Yes, George, but who will carry this message for the GOP in 2012? Palin is a dim-witted talking head; Romney is a two-faced cult member; and McCain is 100yrs old. Newt and Ron Paul make some people's short list, but it's hard to imagine either of them winning. The GOP needs a conservative Bill Clinton (without the character flaws)--a governor with great intellect, charisma, and political skills.
@etsneroj I agree with you completely, except that Newt is complete scum. I don't care about Clinton's character flaws, he knows how to balance trade, maintain a surplus and create jobs.
@sheepwshotguns -come to the light hehe jk. hope you analyze the principles underlying the philosophies of the "right" and "left". And I hope you come to see what a lot of progressives and democrats don't see and that is the greatness of capitalism and freedom, imperfect as they are.
it is not the sole fault of washington that the crisis has been exacerbated; the general public still consumes at too high a level for sustainable growth. public and private spending currently have the U.S. on an unsustainable growth path. it's not a matter of if change will occur; it's when. consumer behavior needs to change, not the behavior of corporate execs
serious flaws in your argument. the golden parachute mechanism was created by owners of these companies (aka shareholders, the public) so executives would not be afraid to make riskier decisions and earn higher returns for the shareholders. It solves the principal agent problem, and ensures that management acts in the best interest of shareholders (to earn profit).
actually Conservatives, what you can do for your country i think, is that you can STOP complaining that taxes are somewhat higher, they go to help those that need it to make a country better as a whole !
Ever wonder what G Will does for a living? Nothing really, yet he earns a great deal of money. Still waiting for the great conservative thinker. Where is W F Buckley when we need him??
radom0815 you are quite obviously the product of a government school. Your lamentable spelling betrays you. Where there is Big Government there is increasingly less of a citizenry to be poor or in agony. Belgium, Denmark and the rest of the E.U. is depopulating at a rate demographers and even the U.N. cannot fully comprehend such is its rapidity. Why might that be? Big Government. That agency that robs us of the will to do that which beasts do without thought. Reproduce.
english is not my first language, im pretty sure im better in your language than you in mine or any other language :)
by your depopulation theory somalia and niger would be the most successful countries on earth, and europes depopulation is slow not rapid, and finally the usas fertility rate is not very high either
Perhaps most important part of Will's speech, starts about :57 and including the de toqueville quotes.
Big gov reduces people to serfs. wastes billions while people starve or become dependent. And as seen in the 20th century, ultimately becomes repulsed by the subjects its created and begins to liquidate them by the millions.
yeah, where there is big government people starve and live in poverty and agony, belgium, denmark, germany, finnland
where there is little or no government its heaven on earth: albania, kongo, somalia...
corporations dont reduce you to serfs, they make you proud responsible citizens, thats their principle goal, just ask sweatshop workers about their great corporate benefactors
how about our inner cities-where families have been dissolved through welfare policies-instead of being cared for by a functioning family, they are dependent on government to feed them. Should they starve? Ask how'd they get there in 1st place.
As big gov & corps meld into the same entity how will one vote the cronies out of power or vote with their $ by buying from competition?
glad you brought up finland & germany. Ask fins about their Russian neighbors. Don't get me started on Germany.
oh please tell me about the good old days, with functioning families, social freedom, great jobs and equal chances for all people
how are families dependent on governments to feed them?
how about no government watching over families and parents owning their children like property with the freedom to inflict whatever tyranny they want, maybe work off that rage that they gathered in working long hours in a dull job
you really think politicians make plans to make families disfunct?
you know there are real forces conspiring to make families disfunct: its called marketing: professional advertising using every available psychological manipulation to make children f.e. nag their parents for toys or unhealthy food, imprint certain information - "early branding", tell parents that its cool or not to have kids itfp, how they should cloth them aso.!
They've continually sent checks to people, addicting them to generational welfare, robbing them of their personal initiative and industry, forcing them to dysfunctional schools that graduate around 50%, controlled by overpaid administrators and teachers unions, then tell them its someone else's fault.
Check out the youtube tours of abandoned Detroit, perhaps chicago-a social version of chernobly.
About marketing-I got told "no" a lot as a kid. By both parents. I'm glad for them.
the little propaganda skit from crowder - yeah very nice -.-
its not to blame on government per se but bad governance! you throw out the baby with the bathwater, the most successful countries on earth have a high levels of social security
yes aging populations are a difficulty for a such systems, whats your alternative - euthanasia?
if you think a simple no solves permanent manipulative marketing that will work certainly for the much less invasive government just as well!
most countries have stopped just handing out checks, you have to attend reintegration measures and show that you are actively looking for a job, thats good governance
its called incrementalism! its a scientific way of governance, you introduce a system then check its results and adjust, its doesnt make for theatralic political speeches but its the most rational way to go
Random, IF your gov is covering its bills, fine. But obama continues hiring more bureaucrats than private sector & paid more than private sector.
ALL HIS PROJECTIONS for spending, debt, tax revenues, are repeatedly corrected up to a factor of FOUR. As in more debt, higher spending, vastly less revenues-he's lying or incompetent.
The rate of increase in gov has been going on for decades- those who tried to SLOW it-got attacked politically.
those who tried to SLOW it-got attacked politically - not if they were republican, cant quite remember the big protests when george bush busted clintons evened out budget with amok tax cuts for his super-rich comrades, just as i missed the big republican praise of clintons fiscal restraint
You left out that conservative republicans who won office in 1994 stopped clinton from overspending, turned back several of his budgets until he submitted smaller ones.
That is true cause of budget surplus.
Starting in 1998 many of those republicans went home, the republicans in general started losing seats to democrats, or adopted democratic spending habits and repudiated conservatives who asked how are we going to pay for overspending.
& obama's forking $billions to his political allies now.
:D nice, although we dont use großer bruder but the anglicism "big brother" ^^, and we dont have it because we demonstrated early and nationwide against it, and in terms of watching over families we actually had some very bad cases of failure of the state institutions
im from former gdr and when the state really becomes this kind of dominant caretaker it is desastrous - no doubt! but socialism and social democracy are completely different stories
sweden, finnland, denmark - economically the most successful states today, most american states can only dream of their economic health, let alone ratio of debt! and unlike the usa they all have little to no natural riches and no world empire to exploit other countries
IF their spending's been realistic they have little to worry about-that's not what I hear about spain, greece, maybe two other euro countries? & Germany gets to bail out another country for their mismanagment.
As to the US when I argued years back "how are we going to afford this?" the reply was "your extremist child starving ways are in the vanishing minority we must be realistic you have been rejected spend spend spend" well, its a different tune now lets hope we get back 2 reality.
spain was weakened by a real estate bubble collapse and has a low government ratio, like greece its suffering from the crisis created by the us, japan with a low gov. ratio has an even higher deficit than greece
but there is also ireland who is doing very well with a very low government ratio, size of government alone is just an inept criterion, really
I have heard spain is bleeding jobs and greece has a rapidly aging population with need of social services but not the funds to help them, plus a gov/union sector that overspent or demanding its pensions. These policies are inevitably catastrophic wherever they are implemented (including the US). No, US can't be the blame for all EU's policy decisions.
it is our hope in the US that we get off this economic version of a heroin fix that is being administered by big welfare state gov.
germanys rhinian capitalism: out of a destroyed nation it grew into a leading industrial country "despite" extreme unionization and unprecedented income equality by redistribution
who is supposed to buy these cars when there are no unions to negotiate decent wages? and on what roads when u dont pay taxes
No place for unions that don't care about being competitive making cars or teaching children, a big problem here in the US.
If German unions have remained competitive, your teacher's unions turned out excellent students, then you have done it successfull-but here in US, some unions protect their jobs at expense of industry or graduate as few as 25% of students, some parents actually want to put teachers in jail for awful results.
mainly due to the inherited crisis, bush started with the bailouts, and its an undisputed common that in times of recession you have to spend, apart from crisis related spending obama isnt worse than bush - not better either, thats the point: hes neither leftist nor revolutionary, for the most part he continues bushs policies
you ll alway be between uncompetetive union claims and exploitative corporate claims, its a matter of negotiation
also corporations dont aim at being competitive, they aim at maximizing short term profits, at all costs!
competitiveness is a neo-liberal knock-out argument, how do you know a corp really cant afford higher wages or is just trying to maximize profits for the shareholders?
yeah thats why americas real wages are so high and labour benefits are out of control right? compare the bailout of an actually producing and job-providing industry with the bailout for the banks who caused the crisis, and unlike banks and corporations unions are democratic organizations based on political mandates
the bailed out gm brands problems were uncompetetive development and bad management - not too high wages!
don't know how unions are in EU but here some protect their jobs at all costs, force membership & especially gov related unions where they just get more taxes to cover losses and protect their interests. Schools are becoming worse in certain places around the country, people are becoming very upset and are demanding accountability. Some education sector salaries are very high while less and less students graduate.
In the meantime, some US competitors deliver products with less cost to make.
the CBO corrected obama's debt projections upwards.
More than once.
obama's tax revenue has been revised downwards.
His spending is several times bush's-when bush's bailouts got paid back, obama wants to spend them again, not use them to pay off deficit(?) as original bailout promised.
and obama is hiring more gov employees paid much more than private sector counter parts. That is where much of the job stimulus went-to prop up gov union jobs.
why was spending not a topic when clinton was in office? or bush? all big western countries have the problem of ever increasing debt, also make a poll - i guarantee you that 99 percent of western citizens cannot explain what states debt is, where its coming from and what it means for the economy, its not as simple as you think
so talking about it like its a popular concern and a matter ppl really feel is already disingenious
conservatives actually cut back government under clinton after 1994. Newt gingrich tried to slow the rate of growth of gov in '95 but lost that battle, thanks in part to gov unions opposition, and accusations of starving children. For daring to slow gov growth!
Since then we are close to where two entitlement programs alone consume the entire budget.
& gov spending has accelerated!
Its unsustainable. The math doesn't add up. We won't be able to pay the interest on the debt in the near future.
would lead too far here but as said: states dept is not what many people think it is, its not your common sense equivalent to private debt
same is true for the economy, productivity is bigger than it ever was, entitlement programs arent an as big burden as you think - in the opposit, neither is debt
what do you suggest for children of unemployed parents who then - as you seem to want - have no social security?
I'm sure thats what other countries were told about debt before their economies fell & people had nothing.
I've seen steel plants scrapped or shipped overseas. Refineries mothballed or razed to the ground. We do not have the industry to pull us out of this like in the past.
one cannot provide or help others if they are bankrupt too.
social security was always a ponzi scheme-I do not believe what you say about debt.
again you distort and try to shift blame. I'm not the one who robbed SS.
same to you, explain how ss is a ponzi scheme, and yeah: glorious free market wallstreet is not ponzi scheme, except for the occasional billion dollar ponzi schemes -.-
Don't try to make ALL of free market source of economic downturn.
Especially with gov management of fannie mae, freddie mac.
Gov regulated its way INTO crisis-its business friends who donated to politicians LIED in hearings-other politicians tried to stop the financial ruin that was coming.
Now instead of researching and avoiding dishonest companies to invest in we have dishonesty EVERYWHERE we pay for all the time thanks to crony government.
its exactly what countries are never told, everybody says we should worry about the debt and how it is just the same as our individual kitchen counter debt and the end is always nye
productivity is unchange high and growing, you should ask where its benefits go..
how is social security a ponzi scheme? its the most transparent, straight forward thing a gov can do, you know exactly how much money goes where and what it will be spend for
there are many gov programs, assistance for children in poverty. Some help children who are NOT in poverty. our gov also wastes $ on extremely questionable projects. And yet, if the gov is bankrupt, how exactly is it able to help anybody?
I ask if these politicians and bureaucrats creating and running these programs can do math, and can be held accountable for running a program or not.
If not, they should be fired.
Do politicians running these programs really want to help children?
so gov programs are good for something after all :)
if the system works you can vote a bad politician out of office, ceos go home with golden parachutes after ruining their company and in case of bailout the gov with it
do you think you ll get more capable ppl into office if you defame and reject gov in general? ppl who can do math - like the ceos of the corps that created the crisis?
what the institutions let and make people do is just as important as these peoples own intentions, and these gov programs are set up to help, corporations are set up to make profits on the extent of everything and everyone else (aka externalities), from your gov you can demand transparency, corp. have a right to secrecy
There is no requirement for gov to bailout ANY corp.
Gov is now spending $400 billion+ JUST to rescue FANNIE MAE & F/MAC. from gov mismanagement.
Gov was WARNED about it years before it happened. politicians kept using it to fund their political machines, get funds from corrupt ceos of corporations. Who LIED in gov hearings.
Fmae/ mac, FHA, FDIC, SS, medicare, medicaid, grew each year, lose $100's of billions to scams, etc.
What is great about George Will is that he appeals to all people with an open mind. So that, those who have severe buyer's remorse over their Obama vote can think of their alternatives for the future.
random0815. You defend inheritances for the same reason you defend the protection of any kind of asset. To give people the incentive to stand up for themselves. If I thought my assets were systematically up for grabs by any thief or government, why would I ever save anything. I would spend it all as soon as I get it before the looters could take it. Why defend plunder?
huh? you save to buy things while you live, yourself ends when u die, to have kids with a golden spoon up their ass from the start should be antithetical to your world view, but its not, because your world view is a demagogic scheme to protect the rich
if you spend it before you die you have nothing to inherit - mute point
and we ll use your inheritance to level the playing field (not the score!) for the next generation - how about that?
What about the man who earns his money not to buy yachts and bugattis, but to ensure his children have money.
do you have kids?You don't understand wanting to leave them with a competative advantage.
Freedom means freedom to fail and succeed. Freedom to buy what you want or save what you want. Freedom to give your kids every dime you earned or bet it all away in vegas. point is why do you want to deprive men/women of their freedom to do what they want with their money. they earned it
Random0815 you sound a little bitter and upset about this. I'm really sorry you feel that way. I'm also sorry you feel like you know enough about me to claim that I have an inheritance coming my way, I do not. My worldview has nothing specifically to say about inheritances and golden spoons. It does have something to say about ethics, you know right and wrong.
I agree with you that many trust fund recipients are probably worse off in the beginning than those who know what it means to earn all of their wealth through hard work, but that has nothing to do with ethics and morality. Why do you think it moral to 'level the playing field' to borrow your phrase to take the wealth of some and give to others? This is aggression whether the government does it or an individual does it.
well im sorry but this kind of devious demagogy makes me a bit angry, even more when its victims defend it
this randian idea of "no-aggression" is just wishful simplicity, the world doesnt work in monolithic principles, thats the wisdom of incrementalism
if you have a billion dollar more than you need to live well and next to u a thousand kids are starving should i not take your money because it would be "aggression"?
why is it not moral to level the playing field? same chances for everybody!? i didnt say same outcome!
inheritance is a crutial point, thats where your possibly legitimate idea of freedom, individualism and competition collides with an ideology only protective of the rich classes
How do you determine how many dollars one needs to live well on? You are arguing for some form of command/control economy, the likes of which history has shown eventually collapse. Do you not realize that free market capitalism created this environment whereby more people than ever in world history have a chance of living comfortably. You demagogue the issue yourself when you inject class warfare into it.
just like we decide what is human or inhuman treatment, what is just punishment, aso.: as said, its the normal terms of coexistence to you have to negotiate in every society
and what is happening in america is not free market capitalism, it is corporatism, socialism for the rich, predatory capitalism for the poor
on youtube: "capitalism making live better" - first clip, answers this question :)
So, where do you draw the line? Why not a Million, or a hundred thousand. A thousand? A hundred? I notice that you talk about taking my money not giving your own. Also who gets to decide who's got too much and should give his up. I'm glad you don't have access to my money.
that is the wishful simplicity, one of the basic methods of this kind of propaganda is to suggest false yes-no dualities
to realize that you can draw a line is the first step! and where? every society has to negotioate terms of coexistence, its a responsibility you cannot avoid
and its your money if u made it entirely without societies help or common goods, since the currency system is provided by society thats impossible :)
OK. Bereft of ideas, Random switches to phony psuedo-intelluctual gibberish. Mis-spelled gibberish at that. What does the currency system have to do with the fact that I work for a living. I earn what I have with my effort. Barter would work just as well on a smaller scale but we're too large and currency was invented by bankers NOT society to make it simpler. God, I don't know why I bother, you lefties have mastered the art of denial.
You take, take, take and then wonder why the producers get tired of supporting your dumb asses and vote in conservatives just often enough to keep us from going completely down the tube. Here's a duality for you and a true one: You're a hopeless beggar that wants to live off the efforts of better men than you. I'm not.
neither lefty nor living off of somebody, and im making rational points, thats the art of reason, as opposed to your emotional ranting, thats why you never see big conservative-liberal debates, its rationally indefensible
when in history did things go "completely down the tube" - well we might have gotten close in bursting bubbles created by your wallstreet gambling model citizens!
refresh me on the big crisis caused by too many beggars?
and for incentive - you think without carbon yachts, bugatti veyrons and diamond covered laptops people wouldnt have incentive to stand up forthemselves, is extreme amounts of money really the only or the best incentive you can think of?
My Sunday mornings revolve around watching this man and his thoughts of the day on This Week. Why doens't ABCnews understand what a great commodity they have and give him more air time. Tell Sam and Cokie to STFU and let a real thinker speak.
Fantastic point about partisanship at 3:57. My best friend is a staunch liberal. Both of us appreciate that it is more difficult to stand by your convictions than to follow whatever happens to be the consensus. This is why among the voting public, political knowledge correlates with partisan loyalty.
The media, in its zeal to appear unbiased, heaps unearned praise on the moderate politicians. They've developed a false narrative that centrists=good. History has not shown this to be true.
agreed. absolutely brilliant. anyone who does not see the sense and logic in this speech have their head in the liberal sand. also thank you mr. will for not bringing religion and moral nonsense into the message of freedom and fiscal conservatism.
Conservatives love teleprompter jokes while they ... use teplepromters.
Let's see if they like this joke:
Joke:
WHATS THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONSERVATIVES AND AL QUEDA?
ALQUEDA USES COMMERCIAL PLANES TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE AND THEY ARE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS, WHILE CONSERVATIVES USES PRIVATE PLANES TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE AND THEY ARE DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.
What a work of art.
odinswald 7 months ago
Whenever my liberal friends say conservatives are dumb and unintellectual..i say two words. George Will.
Ladies and Gentlemen it doesnt get any better.
Lurkin1 1 year ago 3
Just curious, what did De Toqueville know about soft tyranny, coming from a land full of real tyrants?
EsClayWilson 1 year ago
@EsClayWilson Irrelevant.
steelyman40 11 months ago
When did families serve schools or what does this have to do with any bills?
EsClayWilson 1 year ago
Yes, George, but who will carry this message for the GOP in 2012? Palin is a dim-witted talking head; Romney is a two-faced cult member; and McCain is 100yrs old. Newt and Ron Paul make some people's short list, but it's hard to imagine either of them winning. The GOP needs a conservative Bill Clinton (without the character flaws)--a governor with great intellect, charisma, and political skills.
etsneroj 1 year ago 4
@etsneroj I agree with you completely, except that Newt is complete scum. I don't care about Clinton's character flaws, he knows how to balance trade, maintain a surplus and create jobs.
truthslap 1 year ago
@etsneroj The Republicans need a Calvin Coolidge to save them.
Willredd94 1 year ago
Comment removed
MajorMelvin88 1 year ago
i consider myself a progressive, and quite liberal, yet i stand in agreement, not entirely, but a lot with what george will has said.
sheepwshotguns 1 year ago
@sheepwshotguns -come to the light hehe jk. hope you analyze the principles underlying the philosophies of the "right" and "left". And I hope you come to see what a lot of progressives and democrats don't see and that is the greatness of capitalism and freedom, imperfect as they are.
MaribelTipton 5 months ago
it is not the sole fault of washington that the crisis has been exacerbated; the general public still consumes at too high a level for sustainable growth. public and private spending currently have the U.S. on an unsustainable growth path. it's not a matter of if change will occur; it's when. consumer behavior needs to change, not the behavior of corporate execs
rmaass12 2 years ago 2
serious flaws in your argument. the golden parachute mechanism was created by owners of these companies (aka shareholders, the public) so executives would not be afraid to make riskier decisions and earn higher returns for the shareholders. It solves the principal agent problem, and ensures that management acts in the best interest of shareholders (to earn profit).
rmaass12 2 years ago
Amen. Government gridlock is a blessed thing. The less the government does, the safer our liberties are.
herbs814 2 years ago 11
an absolute brilliant speech. died laughing. thanks for posting
magnumsynderella 2 years ago 2
Brilliant: thanks for posting this.
668mirabai 2 years ago
this speech is absolutely out of control, excellent
aweiss 2 years ago
God he's good.
TimeWarp66 2 years ago 14
Probably the best thing to come out of CPAC in years
yuothineyesasian 2 years ago 4
actually Conservatives, what you can do for your country i think, is that you can STOP complaining that taxes are somewhat higher, they go to help those that need it to make a country better as a whole !
Claronium780 2 years ago
lots of Conservatives are angry, because of Obama, and it'll be like that for the next 7 years at least - till 2017 minimum !
Claronium780 2 years ago
yeah science is bad, cuz 99.9 % of scientists are just wrong that global warming is real !
Claronium780 2 years ago
Ever wonder what G Will does for a living? Nothing really, yet he earns a great deal of money. Still waiting for the great conservative thinker. Where is W F Buckley when we need him??
judedelux 2 years ago
radom0815 you are quite obviously the product of a government school. Your lamentable spelling betrays you. Where there is Big Government there is increasingly less of a citizenry to be poor or in agony. Belgium, Denmark and the rest of the E.U. is depopulating at a rate demographers and even the U.N. cannot fully comprehend such is its rapidity. Why might that be? Big Government. That agency that robs us of the will to do that which beasts do without thought. Reproduce.
toteguyj 2 years ago 3
english is not my first language, im pretty sure im better in your language than you in mine or any other language :)
by your depopulation theory somalia and niger would be the most successful countries on earth, and europes depopulation is slow not rapid, and finally the usas fertility rate is not very high either
random0815 2 years ago
Perhaps most important part of Will's speech, starts about :57 and including the de toqueville quotes.
Big gov reduces people to serfs. wastes billions while people starve or become dependent. And as seen in the 20th century, ultimately becomes repulsed by the subjects its created and begins to liquidate them by the millions.
vllmer 2 years ago
yeah, where there is big government people starve and live in poverty and agony, belgium, denmark, germany, finnland
where there is little or no government its heaven on earth: albania, kongo, somalia...
corporations dont reduce you to serfs, they make you proud responsible citizens, thats their principle goal, just ask sweatshop workers about their great corporate benefactors
random0815 2 years ago
how about our inner cities-where families have been dissolved through welfare policies-instead of being cared for by a functioning family, they are dependent on government to feed them. Should they starve? Ask how'd they get there in 1st place.
As big gov & corps meld into the same entity how will one vote the cronies out of power or vote with their $ by buying from competition?
glad you brought up finland & germany. Ask fins about their Russian neighbors. Don't get me started on Germany.
vllmer 2 years ago
oh please tell me about the good old days, with functioning families, social freedom, great jobs and equal chances for all people
how are families dependent on governments to feed them?
how about no government watching over families and parents owning their children like property with the freedom to inflict whatever tyranny they want, maybe work off that rage that they gathered in working long hours in a dull job
random0815 2 years ago
oh please you can try to continue distorting it any way you like,
If someone beats kids or plunders the national treasury they should go to jail.
And getting back to Will's comments...
dependency and dysfunction are part of the plan. Not an accidental byproduct of it.
vllmer 2 years ago
you really think politicians make plans to make families disfunct?
you know there are real forces conspiring to make families disfunct: its called marketing: professional advertising using every available psychological manipulation to make children f.e. nag their parents for toys or unhealthy food, imprint certain information - "early branding", tell parents that its cool or not to have kids itfp, how they should cloth them aso.!
random0815 2 years ago
They've continually sent checks to people, addicting them to generational welfare, robbing them of their personal initiative and industry, forcing them to dysfunctional schools that graduate around 50%, controlled by overpaid administrators and teachers unions, then tell them its someone else's fault.
Check out the youtube tours of abandoned Detroit, perhaps chicago-a social version of chernobly.
About marketing-I got told "no" a lot as a kid. By both parents. I'm glad for them.
vllmer 2 years ago
the little propaganda skit from crowder - yeah very nice -.-
its not to blame on government per se but bad governance! you throw out the baby with the bathwater, the most successful countries on earth have a high levels of social security
yes aging populations are a difficulty for a such systems, whats your alternative - euthanasia?
if you think a simple no solves permanent manipulative marketing that will work certainly for the much less invasive government just as well!
random0815 2 years ago
most countries have stopped just handing out checks, you have to attend reintegration measures and show that you are actively looking for a job, thats good governance
its called incrementalism! its a scientific way of governance, you introduce a system then check its results and adjust, its doesnt make for theatralic political speeches but its the most rational way to go
random0815 2 years ago
Random, IF your gov is covering its bills, fine. But obama continues hiring more bureaucrats than private sector & paid more than private sector.
ALL HIS PROJECTIONS for spending, debt, tax revenues, are repeatedly corrected up to a factor of FOUR. As in more debt, higher spending, vastly less revenues-he's lying or incompetent.
The rate of increase in gov has been going on for decades- those who tried to SLOW it-got attacked politically.
& there's more videos of detroit than crowder's.
vllmer 2 years ago 2
those who tried to SLOW it-got attacked politically - not if they were republican, cant quite remember the big protests when george bush busted clintons evened out budget with amok tax cuts for his super-rich comrades, just as i missed the big republican praise of clintons fiscal restraint
random0815 2 years ago
You left out that conservative republicans who won office in 1994 stopped clinton from overspending, turned back several of his budgets until he submitted smaller ones.
That is true cause of budget surplus.
Starting in 1998 many of those republicans went home, the republicans in general started losing seats to democrats, or adopted democratic spending habits and repudiated conservatives who asked how are we going to pay for overspending.
& obama's forking $billions to his political allies now.
vllmer 2 years ago
@random0815
We understand you have learnt to love der Grosse Bruder.
Yes he is very powerful. Like a god.
MrBonnalurken 2 years ago
:D nice, although we dont use großer bruder but the anglicism "big brother" ^^, and we dont have it because we demonstrated early and nationwide against it, and in terms of watching over families we actually had some very bad cases of failure of the state institutions
im from former gdr and when the state really becomes this kind of dominant caretaker it is desastrous - no doubt! but socialism and social democracy are completely different stories
random0815 2 years ago
You also deliberately misrepresent the problem, trying to spin what's desired here is NO government.
The big gov welfare states are on an unsustainable financial course. I am sure your reassuring arguments were used in Greece until it hit the skids.
vllmer 2 years ago
sweden, finnland, denmark - economically the most successful states today, most american states can only dream of their economic health, let alone ratio of debt! and unlike the usa they all have little to no natural riches and no world empire to exploit other countries
random0815 2 years ago
IF their spending's been realistic they have little to worry about-that's not what I hear about spain, greece, maybe two other euro countries? & Germany gets to bail out another country for their mismanagment.
As to the US when I argued years back "how are we going to afford this?" the reply was "your extremist child starving ways are in the vanishing minority we must be realistic you have been rejected spend spend spend" well, its a different tune now lets hope we get back 2 reality.
vllmer 2 years ago
spain was weakened by a real estate bubble collapse and has a low government ratio, like greece its suffering from the crisis created by the us, japan with a low gov. ratio has an even higher deficit than greece
but there is also ireland who is doing very well with a very low government ratio, size of government alone is just an inept criterion, really
random0815 2 years ago
I have heard spain is bleeding jobs and greece has a rapidly aging population with need of social services but not the funds to help them, plus a gov/union sector that overspent or demanding its pensions. These policies are inevitably catastrophic wherever they are implemented (including the US). No, US can't be the blame for all EU's policy decisions.
it is our hope in the US that we get off this economic version of a heroin fix that is being administered by big welfare state gov.
vllmer 2 years ago
germanys rhinian capitalism: out of a destroyed nation it grew into a leading industrial country "despite" extreme unionization and unprecedented income equality by redistribution
who is supposed to buy these cars when there are no unions to negotiate decent wages? and on what roads when u dont pay taxes
random0815 2 years ago
No need to get rid of unions or taxes.
No place for unions that don't care about being competitive making cars or teaching children, a big problem here in the US.
If German unions have remained competitive, your teacher's unions turned out excellent students, then you have done it successfull-but here in US, some unions protect their jobs at expense of industry or graduate as few as 25% of students, some parents actually want to put teachers in jail for awful results.
And obama's debt 3x bush's.
vllmer 2 years ago
mainly due to the inherited crisis, bush started with the bailouts, and its an undisputed common that in times of recession you have to spend, apart from crisis related spending obama isnt worse than bush - not better either, thats the point: hes neither leftist nor revolutionary, for the most part he continues bushs policies
random0815 2 years ago
you ll alway be between uncompetetive union claims and exploitative corporate claims, its a matter of negotiation
also corporations dont aim at being competitive, they aim at maximizing short term profits, at all costs!
competitiveness is a neo-liberal knock-out argument, how do you know a corp really cant afford higher wages or is just trying to maximize profits for the shareholders?
random0815 2 years ago
when they go bankrupt and have to be bailed out by a extreme leftist gov administration that took 10s of millions of $ from unions.
vllmer 2 years ago
yeah thats why americas real wages are so high and labour benefits are out of control right? compare the bailout of an actually producing and job-providing industry with the bailout for the banks who caused the crisis, and unlike banks and corporations unions are democratic organizations based on political mandates
the bailed out gm brands problems were uncompetetive development and bad management - not too high wages!
random0815 2 years ago
don't know how unions are in EU but here some protect their jobs at all costs, force membership & especially gov related unions where they just get more taxes to cover losses and protect their interests. Schools are becoming worse in certain places around the country, people are becoming very upset and are demanding accountability. Some education sector salaries are very high while less and less students graduate.
In the meantime, some US competitors deliver products with less cost to make.
vllmer 2 years ago
the CBO corrected obama's debt projections upwards.
More than once.
obama's tax revenue has been revised downwards.
His spending is several times bush's-when bush's bailouts got paid back, obama wants to spend them again, not use them to pay off deficit(?) as original bailout promised.
and obama is hiring more gov employees paid much more than private sector counter parts. That is where much of the job stimulus went-to prop up gov union jobs.
entitlement spending still hasn't been addressed.
vllmer 2 years ago
why was spending not a topic when clinton was in office? or bush? all big western countries have the problem of ever increasing debt, also make a poll - i guarantee you that 99 percent of western citizens cannot explain what states debt is, where its coming from and what it means for the economy, its not as simple as you think
so talking about it like its a popular concern and a matter ppl really feel is already disingenious
random0815 2 years ago
what people do feel are real wages, its the pulse of every economy, when did you hear this term the last time!
random0815 2 years ago
conservatives actually cut back government under clinton after 1994. Newt gingrich tried to slow the rate of growth of gov in '95 but lost that battle, thanks in part to gov unions opposition, and accusations of starving children. For daring to slow gov growth!
Since then we are close to where two entitlement programs alone consume the entire budget.
& gov spending has accelerated!
Its unsustainable. The math doesn't add up. We won't be able to pay the interest on the debt in the near future.
vllmer 2 years ago 3
would lead too far here but as said: states dept is not what many people think it is, its not your common sense equivalent to private debt
same is true for the economy, productivity is bigger than it ever was, entitlement programs arent an as big burden as you think - in the opposit, neither is debt
what do you suggest for children of unemployed parents who then - as you seem to want - have no social security?
random0815 2 years ago
I'm sure thats what other countries were told about debt before their economies fell & people had nothing.
I've seen steel plants scrapped or shipped overseas. Refineries mothballed or razed to the ground. We do not have the industry to pull us out of this like in the past.
one cannot provide or help others if they are bankrupt too.
social security was always a ponzi scheme-I do not believe what you say about debt.
again you distort and try to shift blame. I'm not the one who robbed SS.
vllmer 2 years ago
Social Security -is- a ponzi scheme.
The question is now: Are we going to lay down and be walked on, or stand up and fight?
ChessPieceKnight 2 years ago
same to you, explain how ss is a ponzi scheme, and yeah: glorious free market wallstreet is not ponzi scheme, except for the occasional billion dollar ponzi schemes -.-
random0815 2 years ago
you have the dishonest in SOME of free market.
Don't try to make ALL of free market source of economic downturn.
Especially with gov management of fannie mae, freddie mac.
Gov regulated its way INTO crisis-its business friends who donated to politicians LIED in hearings-other politicians tried to stop the financial ruin that was coming.
Now instead of researching and avoiding dishonest companies to invest in we have dishonesty EVERYWHERE we pay for all the time thanks to crony government.
vllmer 2 years ago
its exactly what countries are never told, everybody says we should worry about the debt and how it is just the same as our individual kitchen counter debt and the end is always nye
productivity is unchange high and growing, you should ask where its benefits go..
how is social security a ponzi scheme? its the most transparent, straight forward thing a gov can do, you know exactly how much money goes where and what it will be spend for
random0815 2 years ago
oh and im still curious about your solution for children of unemployed parents
random0815 2 years ago
there are many gov programs, assistance for children in poverty. Some help children who are NOT in poverty. our gov also wastes $ on extremely questionable projects. And yet, if the gov is bankrupt, how exactly is it able to help anybody?
I ask if these politicians and bureaucrats creating and running these programs can do math, and can be held accountable for running a program or not.
If not, they should be fired.
Do politicians running these programs really want to help children?
vllmer 2 years ago 2
so gov programs are good for something after all :)
if the system works you can vote a bad politician out of office, ceos go home with golden parachutes after ruining their company and in case of bailout the gov with it
do you think you ll get more capable ppl into office if you defame and reject gov in general? ppl who can do math - like the ceos of the corps that created the crisis?
how does a gov go "bankrupt"? :)
random0815 2 years ago
what the institutions let and make people do is just as important as these peoples own intentions, and these gov programs are set up to help, corporations are set up to make profits on the extent of everything and everyone else (aka externalities), from your gov you can demand transparency, corp. have a right to secrecy
random0815 2 years ago
gov programs are not good if gov is bankrupt.
There is no requirement for gov to bailout ANY corp.
Gov is now spending $400 billion+ JUST to rescue FANNIE MAE & F/MAC. from gov mismanagement.
Gov was WARNED about it years before it happened. politicians kept using it to fund their political machines, get funds from corrupt ceos of corporations. Who LIED in gov hearings.
Fmae/ mac, FHA, FDIC, SS, medicare, medicaid, grew each year, lose $100's of billions to scams, etc.
Yes, gov can go bankrupt.
vllmer 2 years ago
In November, hit the reset button.
joebidensanass 2 years ago
Maybe the conservatives will push the Republican party in the right direction.
johnnypzz321 2 years ago
What is great about George Will is that he appeals to all people with an open mind. So that, those who have severe buyer's remorse over their Obama vote can think of their alternatives for the future.
WoodyPfister 2 years ago 5
if men are supposed to stand up for themselves why would you defend inheritances? :)
random0815 2 years ago
random0815. You defend inheritances for the same reason you defend the protection of any kind of asset. To give people the incentive to stand up for themselves. If I thought my assets were systematically up for grabs by any thief or government, why would I ever save anything. I would spend it all as soon as I get it before the looters could take it. Why defend plunder?
brewrunner 2 years ago 2
huh? you save to buy things while you live, yourself ends when u die, to have kids with a golden spoon up their ass from the start should be antithetical to your world view, but its not, because your world view is a demagogic scheme to protect the rich
if you spend it before you die you have nothing to inherit - mute point
and we ll use your inheritance to level the playing field (not the score!) for the next generation - how about that?
random0815 2 years ago
What about the man who earns his money not to buy yachts and bugattis, but to ensure his children have money.
do you have kids?You don't understand wanting to leave them with a competative advantage.
Freedom means freedom to fail and succeed. Freedom to buy what you want or save what you want. Freedom to give your kids every dime you earned or bet it all away in vegas. point is why do you want to deprive men/women of their freedom to do what they want with their money. they earned it
Monty1994 2 years ago
so you are actually trying to defend unequal chances? thats basically a direct pledge for injustice!
why do you want to ensure your children have money? wont you take away their freedom to fail and their incentive to succeed?
random0815 2 years ago
Random0815 you sound a little bitter and upset about this. I'm really sorry you feel that way. I'm also sorry you feel like you know enough about me to claim that I have an inheritance coming my way, I do not. My worldview has nothing specifically to say about inheritances and golden spoons. It does have something to say about ethics, you know right and wrong.
brewrunner 2 years ago
....continued reply to Random0815.
I agree with you that many trust fund recipients are probably worse off in the beginning than those who know what it means to earn all of their wealth through hard work, but that has nothing to do with ethics and morality. Why do you think it moral to 'level the playing field' to borrow your phrase to take the wealth of some and give to others? This is aggression whether the government does it or an individual does it.
brewrunner 2 years ago
well im sorry but this kind of devious demagogy makes me a bit angry, even more when its victims defend it
this randian idea of "no-aggression" is just wishful simplicity, the world doesnt work in monolithic principles, thats the wisdom of incrementalism
if you have a billion dollar more than you need to live well and next to u a thousand kids are starving should i not take your money because it would be "aggression"?
random0815 2 years ago
why is it not moral to level the playing field? same chances for everybody!? i didnt say same outcome!
inheritance is a crutial point, thats where your possibly legitimate idea of freedom, individualism and competition collides with an ideology only protective of the rich classes
random0815 2 years ago
How do you determine how many dollars one needs to live well on? You are arguing for some form of command/control economy, the likes of which history has shown eventually collapse. Do you not realize that free market capitalism created this environment whereby more people than ever in world history have a chance of living comfortably. You demagogue the issue yourself when you inject class warfare into it.
brewrunner 2 years ago 2
just like we decide what is human or inhuman treatment, what is just punishment, aso.: as said, its the normal terms of coexistence to you have to negotiate in every society
and what is happening in america is not free market capitalism, it is corporatism, socialism for the rich, predatory capitalism for the poor
on youtube: "capitalism making live better" - first clip, answers this question :)
random0815 2 years ago
So, where do you draw the line? Why not a Million, or a hundred thousand. A thousand? A hundred? I notice that you talk about taking my money not giving your own. Also who gets to decide who's got too much and should give his up. I'm glad you don't have access to my money.
snideley2007 2 years ago
that is the wishful simplicity, one of the basic methods of this kind of propaganda is to suggest false yes-no dualities
to realize that you can draw a line is the first step! and where? every society has to negotioate terms of coexistence, its a responsibility you cannot avoid
and its your money if u made it entirely without societies help or common goods, since the currency system is provided by society thats impossible :)
random0815 2 years ago
OK. Bereft of ideas, Random switches to phony psuedo-intelluctual gibberish. Mis-spelled gibberish at that. What does the currency system have to do with the fact that I work for a living. I earn what I have with my effort. Barter would work just as well on a smaller scale but we're too large and currency was invented by bankers NOT society to make it simpler. God, I don't know why I bother, you lefties have mastered the art of denial.
snideley2007 2 years ago 2
You take, take, take and then wonder why the producers get tired of supporting your dumb asses and vote in conservatives just often enough to keep us from going completely down the tube. Here's a duality for you and a true one: You're a hopeless beggar that wants to live off the efforts of better men than you. I'm not.
snideley2007 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
random0815 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
neither lefty nor living off of somebody, and im making rational points, thats the art of reason, as opposed to your emotional ranting, thats why you never see big conservative-liberal debates, its rationally indefensible
when in history did things go "completely down the tube" - well we might have gotten close in bursting bubbles created by your wallstreet gambling model citizens!
refresh me on the big crisis caused by too many beggars?
random0815 2 years ago
and for incentive - you think without carbon yachts, bugatti veyrons and diamond covered laptops people wouldnt have incentive to stand up forthemselves, is extreme amounts of money really the only or the best incentive you can think of?
random0815 2 years ago
My Sunday mornings revolve around watching this man and his thoughts of the day on This Week. Why doens't ABCnews understand what a great commodity they have and give him more air time. Tell Sam and Cokie to STFU and let a real thinker speak.
vipero00 2 years ago
I agree, vipero00,
He's the only reason left to watch "This Week w/o David Brinkley".
Ralph64 2 years ago
could this be the best speech ever?
rwvalentine 2 years ago
Spectacular, outstanding, brilliant speech!
pincfx 2 years ago
Fantastic point about partisanship at 3:57. My best friend is a staunch liberal. Both of us appreciate that it is more difficult to stand by your convictions than to follow whatever happens to be the consensus. This is why among the voting public, political knowledge correlates with partisan loyalty.
The media, in its zeal to appear unbiased, heaps unearned praise on the moderate politicians. They've developed a false narrative that centrists=good. History has not shown this to be true.
HuellsJewels 2 years ago
A perfect rendition of what modern conservatism needs to stand for and aspire to in order to stop statism as currently practiced by the Dems.
Hemthorne 2 years ago
agreed. absolutely brilliant. anyone who does not see the sense and logic in this speech have their head in the liberal sand. also thank you mr. will for not bringing religion and moral nonsense into the message of freedom and fiscal conservatism.
One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America
plantguy666 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
America's niggers! Will is the right wing's nigger!
Vetwolf13 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Conservatives love teleprompter jokes while they ... use teplepromters.
Let's see if they like this joke:
Joke:
WHATS THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONSERVATIVES AND AL QUEDA?
ALQUEDA USES COMMERCIAL PLANES TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE AND THEY ARE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS, WHILE CONSERVATIVES USES PRIVATE PLANES TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE AND THEY ARE DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.
MrFreedomdemocracy 2 years ago
Brilliant.
Makes you proud of the Human Race.
JayGBardo 2 years ago
Outstanding! The best political speech I've seen in years.
billyufrompa 2 years ago 4
will is consistent, precise and so intelligent in a world of idiots
davidcole100 2 years ago 3
Every Democritter in the country should be forced to watch this short speech by George Will.
Stanthesepticman 2 years ago 2