or FREE college? Those are good things, and more of a good thing can never be bad.

          The economic aspect doesn’t even factor into the equation for the average voter or politician. The politician would gladly trade the nation’s well-being to win an election, and the average voter doesn’t know crap about economics.

          The consumer probably won’t see increased prices because the government will just keep increasing the subsidy.

          1. Except that giving people money to buy a good thing does not make more of said good thing when the supply of said good thing is externally constrained.

    3. enjoy the DB comments instead

      I just read those comments, and found no joy, but only despair for the fate of America. The DB commenters are the same folks who thought the US should be more like Europe and who cheered for Hugo’s Bolivarian Revolution a decade ago. They are also likely American voters who cannot understand a reasonable argument.

  8. The commenters at the daily beast are such an enlightened and well-educated lot… they just sigh and shake their heads at poor Nick’s deluded and ‘disproven’ theories. Don’t we all know that Obama has repealed laws of supply & demand?

    1. The Progs have an inability to accept reality on realities terms. The market is nothing more than an aggregate reflection of individual choices. However, when that reflection happens to be a fat slob staring back at them they want to break the mirror and scream “Problem Solved!”.

    2. They know better than us. They know raising minimum wage won’t cause companies to fire some of their workers, because well that would just be mean.

      1. MarkLastname|1.24.15 @ 3:24PM|#
        They know better than us. They know raising minimum wage won’t cause companies to fire some of their workers, because well that would just be mean.

        I blame the failure of many free marketers, who keep whining like you do, and are too fucking stupid to explain it to anyone (which, of course, they don’t have to.)

        Force McDonald’s to increase wages by 15%. This causes their prices to increase. At higher prices, BY DEFINITION, consumers can afford to buy less stuff. (duh)

        McDonald’s sells less stuff, which means they don’t NEED as many people. (Or consumers cut back elsewhere)

        Simple enough? So who’s really the stupid ones here .. as we babble about Austrian economics and otherwise preach to our own choir? Of WE know it, and THEY do not, whose fault is that?

        Do we blame schoolchildren for dumbass teachers?

        I’m suggesting that you stop the mental masturbation and go teach somebody. Crazy, eh?

  9. This is why illegal immigrants are true American patriots, perfectly willing to fill the demand and ignore these stupid regulations.

  10. Obumbles did not elect himself, a nation of morons did. A nation of morons is being led by a guy who does interviews with an imbecile who bathes in cheerios while he snubs the prime minister of Israel.

    Fuck everyone who voted for this guy.

    1. I guess we suffer from the hard bigotry of high expectations.

    2. . A nation of morons is being led by a guy who does interviews with an imbecile who bathes in cheerios while he snubs the prime minister of Israel.

      Obama was elected twice, in a country that is 59% libertarian. Apparently that alone proves a libertarian moment
      Hallelujah!

  11. And if Obama had ever, in his life, solved a problem via State intervention, I might not have fantasies about boiling him in oil.

    In all seriousness, has this pillock ever involved himself in any process, situation, or project and made it one iota BETTER?

    1. If you measure success by intentions then every action you take makes things better.

      1. Not this idiot.

    2. Obama’s goal isn’t to make things better, at least not in the sense that a normal person would define it.

      His goal is to make things worse, and he’s all too good at it.

      1. I don’t think you are quite right. I don’t think Obama believes that his bungling will make things worse, and desires that end. I think he has a lot of stale Socialist/Intellectual goals and that it is the goals that will make things worse, but he believes that they won’t.

        In short, I don’t think he’s COMPETENT or SMART enough to have the effect he has had deliberately.

        1. Obama is smart enough to know he can push the envelope as far as its ever been pushed and he won’t suffer any consequences. For over a century, the left has been working to destroy America as a world leader and Constitutional Republic and have never had the power Obama has given them to finally realize this dream because even FDR didn’t have control of every American institution as the left does today and Republicans in his time weren’t simply another liberal party as they are today.

  12. From the DB comments:
    My point stands: unregulated capitalism is inherently dangerous. It seeks max profit, often on a “get it now, damn the future and damn the consequences.” Without anti-trust regulation, capitalism inherently seeks to eliminate competition, not nurture it. Those forces were at work pre-ACA.

    Got that? Prior to the ACA, the problem with the health care industry was that unregulated capitalism was trying to eliminate competition and maximize profit.

    If only that had been true.

    1. Without anti-trust regulation, capitalism inherently seeks to eliminate competition, not nurture it.

      Says the narrative. From a certain perspective, capitalism is competition. It is just people trying to survive in a world of scarcity. Antitrust legislation is just government attempting to fix a problem that it created.

    2. It seeks max profit, often on a “get it now, damn the future and damn the consequences

      Is this person talking about capitalism, or the politicians that they vote for?

      Projection sure is a bitch.

    3. He speaks of capitalism like it’s some malevolent monster that’s going around New York toppling buildings or something.

      Good thing gov’ment stepped in and got rid of monopolies and oligopolies in the cable, energy, and banking industries, and now, thanks to St. Barack’s impeccable leadership, those industries are now bastions of competition.

      1. He speaks of capitalism like it’s some malevolent monster that’s going around New York toppling buildings or something.

        Well the Staypuft Marshmallow Man wasn’t a representative of a government company, that’s for sure!

    4. Of course unbridled Government is even more dangerous.

    5. I went over to the DB comments, to check it out. My God, there’s a deposit of lefty stupidity over there so thick you could spread it like cement.

  13. We didn’t get to cheap hamburgers by subsidizing their purchase through targeted tax breaks to working Americans.

    Nice.

  14. If the market were capable of providing widespread access to college, healthcare, etc., then no liberal would be taking the position that government should step in.

    Even for Tony, this is a remakarbly idiotic claim.

  15. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it.
    Click on this link to get started and see for yourself???
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  16. If the market were capable of providing widespread access to college, healthcare, etc., then no liberal would be taking the position that government should step in.

    What’s sad, is stuff like this even needs to be pointed out.

    Yeah yeah, party of science.

    1. What can one expect. Same party of science that houses people who want to shut down scientific research because they think mice are people, want to shut down genetically modified food and starve third world countries because they’re ascared of genes.

  17. my neighbor’s mother makes $69 an hour on the computer . She has been fired for 8 months but last month her payment was $18642 just working on the computer for a few hours. Check This Out…….

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  18. To Obama, the one problem that he knows best how to solve is the strange, recurring perception that everything the government touches turns to shit.

  19. I have a nitpick (admittedly a possibly annoying one) regarding the following statement: “We didn’t get to cheap hamburgers by subsidizing their purchase through targeted tax breaks to working Americans. Fast-food chains drove down prices and upped quality in their desperate attempts to grab and keep customers.”

    While this is technically true — we didn’t get cheap burgers by giving tax breaks to working Americans — my understanding is that we got to cheap burgers through our massive government corn subsidy program which (in my view, wrongly) incentivizes overproduction of meat. If my understanding is correct, this is probably not a great analogy in support of true market economics.

    1. my understanding is that we got to cheap burgers through our massive government corn subsidy program which (in my view, wrongly) incentivizes overproduction of meat.

      While at any one moment, one might certainly look at the supply of meat and say, “We have an overproduction”.

      However, an overproduction problem solves itself in a real market via… lower prices. That can then correct itself by having inefficient producers either leave the market, or adjust their production levels to better match demand.

      I strongly suspect we’d have burgers either just as cheap (or possibly even cheaper) if the government weren’t involved.

      1. Sorry, my comment might have been confusing.

        By “overproduction,” I did not mean overproduction given the status quo. Certainly, the meat producers are rationally pumping out as much beef as they see fit. I mean “overproduction” in the sense that more is produced than otherwise would be produced without government intervention due to the absurdly low price of corn feed.

        In that connection, I don’t agree with you that burgers would be as cheap or cheaper without government intervention. Why do you think that is the case? Certainly without heavily-subsidized corn, and the resulting overproduction and low prices of corn, producers cost for feed would rise.

  20. This quote from the Certificate of Need article is mind-boggling: “The basic assumption underlying CON regulation is that excess capacity (in the form of facility overbuilding) directly results in health care price inflation.”

    Apparently, over-saturation leads to higher prices.

    1. *head in hands*

      Nice catch.

      1. Head in hands is really the only response to this logic.

    2. “Apparently, over-saturation leads to higher prices.”

      In San Francisco, overbuilding has just run property values through the roof! We have five homes for every bum!

      1. Lack of supply has nothing to do with skyrocketing rents in SF. It’s all due to profit-seeking greedy developers, gentrification, insufficient rent control and google buses. Did I leave anything out?

    3. The assumption, I believe, is that money wasted to build an unnecessary hospital constitutes healthcare spending, so technically, unnecessary development increases the total amount of money spent on ‘healthcare.’

      Thus, in a socialist economy, where the ‘prices’ are in the form of taxes, and all development is done by the state, that statement is entirely correct, and CON would cut prices by limiting wasteful government spending. Maybe the people who developed this program just took it for granted that socialism was inevitable.

      1. In other words, they should decide how much is enough, and anything beyond their arbitrary limits is considered wasteful and uneccesary. That it reduces costs, increases access and improves waiting times is really irrelevant to this crowd.

        1. *unNecessary. That extra “n” is wasteful.

        2. Pretty much. And until we’re a full-fledged socialist country, we just have to accept it’s more important that precious healthcare companies not be allowed to ‘overspend’ than consumers get affordable services.

    4. It’s like they think that people are going to charge higher prices to make up for the business they are losing to their competitors.

      A BRILLIANT PLAN!

    5. Well, you’d flunk accounting 101.

      For industries operating at a loss from that type of overcapacity, there are TWO real possibilities.
      1) They go out of business, thus removing the overcapacity.
      2) Or they increase prices to cover more costs from the same level of demand.

      In a REAL market, higher prices can reduce demand ELSEWHERE, which is true for all necessities. (Why we must consider “aggregate” demand)

      Healthcare is not tuna salad. It’s a necessity for life, which consumers (or government) will sacrifice (reduce demand) elsewhere to maintain.

      The first step in solving any problem is to define it properly.

  21. Yes we do have a DVD/VHS player. Last weekend my wife and I watched “The Little Foxes” with Bette Davis on VHS. We do not have cable or satellite. I don’t care for all the commercials or the expense. And we make do with a 31″ tube TV.

  22. As many fact checkers have noted, most of the seemingly robust job growths are coming from low paying industries – restaurants, retail, service sector, etc. And 35% of all jobs are now freelance, which isn’t as glamorous as Reason writers think, unless the pay is generous.

    Korea and Japan have lightning fast internet (nationalized) and their people began conducting businesses on their internet capable phones WAY before the United States. Their public transportation and even some aspects of infrastructure kicks our ass. But their economy is no better than ours.

    You can’t turn a page if old problems still exist, and will result in future disasters. There are 11 million Medi-cal beneficiaries in CA now, (2.2 mil joined after ACA). Even the LAT worries about future costs. I waited 2 plus hours with my mother at a hospital so she we can get an update on her varicose vein. The nurse said the doctor expected to see 60 people between 9 AM to 2 PM.

    Obama DESTROYED future state budgets. Now on top of that, he wants to give out free preschool, community college, and sick leave. Even CNN admits the deficit will eventually rise because Obama and Republicans didn’t do a thing about entitlement spending.

  23. This was funny –

    in the comments, someone tried to argue that “without farm subsidies (particularly Dairy), Prices would skyrocket!”


    cliffstep

    “Lat[sic] year , when there was a delay in getting a farm bill, the subsidies that milk producers got were cut. The price of milk shot up some 30% OVERNIGHT!”

    ergo, we need “moar subsidies to keep teh prices low and friendly”!

    someone else then helpfully points out =

    http://blogs.kqed.org/bayareab…..nce-again/

    Why $7-Per-Gallon Milk Looms Once Again =

    “”…House and Senate agriculture committees are meeting Wednesday to try and work out the differences between their respective farm bills. If they fail, the country faces what’s called the “dairy cliff” ? with milk prices potentially shooting up to about $7 a gallon sometime after the first of the year.

    *Here’s why: The nation’s farm policy would be legally required to revert back to what’s called permanent law. In the case of dairy, that would be the 1949 farm bill. …

    The problem is that back in 1949, the dairy industry was much smaller and less efficient than the one that exists today, so it received bigger price supports from the federal government

    I too weep for the future of America.

    1. That’s it. I’ve had it. I’m going to drink unregulated almond milk.

      1. ALMOND DRINK, you!

        ” the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to stop producers of non-dairy food from using terms such as “milk,” “cheese,” “ice-cream,” “sour cream,” and “yogurt” on their product labels. The NMPF characterizes such labeling as a misappropriation of “traditional dairy terms” and contends that “[f]ood labels should clearly and accurately identify the true nature of the food to the consumer. These companies should not be permitted to represent their products as something they are not.”

        The FDA has issued regulations that support the NMPF’s view of words like “milk” and “cheese” and that define such products as essentially dairy in nature. Furthermore, according to the NMPF petition, the FDA has sent warning letters to producers of dairy-free products accusing them of misbranding food by labeling it with words identified with animal ingredients.

        The FDA, in other words, appears to agree with the NMPF’s contention that producers of dairy-free products mislead the public by using such words as “milk” and “cheese” in labeling. “

        1. … crap and dung.

        2. Glad the FDA is up to the task of protecting us from this scourge along with preventing people from buying irradiated certified mad-cow-free beef.

    2. They are retarded. The dairy program RESTRICTS milk production via quotas.

      In many states, especially the NorthEast, milk prices are artificially high due to dairy quotas.

      Milk is $2 a gallon or less in Arizona.

    3. To be fair what they are probably talking about is that if they don’t reauthorize the farm bill we automatically revert to an event stupider, older depression era program.

  24. This my friend is why we roll with the punches.
    http://www.BestAnon.tk

  25. Nick Gillespie still believes that anti-gummint rants can solve everything.

    In the Beast, he acknowledges that finding child-care can be difficult, complex and anxiety producing. But it doesn’t rate as a national concern (to parents?). And he closes by calling it a “small-ball” issue. This is a libertarian parent?

    Dismissing other peoples’ concerns, insulting them, and telling them to focus on your own priorities instead … for this we need libertarians?

    He talks about supply side today, but he publicly attacked Ronald Reagan — in the New York Times of all places! — for increasing Social Security taxes instead of allowing it to collapse (which was then immminent).

    I’ve been a libertarian for almost as long as Gillespie has been alive. When the anti-gummint faction drove out the pro-liberty faction … the results to the libertarian movement have been just as bad as the social conservative near-majority in the GOP.

    Libertarian fundamentalism.

    1. “I’ve been a libertarian”
      Your fantasies are showing.

      1. Your fantasies are showing.

        (yawn) How many times must I publicly humiliate you for the same bullying? Here I am in the history of the Libertarian Party. (Search for my name, again)

        http://bit.ly/1diJC3X

        Sorry Sevo, your trash mouth loses again. Here’s a press interview from my campaign for state office as a Libertarian, in the general election … 14 years ago

        http://seattletimes.com/politi….._mike.html

        Same question as always: What have you done?

        1. Michael Hihn|1.24.15 @ 8:03PM|#
          “(yawn) How many times must I publicly humiliate you for the same bullying? Here I am in the history of the Libertarian Party. (Search for my name, again)”

          Yawn! How many times must I publicly laugh at your stupidity for clinging to the past?
          Search for your own name, twit.
          ————————-
          “Sorry Sevo, your trash mouth loses again. Here’s a press interview from my campaign for state office as a Libertarian, in the general election … 14 years ago”

          Sorry, Michael, your dreams of glory past have left you a tiresome, whiny piece of crap.
          Go away.

          1. Sevo,
            Has nothing to do with glory.
            You challenged my libertarianism.
            I made a fool out of you again.
            So invent a different subject.
            Or did you forget your own point again?

            Back to the point you run away from. What have YOU done to advance liberty?
            I answered your question.

    2. Mike, given that yesterday you got angry at people for being critical of a theocratic, sexist despot who uses the government to decapitate people in public, I don’t think you qualify as a ‘libertarian.’

      If you’re going to whine when people are critical of the King of Saudi Arabia, you clearly have no problem with abuses of state power.

      I’ve been a libertarian for almost as long as Gillespie has been alive. When the anti-gummint faction drove out the pro-liberty faction … the results to the libertarian movement have been just as bad as the social conservative near-majority in the GOP.

      How can someone be pro-liberty without opposing government actions that attack that liberty? You’re just a little bitch who feels the need to complain, so you write your petty little rants in the hope that someone will pay attention to you.

      Oops. I guess I gave you what you want.

      1. If you’re going to whine when people are critical of the King of Saudi Arabia, you clearly have no problem with abuses of state power

        (laughing) Here’s what I really said, which documents Irish as a liar.

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/01…..nt_5039696
        I stated there was not a shred of evidence to support any abuse. AND how the anti-gummint mentality extracted one POSSIBLE negative and ignored FOUR positives. I also asked the questions which REMAIN answered.

        The King introduced five “moderate” reforms. ONE was to start prosecuting Muslim activists — how abusive (lol) — and beheaded “some”. Reason’s smartass reply was that it must be moderate because he was doing it to militants.

        For the record, Irish (and Reason) believe that “moderate” Arab governments would NOT prosecute Muslim militants, aka terrorists. OMG

        Plus, NONE of this is known, and questions REMAIN unanswered.

        1) How many militants were beheaded?
        2) How many innocents had the militants murdered?
        3) Did the militants get fair trials?

        Beheadings are capital punishment in that part of the world. And (laughing) Saudi Arabia has a legislative branch for laws and punishments

        Instead of answering the relevant questions, Irish cowardly drags it to a different page and lies about the issue. Click above for the proof.

        Libertarian fundamentalists scare me as much as Christian and Muslim ones.

        1. Michael Hihn|1.24.15 @ 7:50PM|#
          “(laughing) Here’s what I really said, which documents Irish as a liar.”

          (laughing) What a worthless piece of crap. Go away (laughing).

          1. The proof is there for all to see.

            1. Sevtard, how did you ever get this far in life without somebody turning you upside down and planting you like a fall bulb?
              In all the years I’ve been reading these comments you haven’t once contributed a comment that would be considered worthy of an adult.
              Did you suffer some kind of brain damage as a child?

              1. It’s like Orwellian Thought Police on steroids. I saw it growing up in the 50s, threats — even physical violence — against those who did not conform.

                I saw guys beat up in the high school locker room if they didn’t have a butch or flattop haircut (less than an inch), as coaches and PE teachers looked the other way.

                But there was a payoff, lost in history. When we graduated in 1960, all across the country, the student protest movement erupted. It originally was a revolt totally against authority .. college administrations with oppressive curfews, bans and controls. Civil rights and antiwar came later.

                So what became the root of the modern libertarian movement, Young Americans for Freedom, was already primed and ready for a Goldwater.

                Against authority and conformity, not co-conspirators.

    3. How can you be pro-government and pro liberty?

      And here’s a nice libertarian principle: if finding day care for your kid so hard, then don’t fucking have kids. Those of us who don’t have children shouldn’t have to pay for day care subsidies because you’re too stupid to consider the impact of your own choices. I may be in my early 20s, but I feel perfectly justified in telling you should grow up.

      1. Dumfuck statements like that are the primary reason we’ve had a majority of Americans for over 30 years … achieved NOTHING … and the libertarian label is rejected by 85% of LIBERTARIANS.

        Hell, we’ll just create a libertarian society with a military takeover and repeal the constitution. YEAH!

        1. Michael Hihn|1.24.15 @ 8:07PM|#
          “Dumfuck statements”

          Hey, asshole mike! I thought you were griping about potty-mouths!
          Go away.

          1. (laughing) I was describing statements, no people. And you’ve again denied the facts.

            1. Just a suggestion.

              Using the endless (laughing) (smirk) and other asides just makes people think you are a teenage girl. Whatever valid points you have are ignored. If your intent is to move people to listen to you and sway their opinion then being a condescending prick doesn’t usually work.

              1. Just a suggestion.

                To a condescending prick? (lol)

                If your intent is to move people to listen to you and sway their opinion …

                Good point. I should have been more clear. My intent is to heap piles of ridicule when it’s deserved. I’ll dumb it down to your level. I had responded to Sevo who called me an asshole, from totally misquoting what I said. Can you imagine anything more deserving of horse laughs and ridicule, to the extent of tears streaming down my face?

                Or your “suggestion” to a condescending prick … which means you were defending an assault, with totally delicious irony!

                I can appreciate your tender feelings being hurt, for the many times you have been ridiculed on this page. But as we said in the 60s …

                Mess with a bull. Get the horns.

                See, this is a libertarian web page. Most of us know the difference between your aggression and my self-defense. It’s all up to you. Take responsibility for the consequences of your own actions, instead of being a whiny liberal. (that was ridicule with a straight face, no laughing needed)

                Just stop attacking, Sport.

        2. A majority of Americans for over thirty years? Achieved nothing? And who’s ‘we’? Your first sentence is not cogent, go take a remedial English class and try again.

          And no one for whom protectionism and inefficiency-creating direct controls in the economy is a central tenet of their ideology is a libertarian.

          Hell, maybe we should just give up on being right about things to be more inclusive. So what if price controls and tariffs are bad policies?SO what if cutting ineffective entitlement spending leaves more capital for investment and is better for the economy? So many people are too stupid to understand those things, so we may as well abandon those ideas because they’re not ‘big tent’ enough. Because being right about something is really a form of bigotry against stupid people, right?

          Funny you mention military takeover and repealing the constitution and think you’re being ironic, even though you’re the ‘progressive’ Mike; pot calling the porcelain black.

          1. Proof of why we lose. Part ?

            MarkLastname|1.25.15 @ 11:38AM|#
            A majority of Americans for over thirty years?

            World’s Smallest Political Quiz. More recently the Cato/Zogby poll where 59% of American self-define as libertarian.

            Achieved nothing?

            Barack Obama elected twice, in a 59% libertarian nation.

            And who’s ‘we’?

            Movement libertarians.

            Your first sentence is not cogent, go take a remedial English class and try again.

            Please forgive me. Your ignorance of the Quiz, the Poll and libertarian history was caused by my own incoherence.

            And no one for whom protectionism and inefficiency-creating direct controls in the economy is a central tenet of their ideology is a libertarian.

            Yeah. And?

            Hell, maybe we should just give up on being right about things to be more inclusive

            So you’re back to the military dictatorship. You ridicule the notion of being elected. You lie about me being a statist ? the same way you attack all those “stupid” voters. So you are PROVING why we keep losing, better than I could explain it.

            So what if price controls and tariffs are bad policies?

            Nobody said such a thing. Shame on you. This is why we lose.

            1. Why we lose. Part 2/2

              So many people are too stupid to understand those things, so we may as well abandon those ideas because they’re not ‘big tent’ enough

              See? Moral and intellectual bankruptcy. Contempt for stupid voters. We don’t need to change our principles. Just stop acting like arrogant dumbfucks.
              Communicate better. Try different tactics. Persuasion instead of thuggery.

              Because being right about something is really a form of bigotry against stupid people, right?

              More like being a shitty communicator and blaming the audience for your own incompetence. Also why we lose.

              Funny you mention military takeover and repealing the constitution

              You ridicule seeking election. People are too stupid. And trying new tactics is a sellout. What’s left but a military coup? Or should we give up on a libertarian governance too? .

              You’d rather be “right” than free.

              , even though you’re the ‘progressive’ Mike;

              See folks? If I want to communicate better, create strategies and tactics for governing … I must be a progressive. Don’t take my word for it. You’ve just SEEN why we keep losing

              I watched it for 20 years in the party. A handful of assholes in the back of the room ? attacking all the best candidates ? driving them away .. because they were good candidates. Punished for their virtue. God help us

      2. So not being anti-gov’t means one must be pro-gov’t? How about looking at public policy 1st for its effect on liberty, and then worrying about whether that’s anti-gov’t or what?

        1. Yes! libertarian POLICIES could fix what’s wrong with America. If we had any.

          1. Repealing rent controls, price controls in the labor market, getting rid of mandatory unionsism to drive down prices, cutting gratuitous entitlement spending, getting rid of farm subsidies, doing away with residual protectionism, letting charter schools replace public schools where the former are better and more cost effective, paying teachers the market wage, etc. are not policies in your book?

            Pretty sure sound policies have been elucidated to confront every major public issue out there. You just don’t want to hear them because they don’t involve throwing taxpayer money at incompetent government employees and giving people free no work jobs.

            1. MarkLastname|1.25.15 @ 11:42AM|#
              Repealing rent controls, price controls in the labor market, …. yada yada yada … are not policies in your book?

              They’re goals not policies. Policies are HOW to do those things.
              You’re like a plumber telling a nuclear physicist how to do her job.

              Pretty sure sound policies have been elucidated to confront every major public issue out there.

              That’s because you don’t know what a policy is. We have NO credible policy … on anything. Never have.

              You just don’t want to hear them because they don’t involve throwing taxpayer money at incompetent government employees and giving people free no work jobs

              Shame on you. Blaming me for your own ignorance. You pathetic thug.

              Here’s a link to my website archive. Taxes, governance and healthcare are my specialties. Pick any title. Read it. Learn. I believe every one includes a “how-to” policy description. The subtitle is A How-To Guide For Taking Back America

              I invite anyone interested in libertarian governance to go find a favorite topic or two. Look to the “hot-to” (policy) content.

        2. So not being anti-gov’t means one must be pro-gov’t?

          It means being pro-liberty.
          Be pro-liberty, never anti-government = Sell the benefits, not the features
          Salesmanship. 101.

          How about looking at public policy 1st for its effect on liberty, and then worrying about whether that’s anti-gov’t or what?

          It’s effect on PEOPLE. How does liberty benefit people.
          Does a good salesman talk about himself … or his prospects?

          I ran sales training for a major corporation in the 70s. Found a forgotten sales principle from the 30s, perfect for training both salesmen and candidates.

          Salesmanship 101
          You’re not there to prove your prospect wrong. You’re there to agree with your prospect … and show how your product or service can best provide what your prospect already wants.

          Fifty years in sales, marketing and political activism … in all that time .. libertarian are the only ones I’ve ever seen … trying to sell anyone by proving them wrong. (lol)

          And we see nearby, if you say don’t call people stupid … you’re defending government. We MUST stand up to these bullies and thugs. Only a few of them can kill a political movement by attacking our best candidates.

          Watch them on this very page, snarling and insulting. Quasi Hitlers.
          They must be our first enemy, THEN government. We’ve lost too much time from them.

      3. How can you be pro-government and pro liberty?

        You can’t.
        But they aren’t the only choices.

  26. Blast from the past: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lxi6WNnOT8k

    What is GM’s stock price now and how much in total salary has been paid to workers in GM plants?

    1. “What is GM’s stock price now and how much in total salary has been paid to workers in GM plants?”

      Hey, shitpile! How much has it cost the taxpayers and how much will it end up costing the taxpayers?
      And, shitpile, have you paid your mortgage yet or still freeloading on honest people?
      Still licking mass murderer ass?

      1. I’m pretty sure the answer to that question other than on breitbart.com is pretty close to zero. Otherwise the number is in the gazillions.

        I’m just asking questions. How come libertarians can’t answer simple questions and have to ask questions of questions?

        1. american socialist|1.24.15 @ 8:41PM|#
          “I’m just asking questions.”

          No, shitstain, you’re hoping to find someone as stupid at you.
          Please go lick mass murderer ass until you get sick and die.

        2. I’m just glad to see progressives take a brave, bold stance on capitalism, consumerism, and environmental policy.

          I mean, who really needs gas-guzzling, CO2 emitting trucks to drive them anywhere, everywhere, all the time?

          Apparently, democrats and libertarian socialists.

          Now, let’s get out there and build wind farms!

          1. “I mean, who really needs gas-guzzling, CO2 emitting trucks to drive them anywhere, everywhere, all the time?”

            You mean like the Chevy Volt?

        3. american socialist:
          “I’m pretty sure the answer to that question other than on breitbart.com is pretty close to zero.”

          The final cost of the GM bailout cost the U.S. taxpayers $12 billion.

          1. Don’t expect him to come back and acknowledge his error. The only way a socialist would know how to deal with being wrong is to send his detractors to the gulag, and unfortunately for him we’re not quite there yet as a country.

            Always found it funny how the same lefties who supposedly want to cut CO2 emissions will die to defend bailing out the company that produces more SUVs than any other companies.

          2. Geesch, Brian, that’s like $400/person, which I learned from you is a fucking pittance.

            Does this “analysis” (which I’ve seen in all the familiar places– wink, wink) include the tax money that the government now receives from people that have jobs thanks to the bailout? I can’t say the numbers here are mine, but I was thinking along the same lines so here they are…

            Average salary= 50k/yr
            Average cost to pay workers welfare= 50k/yr
            Estimated number of employees=100,000

            ((50000/(yr*person))-(-50000/(yr*person)))*(100000 persons)*(5 yrs)=50 billion dollars.

            Most industry groups put the number at 100 billion, but let’s not quibble about multiplier effects. Don’t you think that If you invest 12 billion dollars and get back 50 billion dollars shouldn’t you should get a seriously well-paying job at Goldman-sachs?

            1. Cause that money just magically appeared out of thin air … it didn’t come from people buying cars or anything.

          3. Brian|1.25.15 @ 5:31AM|#
            The final cost of the GM bailout cost the U.S. taxpayers $12 billion.

            Only to somebody who’s been totally brainwashed. I’ll dumb it down for you.

            What is the net benefit to taxpayers of.
            1) Income taxes paid by GM and Chrysler since then?
            2) Income taxes still paid by suppliers and workers?
            3) Taxpayer savings in unemployment, food stamps, etc?

            Libertarian fundamentalists will scream. WE SHOULDN’T HAVE UNEMPLOYMENT AND FOOD STAMPS. But we still do.

            Others will accuse me of defending the bailouts.

            A few, perhaps, can think for themselves.

            I have old Reasons in my bathroom. The other day I read Nick interviewing a Nobel Economics Laureate — described by Reason as a libertarian. He too said the bailouts were the best alternative at the time.

            Nick never asked why! In 1986, Democrats “closed loopholes” in corporate taxes — destroyed our industrial base — and conservatives and libertarians said nothing.

            It became a lesser-of-two evils situation. Do we blame Democrats or the ones who allowed them to win by defaul?

    2. Why, you’re so right, I guess the government should never let a business go out of business again! We should bail them all out, I mean, with all the future salaries each business we’ll pay! I think you’ve discovered the solution to our problems, soci! If we bail out every business that’s about to go under, soon we’ll be up to our necks in jobs!

    3. “What is GM’s stock price now and how much in total salary has been paid to workers in GM plants?”

      Because, clearly, any future needs a high GM stock price and lots of GM auto workers. That’s pretty much the benchmark of success for an economy. It’s a shame that GM can only be in one country.

      1. Brian|1.25.15 @ 5:15AM|#
        Because, clearly, any future needs a high GM stock price and lots of GM auto workers.

        WHOOSH. Sailed right over your head!!
        He described things that would no longer exist.

        If we assume GM stock is like the stock market, then most of its stock is owned by …. pension funds. Do the math on that.

    4. american socialist|1.24.15 @ 5:44PM|#
      What is GM’s stock price now and how much in total salary has been paid to workers in GM plant

      How is that relevant when the stock is controlled by workers (pension plans)

      Do you know concept of “workers owning the means of production?”

      Well, Marx failed but Capitalism achieved it.

      The value of pension funds is larger than the entire market value of the New York Stock Exchange. Neat, eh? But every time Democrats fuck over corporations, the pension funds suffer most. Workers and blacks are the greatest victims of progresivism.

      1. Hi Michael,

        I’m for the concept of good governance as opposed to limited or no government so I don’t really apply an ideological litmus test to the things that government does and then walk backwards. I was mostly against the TARP bailout because I didn’t care what happened to AIG, or Bear Stearns, or Bank of America and their precious and special CEOs and VPs. But… 40 or 50 billion dollars to save good paying jobs for middle class union workers… Hmmm, I would say I was for it at the time. The fact that the money largely got paid back and resulted in tax revenues several times what was spent in the first place seems to me a clear example of win-win.

        Since you mentioned pensions… I wonder what effect not bailing out GM would have on the taxpayer given that they, by and by, would have to fund the pensions of a reorganized GM.

        What aspects of progressivism do you think hurt minorities. You mean like the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Sorry, just trying to find out where you are coming from. Honest. I think you are an honest and serious person so I’d be interested in debating with you in good faith. Thanks.

        1. “You mean like the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”

          Yeah, progressives really got behind that one. Might want to look at the people that voted against it and check if they have a “D” or an “R” after their names.

          (Oh, and only ONE changed parties in the ensuing years – Strom Thurmond.)

          1. Yeah, progressives really got behind that one. Might want to look at the people that voted against it and check if they have a “D” or an “R” after their names.

            Ummm, Southern Democrats were progressives? (lol)

        2. american socialist|1.26.15 @ 12:02AM|#
          I’m for the concept of good governance as opposed to limited or no government so I don’t really apply an ideological litmus test to the things that government does

          Then change your screenname! Yes, socialism, even communism, can exist with no state … but few readers here know that.

          The bailouts were caused by government’s destruction of our industrial base (by Democrats). Legal liability.

          In 1986, Democrats campaigned on having closed loopholes and repealing Reaganomics. They repealed industrial reforms of both JFK and Reagan … and now blame the same Reaganomics they repealed!.

          Repealing JFK’s “Investment Tax Credit” INCREASED TAXES on the new factory equipment. By 7% of the price. (the repealed credit)

          They extended the equipment write-off from 8 years to 16-18 years. ALL our competitors are at FIVE years, but Democrats said they were “closing loophole” and NOBODY checked. That repeal cut the annual tax deduction on $500,000 equipment from $62,500 to $29,411.

          Progressives sneer at the higher taxes, but that’s their punishment for creating jobs.

          In the first year of new machinery, GM and Chrysler paid higher taxes of $43,700 ?for the “sin” of creating a single job. So spare me any crap about progressives. (Conservatives and libertarians are just as bad)

          Copyright 2014 by Michael J Hihn. All rights reserved.

  27. What I saw on the Daily Beast comment section was that nearly every comment focused the article through their team blue/red lenses. Gilespie was tied to Karl Rove, BUSH, and the ‘right-wing.’ The people responding in kind simply attacked the Democratic party.

    I don’t care what polls show about how many Americans view themselves as independent or how much some people talk about a ‘libertarian’ moment. Nearly all politics in this country devolves into my team against your team.

    1. The politicians have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They’ve gotten enough people to care about TEAM before anything else so that no matter what they do, no matter how badly they fuck their constituents, no matter how much they screw up the economy, those people will still vote for them because TEAM.

      It’s what they’ve always wanted, and the braindead mongoloids who believe in TEAM hand it to them on a silver platter every election. And the rest of us get fucked because partisans are so stupid that it’s a wonder they can figure out which ballot is for their pathetic partisan TEAM.

    2. I don’t care what polls show about how many Americans view themselves as independent or how much some people talk about a ‘libertarian’ moment. Nearly all politics in this country devolves into my team against your team.

      Yeah, the polls claiming people are ‘independent’ are total bullshit. The reason for this is simple: Most people who vote Republican hate the fact that the Republican party isn’t conservative enough. Therefore, a lot of them claim not to be Republicans, despite the fact that they vote Republican in every election. I don’t give a shit if you are annoyed by the Republican party – if you vote every election cycle and cast your ballot for the Republican every time, declaring yourself ‘an independent’ does not make it so.

      Similarly, most Democrats vote for leftist candidates entirely on the assumption that doing so makes them geniuses who are also vastly more moral than the people who don’t vote for left-wing candidates. Admitting that they’re part of the Democratic tribe and vote entirely based on party designation would conflict with this delusional view of themselves, so a lot of progressives claim not to be Democrats even though every one of their beliefs coincides with the Democratic Party’s.

      So the idea that people are independent in this country is based mostly on collective delusion.

    3. If Brochettaward cannot see libertarian tribalism, then s/he’s no better.

      1. Libertarians (myself included) have plenty of our own biases, but the idea of libertarian ‘tribalism’ is a bit absurd. How many honest-to-god libertarians are there in the government right now? How many people have ever actually voted for the Libertarian Party candidate?

        The closest I see to ‘tribalism’ are those who identify as libertarians but are really just Republicans.

        1. Mike needs this:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vQpW9XRiyM
          He thinks that….
          Aw, the hell with it…

          1. Sevo|1.25.15 @ 12:45AM|#
            Mike needs this: (links Springsteen’s “Glory Days.”)

            Get the fuck out of our way.
            Your ilk has already caused too much damage.

        2. The closest I see to ‘tribalism’ are those who identify as libertarians but are really just Republicans.

          That was a tribal statement.
          Tribalism also accepts ANYTHING by your tribes, but demanding “prove it” of the other tribes. So you never learn, or refuse to accept any of these.

          1) Ron Paul tried bar the Supreme Court from EVER hearing appeals to DOMA. The greatest group bigotry since Emancipation. But he includes a lot of his Phony Federalism slogans which you swallow. (Congress may restrict the jurisdiction of the Court. Did Founders mean blocking a single law for a single group?)

          2) You swallowed “Powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.”

          3) Rand Paul’s Senate site says all this. Abortion should be a state issue … brags of co-sponsoring a FEDERAL ban on ALL abortion … will do everything he can (as a federal senator) to ban all abortions

          4) You don’t know Rand’s abortion page is titled for extreme social conservatives! “Sanctity of Life” And you won’t Google the proof.

          5) Ron Paul snarls about “rogue judges” … for doing their fucking job, defending individual rights. Same phony federalism.

          6) Gillespie went most of 2013 saying it was a libertarian moment, perhaps an era. Barely one week into 2014 he apologized, 2014 would be our year. Was it?

          7) You believe we’re at a libertarian moment, instead of The Eve of Destruction.”

  28. “The basic assumption underlying CON regulation is that excess capacity (in the form of facility overbuilding) directly results in health care price inflation.”

    Wait, whut?

  29. how much in total salary has been paid to workers in GM plants?

    Using stolen money. Fuck the UAW.

    hth

    1. Can anyone explain the precise libertarian principle behind the animus of 90% of the people who call themselves libertarian. I mean, it’s a problem if people think there employer sucks, doesn’t pay them enough, makes them work in an unsafe environment and they band together to form a group to do something about it?

      1. The problem with unions stem from the fact that the government did a complete 180 on the subject from the days of sending in the military to break up strikes to forcing them down the throat of employers and establishing special protections in return for votes.

        Instead of the government just doing its job and protecting the rights of workers who wanted to collectively bargain (mainly, the right not to have their heads cracked open or be shot at), they simply used government force on the other side in return for union support.

        Libertarians should have nothing against workers taking non-violent collective action.

        But in the case of GM/UAW, employers aren’t free to bargain fairly. Then you have GM benefiting from its crony relationship with government.

        1. ^ This. It’s not the concept of unions, as the special, cozy relationship with government.

          When GM’s about to go out of business, the government steps in to save the UAW from dealing with it, strictly for UAW votes. Sure, they couch it all in the language of “gee, the country can’t survive with GM going through bankruptcy”, but, really, it’s all about what might happen to the UAW under true bankruptcy.

          That’s not exactly “equality”.

        2. Yes. The National Labor Relations Act made it illegal for employers to fire workers that wished to unionize. The employer is essentially forced to negotiate with the union, and cannot replace the employees. That gives the union an unfair bargaining advantage. They can refuse to work (go on strike) indefinitely, and the employer cannot fire them and replace them.

      2. american socialist|1.24.15 @ 8:26PM|#
        “Can anyone explain the precise libertarian principle behind the animus of 90% of the people who call themselves libertarian.”

        Can you explain why you are so fucking stupid you need it explained to you?
        Have you paid your mortgage, shitstain? Still licking mass murderer ass, shitstain?

        1. Sevo, get help for your intense, non-stop rage before you have a heart attack. Or there are books for you on Anger Management.

        2. Sevo never heard of the 2006 Cato/Zogby poll which found the libertarian label is rejected by 85% of libertarians. Or is it denial?

          1. The main reason those of us who have a libertarian philosophy don’t embrace the (L)ibertarian Party is that they have almost always nominated lunatic buffoons for offices, especially in state elections. Or had joke candidates like Howard Stern. I’m not sure which of those better fit you when you ran, Michael Hihn.

            I will excuse Gary Johnson, though, he was a good one. Blind squirrel theory, I suppose.

            I think a lot of us believe the most impactful way is to advance libertarian ideals within the current system rather than having the delusion that suddenly a third party will become dominant. And that’s why supporting Rand Paul and Justin Amash, and helping similar candidates to get elected, is the best way to bring more liberty to the country.

            You can go on with your belief in the LP. Maybe you can get them to nominate Eric Cartman in your state in 2016, at least you’ll get some votes on name recognition.

            1. I never intend to make a fool out of anyone, but some leave me no other self-defense.

              ? have almost always nominated lunatic buffoons for offices ? Or had joke candidates like Howard Stern. I’m not sure which of those better fit you when you ran, Michael Hihn.

              You have no idea HOW I won two elections and a tax revolt, but I’m either a lunatic buffoon or a joke. Our own Michelle Bachman!

              I will excuse Gary Johnson, though, he was a good one. Blind squirrel theory, I suppose.

              How about Ron Paul, Sport? BOTH Koch brothers or just David?

              And that’s why supporting Rand Paul and Justin Amash, and helping similar candidates to get elected, is the best way to bring more liberty to the country.

              One more puppet, promoting extreme social conservativism. Paul’s Senate site.

              http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3

              Title is “Sanctity of Life” — so you’ve already lost.
              Rand to KY voters
              1) Abortion should be decided by the states. BUT….
              2) He sponsored a federal law to ban abortions at conception AND
              3) “As your Senator, there are many ways I can help end abortion. I will fight for each and every one of them.”

              Like Ron, he’s for states rights except when he isn’t. On gay rights, Republicans should agree to disagree, allowing him to be a fascist Amash isn’t quite as bad, but also violates the 9th and 14th Amendments. (sigh)

      3. No libertarian has a problem with people having unions. It’s a freedom of association issue. It’s when you force people to join a union to be able to work or force someone to pay a union money just to have a job that libertarians tend to oppose unions.

      4. Here’s what you don’t understand, regarding the difference between a libertarian and a socialist, and why the two are mutually exclusive.

        A libertarian supports the right to unionize. A socialist supports the *requirement* to unionize. A libertarian supprts the right of an employer to fire or higher employers as he sees fit; it’s his money, he should be allowed to pay whomever to do whatever, and anyone who wants to work for him can do so under the stipulated conditions; if the conditions don’t suit him, he can choose not to work for him.

        It’s that simply. Socialists don’t support those rights, choices, and freedoms. Hence, they are not libertarians. Not by any definition.

        1. FUQ
          If you define socially liberal ….

          Well, sonny, I define socially liberal the way libertarians have since at least 1979, as first articulated by David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party. His Nolan Chart was later adopted to the World’s Smallest Political Quiz which has since been given to tens of millions of people by volunteers of the Advocates of Self Government. The Advocates have been the primary source of libertarian communications for over 30 years.

          I myself have given the quiz to kids as young as 16 or so, all of whom know that you described a social conservative,

          I’m now laughing hysterically that FUQ believes Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and Michelle Bachman are social liberals, (OMG) and says so in public!

          Click the following link, study the Quiz. The benefit is that you MAY no longer be a massive dumbFUQ. If you’re lucky.

          http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

        2. Here’s what you don’t understand, regarding the difference between a libertarian and a socialist

          Ummmmm

          A libertarian supports the right to unionize

          No, that’s a socialist or fascist, at best a Progressive. There is no right to unionize, for the same reason there is no right to healthcare, or housing, or to anything else that someone else would be REQUIRED to give or do with you.

          There is a right to negotiate — wages or anything else — between two willing parties. THAT is what we libertarians have been saying from the very beginning. I was there.

          The NAP, as applied here, means there cannot be a “right” that involves forcing somebody else to provide you anything, or even to deal with you.

          That means no right to medical care, food, housing, a minimum wage … or a union.

          Anything else I can teach you today?

        3. Here’s what you don’t understand, regarding the difference between a libertarian and a socialist, and why the two are mutually exclusive

          Here’a what you don’t understand about … liberty.

          Libertarianism and socialism are NOT mutually exclusive. Libs and socialists both have anarchist wings. What we oppose is state socialism. Even Ayn Rand supported the hippy communes. Their only mistake was thinking they had to become farmers first.

          Voluntary communes are all across America. Several years back, Showtime did a documentary on a creative business which produces corporate videos. The business and their residences were all communally owned. They were communists. What’s your problem with that?

          The Israeli kibbutzim are in socialist Israel, but voluntary communes. As described by Rothbard, similar communes even existed in colonial America.

          In a free society, it’s easy to imagine a commune right next to a libertarian community. A community of Catholic priests across from a colony of Wiccans. (Who tells Mary Ruwart?)

          Who are you to interfere in the voluntary life choices of free people?

          Libertarian fundamentalism can be akin to fascism, by assuming everyone should (or must) be libertarians in a free society, or even a majority. We could be 5% (as movement libertarians are today) .

      5. I mean, it’s a problem if people think there employer sucks, doesn’t pay them enough, makes them work in an unsafe environment and they band together to form a group to do something about it?

        That’s not a problem. The problem is when either party, management or labor is forced to negotiate at gunpoint.

        After my 40 years as a management consultant, unions are the stupidest wage to maximize worker wages. I designed profit-based compensation, the only way both sides win. They increasing profits TOGETHER, not as adversaries, and split what they both earn together.

        The results can be staggering. If unions were really dedicated to worker welfare, THAT is what they would negotiate for. But that means abandoning their socialist concepts. Performance-based wages violate the union gospel that everyone be paid the same, or tenure based. And once implemented, workers earn pay increases on their own.

        Union power restricts workers to plans where the union “wins” pay increases, not the workers, maintaining union power over the workers. Like slavery, in comparison.

        In the heyday of the rust belt, incentive workers earned 20-35% more than UAW workers. Unions lied by calling the others “sweat shops.” But they worked harder because … wait for it … THEY CHOSE TO, and their effort was rewarded. (gasp)

        In high-tech manufacturing, hourly wages are SO primitive.

  30. I don’t care what polls show about how many Americans view themselves as independent

    “Independents” who would rather be boiled in oil than vote for those crazy bastards from the wrong team. Their views just coincidentally overlap by 99% with one team or the other.

    “I’m not a Democrat, but I could never vote for one of those lunatic Republicans.”

    “You’re crazy. I’m not a Republican, but I could never vote for one of those lunatic Democrats.”

    1. Plus, the dumbass libertarian establishment doesn’t know that at least 30% of independents are collectivists! … as they continue to ignore our voting majority (fiscally conservative and socially liberal).

      1. If you define socially liberal as being for more freedom then you are right but socially liberal usually means using threat of death for refusing to bake a cake or not paying for someone else’s birth control or any number of issues that require the state to threaten me with a rape cage if I don’t pay for someone else’s lifestyle.

        1. FUQ|1.25.15 @ 3:44AM|#
          If you define socially liberal as being for more freedom then you are right but socially liberal usually means using threat of death for refusing to bake a cake or not paying for someone else’s birth control or any number of issues that require the state to threaten me with a rape cage if I don’t pay for someone else’s lifestyle.

          Umm, which is it? More freedom or death threats? Make up your mind and get back to me.

          Socially liberal has been the definition of libertarian since at least 1979, established by David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party. It’s also the basis for the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, which has been given to tens of millions of Americans.

      2. What fiscally conservative majority are you referring to? Where have you been the last six years?

        1. What fiscally conservative majority are you referring to? Where have you been the last six years?

          Eight years ago, Cato commissioned Zogby Polling to learn how people might self-describe their political ideology. This is a summary, shows why they lied about the findings, with a link to the proof.

          59%, checked “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” — the definition of libertarians since 1979. I call them “generic” libertarians. That’s the majority you’ve never heard of, so Reason may be your only source. The “libertarian moment” meme was demolished.

          For another group they added “also known as libertarian.” It dropped to 44% and the lies began. 25% of libertarians rejected the libertarian label … and it gets worse.

          Cato reports “Libertarian” alone as only 9% of the libertarians (5.3% of the total). Do the math. Cato’s professional polling found the libertarian brand is TOXIC, rejected by 85% of what CATO defined as libertarians
          Here’s the proof, black-white, undeniable.

          http://www.cato.org/blog/liber…..ns-trickle

          Welcome to libertarian tribalism, Team Lib. You’ll never see this in Reason, for the same reason Cato’s text description was dishonest. Check my source.

          I had just corrected your other error, that libertarians support a right to unionize
          Anything else?

  31. “Except that as ‘he’ long as he’s running the show”?

  32. While I agree with the sentiment, I don’t think it’s fair to compare education and health care to hamburgers and VCR’s.

    1. You’re right of course. It is easy to ramp up production of hamburgers and VCRs when demand increases. However, when the government mandates that day-care workers have college degrees and cannot care for more than 4 kids per person, that really limits the ability to provide enough daycare to meet in subsidized demand.

      So basically his argument works BETTER for daycare than it does for hamburgers.

  33. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.paygazette.com

  34. my classmate’s sister-in-law makes $67 /hr on the computer . She has been unemployed for 8 months but last month her income was $16675 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit here……

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  35. No matter how much evidence of reality is against the leftist ideology that government (controlled by them of course) is the only solution to every problem of mankind. To them, government is never big enough. It should control, regulate, and determine every single and minute thing in human life. If they can’t have complete control of everything and everyone, the world is out of whack. People do not matter to them. Only their ideology matters. There is no purpose to life except to be slaves to the all-controlling state which is their god and who they religiously worship. Obama is their poster boy and defender because he has been bold and arrogant enough to expose who and what they truly are and they aren’t afraid of this light into their true, totalitarian, humanity-hating, liberty-hating selves any more. They are at war with every idea, principle, value, tradition and success of Western civilization because all of them are in direct conflict with their ideology of slavery to a thoroughly immoral, corrupt, totalitarian government ruled by the sons of Revolution against man himself.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.