Chris Christie’s Sweet Dream (And Romney’s)
“I’ve never seen a less optimistic time in my lifetime in this country and people wonder why,” the first-term Republican governor said at the Bush Institute Conference on Taxes and Economic Growth in New York City.
“I think it’s really simple. It’s because government’s now telling them ‘stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you.’ We’re turning into a paternalistic entitlement society,” he said.
“That will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally because when the American people no longer believe that this a place where only their willingness to work hard … determines their success in life then we’ll have a bunch of people sittin’ on a couch waiting for their next government check,” Christie said.
— “Christie: Nation of couch potatoes,” Politico
That, pretty clearly, is the message that the Republicans, party-wide, have settled on for this election: People are depressed because of the existence of the social safety net and other government programs such as student-loan and job-retraining programs, and because the very wealthy haven’t had their tax rates cut enough, the gap between the very wealthy, and all those couch potatoes who work regular jobs isn’t large enough.
I wish them all the best with that message. And I hope they keep pushing it, all the way to November.
I think it’s simple, too. I’ll leave it at that.
Can’t wait to hear the next installment of Christie’s VP audition script. Maybe something about all those auto-industry-worker couch potatoes who’ve stopped dreaming and striving now that Obama has handed GM and Chrysler to the UAW?
By the way, did Christie ever use the student-loan program, I wonder? Or did he, like Romney and Romney’s kids, have no need for it?
Christie was speaking at the Bush Institute Conference on Taxes and Economic Growth. Tomorrow’s audition will be by Paul Ryan. It’s a follow-up audition, actually.
—-
Apparently, not all government programs cause mental depression.
hmmm…checkered, & not very spectacular, resume:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie
Clap louder for the Conf1%dence Fairy!
I’d say that maybe if he’d gone to Harvard Law School he’d be smart enough to figure out that there’s nothing that could advertise that these people are out-of-touch more than that they (Christie, Romney, Ryan) think the reason that people are losing their optimism is the existence of the social safety net and the other government programs that these folks want to kill and that tax rates are too low for millionaires. But Romney did go to Harvard Law School. And he hasn’t figured it out.
Nah. Now that it’s clear that the Confidence Fairy theory is wrong, they’re replacing it with the Won’t-Miss-the-College-Loan-Program-Anyway-Because-We-Don’t-Want-To-Work-Hard, Dream-and-Strive theory.
I mean, seriously. Do these people not realize that most people are gonna think this diagnosis of why Americans are losing their optimism makes as much sense as Romney’s storing his dog in a kennel on the top of his station wagon roof because there were a lot of suitcases inside the station wagon along with the people (and it didn’t occur to him that maybe he should put the suitcases rather than the dog on the roof)? It’s goofy.
“I wish them all the best with that message. And I hope they keep pushing it, all the way to November.”
Do not underestimate the Big Lie. It is a lie designed to turn the 50%-ers against the 15%-ers. (On top of the usual anti-gov’t message.) It is a lie designed to turn people’s frustration and anger against each other, away from the plutocrats and olgarchs. It is a lie designed to sap the national will, rather than to bolster it. It is a lie designed to keep people from working together, because that might upset the apple cart, shifting power to the people.
Just because it is a lie, don’t think that it won’t work.
The thing is, though, that people well know the reasons for the loss of optimism. They know those reasons aren’t the existence of the social safety net and programs like the student-loan and job-retraining programs or assistance to state and local governments to pay teachers’ salaries and the like. It’s one thing to argue, even despite all the evidence to the contrary, that more tax cuts will spur the economy. It’s another thing to try to tell people some supposed fact that they themselves know is just plain silly.
There was no social safety net until years into the Great Depression. There was a social safety net during the 1950s, ‘60s, ‘70s. ‘80s, and ‘90s. Same with programs like the GI Bill and (later) the student-loan program (back when it provided affordable loans.
Most people aren’t that gullible about facts that they know.
Min
I am afraid you are right. I know people who believe it. Not believe it “really,” but believe it the way Pavolv’s dogs believed in the bell.
I think it is also very likely the people who pay the Republicans’ bills believe it. I speculate they themselves are driven… perhaps had parents who drove them.. and they hate it, but they believe it’s what made them rich, and they both believe it’s what people who are not rich need to do, and hate them for not doing it… and they know they didn’t do it because they are not rich.
this works the same way that abusing children makes them grow up to become child abusers.
and i suspect we all know people we think could use a little more self discipline.
Most people aren’t that gullible about facts that they know.
Oh, how I wish this were correct.
I do not share your optimism.
JzB
And these parents pushed them despite the existence of the programs the Repubs want to eliminate. And some of these people even used the college-loan program, I’d bet. And younger generations of parents will push their kids, too, whether or not these programs exist. Although non-wealthy parents’ kids will have a harder time getting college loans and such than their parents’ generation did.
My point is that the claim that people have lost their optimism about America because of the existence of those programs is obviously ridiculous. But that’s the claim they’re making. And that’s the claim I’m addressing.
It is sad so many people do not understand basic economics and the encentive effect on human actions. The point of Christies comments are two fold. First, in our quest to help the poor (which is a worthy cause) we have created a system that is not “assistance” but a way of life. It is not designed to move people up, it is designed to keep them in the system. That is the reason a greater percentage of the population moves into this segment each and every year and will continue to do so. Second, and the real substance of his message is that the segment of our population that goes out into the workplace each and every day and puts it on the line is becoming discouraged by this “Non-working” segment as they see it grow and people in it become ever more demanding of additional support, never ending. This “coulture of entitlement” is a cancer that if not changed will result in a lower standard of living (additional national debt , reduced percentage of population in the work place) and less opportunity for all americans. I confess that I am part of the 1% and due to this entitlement segment, plus being targeted as “not paying my fair share” all the while every year paying federal taxes that exceed what I paid for my house (40%+) I sold my business in 2010 that I started 30 years ago with nothing but a huge debt and risked everything I had every day to live the american dream. The Government has destroyed the encentive to take a risk all the while rewarding those that do nothing but declare they are worthy of government support (forever). So, go ahead and lower the encentive for risking it all, destroy this and look forward to a third world standard of living. One final note, I am gratefull for the opportunity I had and it is a tragedy that it is being destroyed.God help us!.
Bev
it’s “obviously ridiculous” to you. and maybe to me. it may not be to those people i was talking about.
i was gonna add that i don’t have much “drive” and i don’t like to be driven. i have some admiration for those who do, and suspect that the country may even need a few of them. but i have also noticed, i think, that those who are never take time to actually think about anything… and this includes the president and his advisors. what they can achieve by action and simple minded maxims… including those learned in graduate school… they do well with… when they are right… and badly with when they are wrong. but they do not think, however smart they are.
but they also do not realize that most of us don’t like to be driven.. .and there is no need for us to be. an honest days work is quite enough. then eight hours play and eight hours rest… is the formula. and weekends and vacations and a decent retirement are what most people would like out of life… and it is enough for “the economy.”
but the Simpsons and the Petersons are driven crazy by the idea that any of us might slack off for even a minute. it’s unhealthy they think. lazy. criminal even.. after all you are stealing the bosses time. and they are the boss.
but you… Bev… have to realize that a lot, a lot, of people internalize their ethic, they believe this with the top… the voting top… of their minds. and as Min points out, only 15% of us, or so, are actually out of work. the other 85% can easily convince themselves that it is our fault. we just don’t work hard enough.
@tommy,
LOL! You’re not only a liar, but a clumsy liar. Bad English and preposterous assertions (if you’re in the top 1%, you’re *not* paying 40%+ of your income in federal taxes) give you away. Please troll somewhere else.
tommy
the tragedy here is that you are so misinformed.
this won’t help you much, but your theory of “encentive” reminds me of the literature on “learned helplessness” which was widely understood among psychologists forty years ago.
they had discovered that an animal put into a situation in which nothing he could do would enable him to avoid punishment would result in his ceasing to try. you might say he had lost his “encentive.”
behavior is complex, but after a lifetime of watching it fairly carefully i think the learned helplessness model accounts for more lost “encentive” than “entitlements.”
human beings naturally try to better themselves and their situation. they will take reasonable risks, but put them in a situation where there are no reasonable opportunities and they may indeed give up. “welfare” is the price we pay for not being smart enough to find ways for all our citizens to use their god given potential.
you may have been stronger or luckier than most… and you may see people who do not make good use of such opportunities as they have. but i’d be very careful about supposing that the “encentive” they need is the threat of starvation. they may then decide to take risks that would surprise you. and not for better.
Tommy,
I agree with your assessment. Unfortunately, stating it here is a bit like casting pearls before swine.
Lefty statists typically want to rail against the heartlessness of those who don’t agree with them and prefer to endlessly repeat canards like:
1. Republicans want to starve children (when all they want to do is reduce the YOY amount of increase in spending on school lunches for example.)
2. Throw old people out of nursing homes…
blah, blah, blah
I find it more than a bit obnoxious to have to listen to their sanctimonius morally superior grandstanding when parts of the left for decades have been engaged in Cloward-Piven strategy to collapse the system. Uhhh, yeah, that’s all about the programs and helping people. LOL
If you really want to help people, get off your ass and take an active human interest in people’s lives. Confiscating hard earned money from people to redistribute to others to make yourself feel better is hardly a winning recipe, but don’t let history or human nature put a damper on your grandiose plans of creating utopia here on earth.
“There was no social safety net until years into the Great Depression.”
If the government doesn’t do it or never has done it, then it’s never existed and never will according to you? I’m glad that that’s a fact that you know. What a dumbarse, uninformed comment.
Try studying a little history, before making such uninformed, idiotic statements.
You could start by reading The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin O’Lasky, but seeing how that probably won’t sit well with your so well-informed historical world view, I’m probably wasting my time.
Beverly,
“There was no social safety net until years into the Great Depression.”
If the government doesn’t do it or never has done it, then it’s never existed and never will according to you? I’m glad that that’s a fact that you know. What a dumbarse, uninformed comment.
Try studying a little history, before making such uninformed, idiotic statements.
You could start by reading The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin O’Lasky, but seeing how that probably won’t sit well with your so well-informed historical world view, I’m probably wasting my time.
don’t you see it’s the actual receiving of the check that is harmful to the soul. Taking a deduction on you second home? Since you receive no check, that’s OK. Taking money for the wealthy is redistribution. Taking money form the middle class and the poor is only increasing their incentive to work. What a bunch of hypocrites.
I love the way poor people are conditioned into dependency by food and shelter but somehow incompetent irresponsible bankers are not subject to the same dependency by massive truckloads of free money. Priceless, really.
I don’t understand what the social safety net has to do with anything. Most people work for a living. But they are the ones sitting on the couch filled with pessimism and despair. Maybe they are thinking thoughts like this:
1. No matter what they do, their kids are going to have a bad life, because we are rapidly destroying the world and political leaders are unwilling on incapable of doing anything about it.
2. No matter what they do, there is no hope of social progress because our society and government are now both owned by a tiny percentage of powerful and wealthy people, and the political parties both serve these people.
3. Nobody even has a real plan anymore for a significantly better world, so people have no opportunity to participate in any meaning-generating cause that is larger than themselves. The television they are watching as they sit on the couch tells them that the purpose of their lives is to experience longer erections and participate in stressful, competitive gluttony.
4. Both political parties agree that we are “out of money” and so the future can only be filled with diminished expectations.
5. Chris Christie is a fat slob just like they are, and just like them he can’t manage to summon up the will power to do anything about it.
You’ll know when they’re sincere about conditioned dependency when they lobby to abolish inheritance.
Trust me Bryan when it comes to obnoxiousness you are in a league all your own. Kudos.
Sadly, this is not unexpected. Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom around 70 years ago warning us about the problems of centralized governmental control and planning, and the history since has even more firmly validated the truths he brought to light.
Meh. For conspicuous cases like the former Soviet Union, yes. For the US, Western Europe, Scandanavia, Malasia, not so much.
Good morning, Beverly and fellow commenters! My, what a rousing start to another day of the 2012 General Election cycle.
Lets see, so far we have a couple of people of the Christie persuasion, bewailing the sloth of the lower orders. O, tempora! O, mores! You know, the govt is so carefult to protect us all from poverty and want that large numbers of our fellow citizens simply wait, tin cup in hand, for the next federal handout truck to come by.While others cannot be bothered even to eat the free food the “Nanny State” provides on every street corner. Hold that thought.
These slug-like individuals live under bridges and on the street because they are too shiftless and lazy to find a job. Of which, we are informed, there are perhaps 10’s or 20’s which can’t be filled for want of qualified applicants who can fabricate titanium steel turbine blades and are willing to take $7.50 an hour for a 20 hour week plus no benefits.Right.
These individuals are shiftless couch potatoes with no drive, ambition or get-up-and-go. Beverly has kindly supplied us with a link to a picture of such a person, who by the looks of it, is preparing to consume a 32 oz. stein of beer and about 10K calories in the form of a triple bypass burger and double order of coronary occulsion fries. I note with alarm that the couch potato guy is decidedly slimmer than Gov. Christie.
Said Governor weighs 375+ by my estimate, based on years of experience guessing peoples’ weight and fate in SSA. Mr. Christie is a better example, actually, of the couch potato type than the link guy, who could probably lose weight fairly easily, even yet. Mr. Christie, however, is in a different category. He’s probably not a candidate for quick weight loss by any method I know of.
Those wishing to cast pearls of conservative wisdom before swine would do well to try another location. You know, the sort of place where such ridiculous notions are welcomed as profound insights into our economy and political life. Here, people are likely to greet such twaddle with derision and contempt. You know, like I have just done. Toddle off, won’t you? They’re waiting for you on Red State. NancyO
Nancy
i am inclined to agree with you about Bryan.
about tommytronics I am not so sure.
at least consider that tommy may be a real human being who believes he worked hard and earned his money, and really doesn’t like hearing that he “is not paying his fair share.”
I think the “fair share” argument to raise the taxes of the rich is self defeating. I think the rich do need to raise their own taxes for patriotic reasons, and because it will make the country a better and easier place for them to make even more money. But talking about “fair share” amounts to the old six year old complaint that her sister got the bigger piece of the burfday cake. It’s not an elevating argument.
In any case, tommy is one of those people i talked about above: they buy the Christie rhetoric and your best defense against that line of rhetoric is NOT to tell yourself that it is “obviously” ridiculous.
Bryan
it would be difficult to have a rational discussion with you since you are so completely convinced that you are right, and that everything you need to know was written in a book 70 years ago.
America is hardly a nation of “centralized government control and planning.” Look around you.
You might want to notice, by the way, that those “confiscating your hard earned money” are mostly giving it to defense contractors (capitalists) and banks (capitalists).
At least try to make some contact with the real world.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/04/10/another-rising-republican-star-with-a-truth-deficit/
Christie’s transportation subsidy is in trouble with GAO. Looks like it was pumped up and NJ owes the feds money on accounta it. NancyO.
I tend to agree coberly, for newcomers. Others tend to give themselves away over time.
Coberly, dear friend, tommy’s argument is a fantasy, and not a very convincing one at that. It just ain’t so. I don’t grudge tommy anything he has earned in this world. His success speaks well for his hard work and effort. Good for him. That is not the point of opposing his ideas. He doesn’t need to blame poor people for the recession and its protracted shadow of unemployment and economic stagnation. After all, the facts are quite different.
Everyone needs a story to explain the world to himself. My story includes things I have learned here and from the Bruce Bartletts, Thomas, DeLongs and Bakers of the world. Tommy could benefit from some of the information they have compiled. Tommy has nothing to reproach himself with in how he made his fortune. But, other people work just as hard and long and end up with nothing to show for it except, maybe, a SS check. That doesn’t make them part of some malaise infecting society to the detriment of us all.
Things could be fairer, certainly. But that’s not the reason rich people and the rest of us should pay more taxes. It’s because that’s what it takes to run the govt of a country with 300 million people and the largest military establishment ever created. Fair taxes would be great. I’m just pitching for sensible. NancyO
Coberly,
It’s impossible to have a rational discussion with you because you don’t even have a clue as to the actual definition of half of the words you use.
You complain about the “capitalist” defense contractors and bankers.
“Capitalism” is the private ownership of the means of production. Best thing going.
Like you I despise cronyism and corporatism whereby the people in control of the levers of power utilize legislation, regulation, and influence to direct resources to their buddies, and bail them out when things go bad because of the elimination of moral hazard for the select few.
In my view, it’s the centralization of power in the federal government -via legislation, judicial activism, regulation – that creates the environment in which the people at the levers of power can “nudge” markets and behaviors to further their grand schemes. I would think that you might actually agree with me on this point, but I’m not sure. If you do, then how can you say that
“America is hardly a nation of “centralized government control and planning.” Look around you.”
That’s all I see when I look around. Off the top of your head, give me a few examples of liberties in my life in which the government in some form doesn’t tax, regulate, legislate, encourage, discourage, adjudicate, dictate… Sheesh, pull your head out of the sand.
Nancy,
It’s so good of you to express the typical leftist tolerance of alternative opinions. Always a hearty, “Shove off mate. Go somewhere else.”
While I don’t agree with everything that I read here, I find the left leaning discourse to be at least marginally more intelligent than the lefty MSM propaganda spewed forth daily on the tele. Yes, I’m being snide, but then again, you are telling me to piss off basically. LOL
What I am hoping to find is a consistent, well thought out argument to support leftist views with which I disagree. While I might agree to disagree, I find it helpful to examine contary opinions in light of my worldview. I was once quite the social liberal in my younger days, then probably even a hated neo-con, now I’m much more interested in liberty than some ideological line in the sand. As such, I find it interesting how so many people who appear so certain and sure of their core beliefs deflect and fail to even answer basic questions whose answers make them uncomfortable with their own closely held postions.
Having said that, when you say things like:
“He doesn’t need to blame poor people for the recession and its protracted shadow of unemployment and economic stagnation.”
I’d rather not even reply to something like that. That comment reflects a very poor grasp of basic reading comprehension on your part.
Most rational people with remedial reading skills recognize that disagreements of this sort revolve around the issue of the size, scope, and authority of government (if it has it or not) to do what it is doing.
Bryan
paying a tax does not make you the victim of centralized control. it’s just the way we pay for what we need from “ourselves” when we organize a way to pay for what we need that we can’t pay for as individuals.
all you see when you look around is all that you let yourself see.
i did not complain about the capitalist contractors or banks. i merely pointed out that a good deal more of “your” money goes to them than to shiftless welfare moochers.
yes, there is always great danger that the government power will be seized by bad people… those bad people are usually great friends of bankers. from time to time there may be bad people who seize power by pretending to be the friend of the poor. this is not one of those times.
i don’t know about you, but i have lived a long time in this country and have NEVER had my freedom limited by “government” other than laws about red lights and speed limits, paying my share of taxes. i never undertook to poison the air and rivers so i never ran afoul of “excess gummint regulation.”
now if you ever saw what “people” do without laws and regulations, you would understand why some of us would rather not live like that.
btw
don’t give me that crap about “actual definition.” i am fairly sure i have a much better idea of the meaning of words than you do.. and of their limits.
Nancy
I agree with you about sensible. And about Tommy’s being misinformed. Just think it might be worthwhile remembering that HE believes what he is saying, and there is SOME truth in the idea that he worked hard. And there is no point in alienating him by calling for him to pay his “fair” share. He thinks he already pays more than his fair share.
Bryan
I am hoping you are one of our favorite trolls from times gone by. I’d hate to think there is more than one of you in the world.
Your own ideological straitjacket makes it impossible to have the “intelligent conversation” you claim to be seeking.
Your only hope for preserving a reasonable degree of liberty is, surprisingly enough, to work with your neighbors against the common enemies of liberty. That is what is called government, and it itself needs to be defended from becoming the tool of the enemies…. and does involve making some compromises with what amounts to a two-year-old’s concept of “liberty.” “MINE!”
Bryan, private charity is nice, but falls far short of a comprehensive social safety net that is truly capable of covering *everyone*. That’s the whole point of a government social safety net. If local, privately funded charities depending on discretionary contributions had the money, manpower and ability to do all the same things as well as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, welfare etc., then no country would even have such programs. They never have been able to do so and never will.
But there’s no arguing with people who live in Ayn Rand Libertarian fantasy worlds where government is always the enemy, rich men, banks and big corporations are always angels…
Harm,
“But there’s no arguing with people who live in Ayn Rand Libertarian fantasy worlds where government is always the enemy, rich men, banks and big corporations are always angels… “
I agree with you that it’s a waste of time to argue with people who intellectually cling to imaginary projections of boogeyman who are intentionally mischaracterized and dishonest substitutions of valid, rational, thoughtful positions.
Since you agree that
“…there’s no arguing with people who live in Ayn Rand Libertarian fantasy worlds..”
Why don’t you join us in the real world and try critically examining positions in light of human nature, facts, and history?
I know, it’s a lot easier to dispel the farcical challenges in fantasy land, but I would still encourage you to try. Real life > fantasy.
Coberly,
You were actually doing pretty well until the end:
“now if you ever saw what “people” do without laws and regulations, you would understand why some of us would rather not live like that.”
Do you know what a false choice is?
That’s almost akin to saying that I’m against people eating if I don’t support farm subsidies because there won’t be any food to eat!
WOW
Wrong. Society is the basis of voluntary cooperation of people, NOT government. Government is an external overlay imposed upon society by the consent of the people of the society. Tyranny is when the government imposes force upon society that it was never lawfully, or morally granted by the consent of society.
1. Republicans want to starve children (when all they want to do is reduce the YOY amount of increase in spending on school lunches for example.)
2. Throw old people out of nursing homes…
blah, blah, blah
Conservative Republicans may not actually come right out and say such things (and most of them are self-deluded enough to actually *believe* social Darwinism will not result in such outcomes), but… nonetheless those are exactly the outcomes their preferred policies are likely to produce.
Bryan
I never meant a mental patient who didn’t believe HIS reality was the real reality. Your reality would not be taken seriously by any sane person if it weren’t that really really bad people are using your foolishness to help them get the power they need to set themselves up for a long, long time.
But at some point it is not worth the time to try to persuade you.
Don’t call them “incompetent irresponsible bankers”, as –they’re saintly JOB CREATORS, modern day John Galts, they are!
Bryan
I never met a mental patient who didn’t believe HIS reality was the real reality. Your reality would not be taken seriously by any sane person if it weren’t that really really bad people are using your foolishness to help them get the power they need to set up a system that makes them fabulously rich and the rest of us desperately poor.
you have a tick of turning the “arguments” used against you into “arguments” against the people who disagree with you. good luck with that. i think most people will just throw up their hands and walk away.
Bryan
good… you understand that there are degrees of difference between white and black, or right and left.
too bad your rhetoric immediately destroys all those degrees. if you would like to carefully pick a point at which “government” becomes too obtrusive, and a point where “government” provides insufficient protection from the thugs and vandals, maybe we could discuss that.
Unfortunately, Hayek got it almost completely 180 degrees wrong in The Road to Serfdom. The only socialism being practised today is socialism for the rich. Unfettered capitalism –not virtually defunct socialism– is what is driving real Americans to economic and political serfdom today.
We don’t need to worry about a few Berkeley rabble rousers who have no power or influence, it’s the .1% who run everything and collect most of the “welfare” today.
Coberly,
I like you. You are the gift that keeps on giving. I’m glad you’re so well versed in the world views of mental patients. I would suggest later today in “group” that you focus a bit more on what the Doctors have to say than your fellow patients. LOL
LOL, wow. Critical thought at it’s finest. Never mind about the historical record or lacktherof of any evidence. I do admire the way you lefties can grasp for things that aren’t there. Then again, it’s not surprising. You statists can simply sweep away the deaths of 100+ million people under the boot of leftist ideologues with the wave of a hand and give a simple explanation with certitude about how that outcome is not inherently possible with your ideology.
You people would be a whole lot more funny if you weren’t so dangerous.
LOL, wow, what a windy road you walk. The point I choose to stand on is the Constitution, but that’s not good enough for you lefties, so you’ve got to work your way around it. It’s just way too confining for all of you grandiose plans!
Anyhow, once again, after a boat load of nonsensical, hilarious, and many times fallacious replies to my posts, the crux of the matter again comes down to “What is the proper role and function of government?
Since that is the crux of the matter, why is that never the topic of discussion? Instead, the topic is deflected or ignored, and then the barrage of ridiculousness commences. Please refer to the various ridiculous illogical and fallacious replies to my posts and my rebuttals. It’s not as funny to rebut the idiocy the 2nd time around.
I like the way Bryan compares U.S. social programs to help the poor and elderly to mass murders committed by Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao. It’s so obvious they are ONE IN THE SAME THING.
Bryan
i offered to discuss the “proper role” with you, but you responded with noise.
Shorter Bryan: “Yeah, it works in practice. But does it work in theory?
If Christie keeps this up, he will not only be VP, but P someday.
This country was founded not on cradle-to-grave, as the USSR was, but individual liberty. Cradle-to-grave sounds like the easy way out but it is ultimately dehumanizing. I don’t want to live on the big government massa’s plantation. Hopefully 51% of the people still agree with me.
Bryan, you are the one who claimed an assertion that there was little of a social safety net before well into the Depression was idiotic. But you offered no substantive support for that claim. You put the burden on yourself and you haven’t met it.
Let’s see: one of the prime elements of the social safety net is Social Security. The first benefits were paid in 1937, roughly, oh, eight years after the start of the Depression. Medicare, 1964 — that’s 35 years later. So let’s dispense with the personal insults and see the key elements of your argument.
Sammy
i would bet that 98% of us agree with you about living on big government massa’s plantation. but you may need new glasses if you can’t tell the difference between massa’s plantation and social security.
people require a reasonable amount of security. back in the day, a big family and maybe a cave for the night would provide as much as you could hope for. but in a world industrial economy, people need a little more sophisticated ways to provide the needed security. unemployment INSURANCE and retirement INSURANCE and medical INSURANCE don’t seem to me to be either soviet style regimentation, “welfare,” or unreasonable interference with you liberty.
i don’t say this to be mean, but it looks to me as though you have been told a fairy tale all your life about “rugged individualism” or something and you can’t stop believing it long enough to actually look at the reality around you.
it is entirely possible, for all i know, that your belief in rugged individualism is what gave you the courage to accomplish what you did in life. but that does not mean that the rest of us either can, or need to, live the same way.
as for dehumanizing… you look a little dehumanized to me. how could we compare as between us?
Yes, and isn’t it amazing that 15 million people suddenly lost their morale and became lazy couch potatoes over a two year period or so beginning in the middle of 2007? Funny, too, how when jobs were plentiful, these lazy people actually sought those jobs and took them, to the point where unemployment was only 3.7% and unlike the period beginning in 2007, the share of those people taking full-time jobs was higher than ever.
The Christie-Bryan meme is one of the silliest ever. They know it, too, but they don’t care, because they think they can sway just enough people with this nonsense to possibly make a difference in the ultimate counts.
urban
i think he was referring to the poor house, which did indeed exist before the New Deal.
Bryan
“voluntary cooperation of people” IS government. but no government i ever heard of was able to operate without threat of force… hopefull against criminals of one kind or another.
but yes governments CAN be tyrannical. that’s why we try to design them to make it hard for tyrants to take control. one of the chief tools of would be tyrants is to promise idiots and fools “freedom and no taxes.”