Happy Liberal Fascism -- Public-Private Partnership

[TylerNull]

You're missing the point.

In the end, "the state" sponsors and subsidizes only with money they TAKE from those who earn; from those who create; from businesses that provide all the goods and services that socialists enjoy. Thus, your contrivances are specious.

The reason we know that Socialists are keenly aware of the flaw in their political theology is that they keep trying to smear their policy stink (subsidy, welfare, funded, etc) on others by torturing the use of those words.

[TylerNull]

"working families"

Again, by any metric -- real metrics that economists use -- Americans prospered under Reagan. Job opportunities and household wealth skyrocketed, as I referenced above.

As for the socialist's beloved class-warfare metric of "income equality", let's have another look at rich-to-poor ratios:

1 penny to 1 penny -- Equality !!!

1 million to 1 billion -- Inequality !!!

Thus, your spite-based economics are revealed for what they are -- despicable.

[TylerNull]

Not only is there no such information at their web site, but the Census has no authority nor charter to collect information on anyone's income. Nor do they collect that information from people in their census data collections.

They never ask me about my income. They merely count the number of people per household.

Regardless, if there WERE negative income growth, what would be your point?

As for your other topic, I have no idea what point you're attempting there either.

[TylerNull]

"If we go by ..." the bogus numbers generated by your labor price-fixing cartel, then we will all become Detroit. You have yet to point to ANY metric, ANY measure from ANY valid source. My numbers come from the Federal Reserve Bank.

You're welcome to pick another data set -- I don't own their web site.

As much as you whine over the metric that economists use, you offer nothing else but labor price-fixing theology.

As for your latest "benefit" discussion, payment for work done isn't subsidy.

[TylerNull]

Again, it's the economists choosing the metrics, not me. I merely posted it to demonstrate just how bogus were your labor price-fixing cartel numbers.

As for your mantra "state-subsidized capitalism", it's as nonsensical now as when I first exposed it as such.

How does the state "subsidize" anything? They TAKE the money from those who EARN it, and redistribute it. In the end -- in aggregate -- it ALL comes from the earners.

Thus, your mantra is specious.

[TylerNull]

"There's no such thing as..."

I'm willing to debunk your specious notions, but when you so overtly deny reality, that's a level of dementia I'm not willing to entertain.

If you find the income metric "interesting", then thank the Federal Reserve. (It's the one they track.) Evidently, economists don't share your notions thereof either.

[TylerNull]

Those bogus numbers come from the labor price-fixing cartel web site "Working Life". The US BLS offers no such data. USA Real Disposable Personal Income [$B] 1947 -- $1,096 1957 -- $1,619 1967 -- $2,445 1977 -- $3,479 1987 -- $4,855 1997 -- $6,201 Now -- $8,689 (Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis) I have no idea what you're complaining about, but proselytizing for the proven failure of socialism in the year 2009 is just plain sad.

[Brucev7]

@TylerNull You forgot. Money has severely depreciated from 1947. $1,096 in today's value is worth $11, 168.

The Dollar was worth over ten times as much then.

[TylerNull]

@Brucev7

Nothing was forgotten. The Fed's numbers are adjusted for inflation. That's the "Real" in "Real Disposable Income". Go to their website to review the data.

[TylerNull]

I already addressed the circular logic of your "state-subsidized capitalism" story. Reciting it doesn't make it any less specious.

As for the Democxrat mythology regarding the quality and pay of jobs, the Federal Reserve data dispels it. Pick a metric, any metric, from household wealth to disposable income, that Democrat myth fails.

[TylerNull]

The fact that government is endlessly expanding and lording over ever more industries -- transitioning a once self reliant people into a nation of dependent bastards suckling off those still producing -- doesn't evidence any "hypocrosy" of Reagan's outrageously successful economic policies; that which pulled America out of "The Carter Years" and generated 18 million new jobs.

As with your earlier discussed contrivance, you continue to muddle topics & concepts to prop up fallacious statements.

[TylerNull]

"...were almost entirely within the state system for about 30 years "

So was toilet paper.

Both still are, so what?

Government is the largest buyer and user of just about EVERYTHING. That's not an argument for any goodness thereof.

[TylerNull]

You begin with a false premise, and then pose a bit of mythology to prop it up.

Write a novel.

"The most dynamic aspects of the economy" -- those innovating and whose products and services keep getting better while prices keep dropping -- are those farthest removed from government.

[timbosforporn]

I really like this man's book and I think that anyone who has read it should try to get other non-liberals to read it.

[TylerNull]

Liberals don't read books.

[BrezhnevIsMyCoPilot]

No, Jonah Goldberg, not all conservatives are fascist-leaning, mostly just neoconservatives like yourself.

That corporations are not innately socially conservative means that they aren't generally right wing? Apparently the "culture war" is the defining characteristic of the left-right spectrum in Goldberg-land.

And he doesn't like corporations getting government aid. I'd love to hear his thoughts on Bear Stearns--by his logic the Bush adminstrations is fascist for that bail-out...

[Denuba90]

Yeah, Bush bailing out Bear Stearns, Fanny Mae, and Freddy Mac is socialist/fasicst. And a neoconservative is just a conservative with some liberal policies. Jonah Goldberg is right on.

[latewire]

1) he didn't say conservatives are fascists, you don't know what you're talking about

2) He did say Bush is fascist--check out more videos by him.

3) He's saying IN THIS VIDEO how bailouts are bad, "fascist" even.

4) Goldenberg is not a Neocon, he's a libertarian by his own admission. You do not know what you are talking about.

[BrezhnevIsMyCoPilot]

latewire,

1) I refer to Goldberg's statement, "the myth of conservatives being fascists" which occurs in the first 10 seconds of this video.

2) Link?

3) How has this affected his support for the Bush Administration? My suspicion is "not at all"

4) Evidence? "Some frequent topics of his articles include...his disagreements with libertarians" (Wikipedia).

Nice try with the baseless assertions though--better luck next time!

[latewire]

v=ZWfj6pnY23k

After this vid:

1) note his definition of conservatives in this video--by that definition conservatives are not fascists

2) talks specifically about Bush

3) ...

4) "I'm pretty much a libertarian when it comes to the federal government" -JG ...

Google "The Libertarian Lie" in quotes. His gripes are more with libertarians than libertarianism.

As with all "good" conservative pundits, they believe one way and vote another (marketing). Hypocrisy, but their books are still good.

[BrezhnevIsMyCoPilot]

Essentially, Jonah Goldberg is redefining several terms here. He ingores the record of conservative governance for the past 14 years, redefining it to be only its idealized version. For himself, he redefines libertarianism to be amenable to himself, going against traditional libertarian views on social policy and foreign policy. Finally, he redefines fascism to be only "left-wing" and similar to liberalism.

Goldberg would be laughed out of academia for his pathetic method of argumentation.

[luke666808g]

the problem is that having the government garauntee your mortgage actually makes a LOT of sense in this environment, consider that when you deposit money at a bank, the bank is your debtor, and so when they hit financial trouble, they get bailed out in order to cover their short term liabilities

[luke666808g]

the same is not true of the banks relationship with it's customers, when YOU borrow money from the bank, you become IT'S debtor, and so when you hit financial trouble... nothing! No bail out! Why do the banks get government help and private citizens do not? Why do they get all of the benefits of fractional reserve banking with none of the drawbacks? Ultimately for this system to be fair it must be all or nothing, either you bail out everyone, or you bail out no one, I of course favour the latter

[latewire]

>Why do the banks get government help and private citizens do not?

Because people vote republican or they vote democrat, and both support welfare for big corporations. In reality, NOBODY deserves a bailout here.

[latewire]

NO, guaranteeing mortgages results in people not buying mortgages they can afford. "bailing out" these sub-primes is PUNISHING those of us who spend responsibly--using OUR tax dollars and our CHILDREN's tax dollars and inflating OUR savings all in the name of "fairness."