I guess you found out what it feels like to be a woman now they're changing the laws so they can get away with it.

They bought it in Wisconsin.

Apparently you have'nt seen the crawler on CNN saying that an Islamist group in Somolia has offered ten camel's as bounty on Pres.Obama.Now I suppose you, Romney and the congress will want to deregulate the camel trade here in the US. You bud are a real jerk.

You make a great point about our nation collectively. As a democracy we must give the same rights to all. It is sad however that the weak minded can be molded to believe this crap. I live in a red state and have to shake my head and avoid speaking up because they don't listen or even attempt to try and think about what they are agreeing with. I have noticed however that you can easily figure out the republicans that just follow orders by asking them to explain the reasons for their viewpoint. They just get angry and volatile if they don't know what to respond.

I am amazed how our nation has functioned for so long with this mindset.

@Jeremy, this "mindset" you speak of wasn't always around! I think that when Raygun came into office the dumbing down of Americans began and with the gifting of the Presidency to Shrub there was a full out effort! And after 30+ years, we are stuck with these sheeple that continue to vote against their (& our) best economic interests.

Just look at Wisconsin - they had a recall of the guy that crushed the UNION and 37% of UNION people voted against their own best interests, that not only speaks volumes but it's scarey - and these sheeple are reproducing so that there will be more. If ever a case for sterilization exists, it's the sheeple and their gullible clueless "liberty & freedom" cries...

Sick-n...,

"Exactly how many voters are going to hear this and think, 'Yep, that makes sense'?"

Sad to say, more people will than you might think.

Zora,

I saw that mindset in the US military pre-Reagan. It was more common than you might think, particularly among the careerists.

Take comfort in this:

The United States isn't 50% stupid. It's just 30% stupid.

This conclusion is based this on the following: during the worst of the Bush years, after the wars, the failed economy and recession, the unemployment, the worst terrorist attack on US soil, etc., polling showed his favorability rating never seemed to drop below 28-30%.

Clearly the ultra-Right Wing base- the nuttiest of the nutjobs, the fruitiest of the fruitcakes, the dullest knives in the drawers- consists of around 30% of the country that will never, ever, EVER vote for a Democrat or for anyone with liberal (or perceived liberal) tendencies.

It is likely that there could be a mirror 30% (although I'd love if it were higher) of the country that makes up the ultra-Left Wing base that wouldn't vote for a Republican if his kisses cured cancer.

This leaves the 40% in the middle that seem to decide every election. These are the ones who, though possibly not stupid, are clearly undecided enough and can be swayed with enough marketing by whoever spends the most.

Damn, that's not nearly as comforting as I thought...

I was feeling better until I remember hearing my friend (who was basically told her job was moving 350 miles away to Bakersfield) say I wish there was someone else for whom I could vote. She said I don't like Obama much and I just want a job. (She has a temp job now) Never was she saying Romney was better, just someone else.

Yes, there are many reasons to vote for Obama. The health care to be repealed and erase all the improvements already done.

I just hope Obama campaign can come up with positive future imaging and I hope to God the American people can find jobs and that there really is some improvement in hiring for them, despite the road blocks like abortion bills and cutting more jobs.

The rhetoric designed to blame Obama so the people feel worried instead of bravely forging ahead to seek the way forward. The way forward is not going backward.

With the media showing more of the negative, we need to demand a higher standard from them.

But thanks Joe for trying.

The Democrats have to really educate the country as to what's coming if Republicans were to take over. It would be an unmitigated fu king disaster. The 20th century would be one. And Democrats also need to educate the country that it is Republicans who are obstructing Obama and Democrats from cleaning up the mess Republicans caused with 30+ years of failed conservative economic ideas.

Just a reminder, we are in the 21st century.

America : Too stupid for democracy

That's pretty condescending and elitist of you.

So apparently unless something is a "private sector" job, it somehow detracts from the economy. Public sector employees are not consumers of any goods or services that drive the economy. Police, firefighters, teachers; these are necessary functions that need to be done, so what is the answer fat boy? Privatize all these jobs? Remember that period after 9/11 when firefighters were celebrated as heroes and all you Republicans were sporting your FDNY hats? The level of BS in this country has sunk to a new low.

The government apparently takes all of your tax dollars and then only pays us in company scrip.

Obamabuck$. Like $orosbuck$, but some establishments won't accept them.

WTF?

It's just baggerbabble from Brooklyn.

If it wasn't so disastrous for the country, the wingnut confidence in their beliefs would be absolutely hysterical; the stuff comedy is made of. Think Steve Martin, Martin Short, or Will Farrell at their funniest. But it is disastrous for the country and the world. The existence of the modern American wingnut threatens the existence of the species.

"They do not contribute to economic growth." Definitely true. The income that teachers, police officers and fire fighters make definitely don't go into the economy.

Let's think about that for a second, two things come to mind

One, where does the money come from to hire a policeman and teacher? Taxes. So, if you have to take out a teacher's salary from the economy to give to the teacher, there's no net gain.

Two, we're talking about staff positions. Teachers, cops, and firefighters don't create jobs. They don't add to our wealth in a tangible way. I mean wealth as goods and services - stuff you can trade, make money with. Only business does that.

Look around you. Almost everything you own came from business. What you eat, wear, drive, compute on, talk through, came from business. What do you have from Govt that you can buy and sell?

wow. Just wow shooter.

Using your logic, the cashier at the local grocery store doesn't add to the economy either, and this person is a private sector worker.

In your world the only people who grow are the economy are the bosses. But if you get rid of the lower level workers, and they don't have an income, they can't spend money. Or, they get on the government dole, and spend that money, but it's far less than what they were geting before.

Everyone create jobs when they spend money. If a government GS-5 employee goes to the movies, he/she is supporting that movie theater and the movie industry. Thus the movie theater does not have to close down due to lack of sales. This creates the job for the ticket sellers, the concession stand people, the ushers, the projector people, the cleaning staff, etc. None of these are great paying jobs, but with their money these people will go to local stores and purchase items and help keep those businesses going.

Consumers create jobs, but in order to consume, consumers have to have jobs. If all we have are bosses, then our economy will fail.

@Shooter. Good God, man. Are you out to prove you're a buffoon? Seriously?

You don't understand money, fella. Nor do you understand that it doesn't matter who spends the money; teachers whether they're private of public, cops, private engineers. You REALLY miss the boat. I'm really very tired of wingnut ignorance and stupidity today, as I've had more than my fill of it. So my patience with this kind of ignorance has run out. So I'll just present you with a present:

http://ingrimayne.com/econ/TOC.html

And look around you. Almost every technological gadget you own wouldn't be there if it weren't for government-sponsored research.

YOU are an ignoramus. End of discussion.

Disgusted,

He is obviously one of those on the right that is flagrant about being aggressively cruel and deeply enjoys spreading malicious misinformation. It is typical of those on the right that they will lie to your face and fully expect you to accept what they say. Some are more crude about it than others.

Using your logic, the cashier at the local grocery store doesn't add to the economy either, and this person is a private sector worker.

Yes, the cashier is a private hire, paid for by private money. The cashier is a service to customers hired because The store owner thinks having a cashier is good for business. The owner expects that having a cashier will bring in more money that he costs.

Civil servants require that money be taken out of the economy to pay them. Their spending isn't a plus, the taxpayers you took money from to pay these people could have spent the money themselves. Nor do civil servants add to the collective wealth, they don't make or do anything that can be sold.

Everyone create jobs when they spend money.

That's how the system works. But right now there's only enough activity to tread water. Do you remember the payroll tax cut? That's a lot more money to the people than is generated by a teacher shopping at Safeway, but it still isn't enough to convince people the future is positive.

Consumers create jobs, but in order to consume, consumers have to have jobs

And where do jobs come from? Business. Like I say elsewhere, new jobs and taxes require new profits. That doesn't come from civil servants. Govt creates no wealth, all it can do is take wealth.

The income that teachers, police officers and fire fighters make definitely don't go into the economy. They definitely don't purchase goods, thereby making it possible for private companies to stay in business, turn a profit and create more private sector jobs.

It has nothing to do with demand -- "demand" is irrelevant. Ronald Reagan proved that thirty years ago, today economics is all about supply. And public workers don't supply anything, because they don't have job creators.

@Entropy: In this guy's (Shooter) case, I actually think he believes his nonsense, i.e., he really is ignorant and confused. A bit like Limbaugh who is really what I refer to as a talented ignoramus. He has no real logic or thinking skills and he clearly doesn't stop to analyze them logically in any deep and comprehensive senese. But given that propensity for ruthless illogic, he has a talent that allows him to voice uninformed ideas and opinions in ways to appeal to those willing to be lead by thoughts that don't hold up to logical scrutiny.

I'm pretty sure Shooter is just clueless but without the Limbaugh "talent."

@Shooter and D.C.

You are both utterly wrong. Civil servants are performing a function required by society. You can either get that function via the public sector and pay for it, or you can get it via the private sector and pay for it. One way or the other, you pay for it. Unless of course, the private sector would not provide it. Then society would be deficient in functions it requires and would impoverish itself.

You're just going to have to accept it: you're wrong.

Disgusted,

I'm sure he realizes that it does not conform to objective reality, but those people have little or no use for objective reality. Ideological Soundness and/or Theological Correctness is all that matters to them. What he's spouting is the sort of propaganda they use to achieve their precious goal of a privatized Looneytarian "paradise". I have long experience with such people, and realized long ago that they relish the prospect of destroying those who are far from Ideological Soundness, for example, public sector workers.

I don't think he does understand it doesn't conform to objective reality. This stuff about private workers add to the economy but public doesn't is the sort of stuff that gets easily confused in the wingnut brain. It's propaganda by the Republican party and to some of those in the fright wing media who actually do have an understanding of reality and understand what they're saying is nonsense. But for Shooter and his friend D.C, they really are confused and truly believe it.

Hopefully they get it now. The fewer confused people the better.

I'm reading sarcasm in D.C. and agree about ideological Shooter. We all have beliefs and bias, but there is not much listening to others or objectivity. I would attempt objectivity, but I am a liberal progressive. So, that is what they called a non organized party. The Republican party usually knows they say stuff that is just to frame ideology. They all got in line behind the sudden concern for debt being priority over jobs. It's plain to see that when all they talk about is cutting spending and jobs. Cutting wages to curb economy so Obama will lose and they will win is the only way to read this.

Yeah, I could have missed sarcasm with D.C., Sandy. I've had too much wingnut today and it's all starting to run together.

As for the the non-organized party, the Dems need to stop with the cat herd act and do it real soon. Way, way, way too much is at stake this time. Dems need to be speaking with one very, very large message and voice this time because these are very dangerous times. All the cockroaches have come out of the woodwork.

As has happened before, I find myself initially disagreeing with @Shooter.

However, Shooter has again made me think about things a little more - so thank you.

I still disagree and here is why:

What I hear Shooter say is that, because teachers, police and firefighters are paid using tax money, their jobs don't really benefit the wider economy the same way other jobs do - particularly manufacturing jobs that actually produce tangible goods.

The problem I have with this is the notion that somehow tax money is inherently different from other money.

I have a job and my employer thinks I am worth a certain amount of dollars. [By the way I can't post comments while at work - which is just as well because I wouldn't get anything done].

Some of that money gets deposited in my checking account and from this I pay for stuff I want - including mortgage, car lease payments, groceries, vet bills for the cat (!!) etc. This spending supports jobs for other people and helps the economy (especially the vet clinic staff).

However, there are somethings that I would like that I personally can't pay for all by myself. For these things I put money in a big pot that everyone else adds to. We then decide how best to spend these funds. (We sometimes have big fights about how to spend these funds!)

I can't go out and purchase my own policeman to keep me safe, but I contribute to the funds that hire people to provide this protection. Same for firefighters, teachers - and things like roads, the military,etc. These are real jobs for real people and help the economy just as much as any other job. The money just comes out of the big pot instead of out of my checking account.

The big pot is of course the tax revenue. I am willing to pay my fair share because I know that together we can do things that we can't separately.

[The whole question about the relative value to the economy of a manufacturing job versus a job that "just" provides a service - like cashier- is something that needs more thought]

One, where does the money come from to hire a policeman and teacher? Taxes. So, if you have to take out a teacher's salary from the economy to give to the teacher, there's no net gain.

Hang on, Shooter's on to something here. If taxpayer funded salaries equal no net gain to the economy ... he's just eradicated the entire Department of Defense budget. All taxpayer funded right? Therefore, using his logic, there is NO net gain for having a military paid for with taxpayer money so we should eliminate that waste. Whew. How many billions back into the US budget does that allow for? Nicely played, Shooter. Thanks!

BTW, as a person whose husband's salary has been paid for by taxpayers for 32 years, and as someone whose own salary was paid for by the taxpayers for more about 25 years (not your taxes though Shooter, no worries) I feel it's only fair to point this out:

A person who works for the government making a salary paid for by the taxpayers ... is also a taxpayer ... which means they are in fact, contributing to their own salary. What's your complaint again Shooter about tax dollars going to people who aren't you?

You're thinking too hard, maphi.

Folks, it's really very simple and here is the simplest way to think about it:

Civil servants are performing a function required by society. You can either get that function via the public sector and pay for it (where the government is the "company" you pay for it to who pays the employees with the income (tax dollars) it gets from its customers (citizens)), or you can get it via the private sector and pay for it to a company that provides the services. One way or the other, you pay for it.

The usual reason that government is usually providing a service is because it is a service that serves to carry out societal organizing (like driver's licensing, courts, military, etc.). Or it is a service that benefits society by looking out for long-term benefits of the society (basic technology research, etc.) and which the private sector, which is almost always focused on short-term services and profits, does not care to do and perhaps requires the largeness that the government provides.

Now if those services are discontinued and not provided and paid for, i.e. discontinued to save in the short term because of myopic vision of the public, the society is impoverished, maybe not now, but surely will be in the future

One way or the other, society pays for those services, whether paying with tax dollars or to private concerns. And if the services cease, society will be penny wise and pound foolish.

@DisgustedWithItAll

Yes - Exactly!!

Government is US combining resources to do those things which we can do better working together.

Yep. Like Lincoln said: We do together what we can't do separately. (Or something like that. :-) )

Now just realize how toxic and wrong Republicans are. It's simply breath-taking.

Hello Maphi,

The bottom line is still that giving money to a civil servant requires taking an equal amount of money from the economy. Saying that the civil servant aids the economy by returning what was originally taken is silly.

The more important part is that civil servants don't contribute directly to the store of wealth being traded back and forth, in fact they diminish it. Consider that only business combines different elements to make a whole that is greater than the sum of it's parts.

Your head is made of granite, fella. Probably worse than I had originally thought.

disgusted, sandy: thank you for participating in another empirical test of Poe's Law.

>DisgustedWithItAlll

Nobody is going to argue with the need for civil servants, as in most things the issues are about degrees. How many civil servants do we need, how do we pay for them, and what do they contribute to the economy.

You still can't get around that taking a civil servants salary out of the economy for the express purpose of putting it back in the economy is a wash. You might as well have the new hires dig ditches. Another teacher might mean more education, but it isn't going to stimulate the economy one bit.

Yeah, D.C. I sort of detected something, but it being a bad day in Wingnut World and all, I wasn't at my best at that hour, so it really was a test of Poe. However, with Shooter, we got us a real live one. No doubt about that.

I told ya, Disgusted..., he's deliberately spouting Ideologically Sound propaganda, the Looneytarian party line...they'll do and say anything to achieve their ends.

Hello Shooter,

Where we differ is that you think that "giving money to a civil servant requires taking an equal amount of money from the economy".

I think that all of the money stays in the same economy. Private sector jobs and public sector jobs are parts of the total economy and everything is inter-related.

You're don't make any sense, Shooter. And you have nothing to say. Just go re-read the lectures and do the homework assignments and hope for the best. I'm not going to be your tutor any more.

No, Entropy, this one's just stupid. Not worth spending any more time on him. Just ignore him.

maphi: you're correct.

What is critical to this particular discussion, but is also critical to the climate of divisiveness, is the difference in how we view government.

Being dismissive of people with opposing views is not helpful. IMHO

No name calling. Refine your rational arguments - on both sides!!!

Shooter says: "The bottom line is still that giving money to a civil servant requires taking an equal amount of money from the economy. Saying that the civil servant aids the economy by returning what was originally taken is silly."

So Shooter, my dad was a lifelong civil servant, an engineer for the US Geological Survey (after he served a few years in the Army). His work was to gather and analyze information on waterways, big rivers and a few small. That information aided the private sector not only in commerce & transportation (shipping), also agriculture (water pollution, sediment, flooding, etc.), private land owners (businesses, homeowners: see flooding), water safety (pleasure & fishing craft), health of people (pollution & sediments in drinking water and onto crops) and so on. I'm sure there's more he would tell you. Would you like to suggest what entity, other than the federal government, would provide such a necessary nationwide service? Some huge multinational corporation, maybe? And who would pay them to do that? The government? At what cost? Far, far more than what we pay middle-class civil servants, that's for certain.

You still can't get around that taking a civil servants salary out of the economy for the express purpose of putting it back in the economy is a wash.

As distinct from a banker's salary, which is taken out of the economy (savings and investments) and ...

OK, Shooter, remind us again what the difference is.

80s Girl: You didn't go far enough. Not only can you eliminate at least half od the DOD as wasteful expenditure, you can also eliminate the vast majority of Congress. Simple search of who actually shows up to work, say 80% of the time, and who actually does work to get the country moving forward. Obstructionists? bye-bye! You are a waste of taxpayer money and do not contribute to society.

Here is a thought - yes - @Disgusted - I might be thinking too hard :)

What is even worse than "banker's salary which is taken out of the economy" is the money that the very wealth stash in off-shore accounts. These are huge amounts of $$ that are drained out of our economy (flush!)

At a certain point, maphi, the arguments are over, and, in this case, one side is correct. You have to conclude the truth and go on. Shooter has nothing else to say, and, if he's not stupid, he's simply not engaging the argument in good faith. If it is in good faith, then there's nothing else you can do to help him other than to tell him to review what has already been said. Given that it's a waste of time to continue, ..., it's time to ignore him.

Particular cases by Hannah, math teacher, and D.C. show specific instances where his arguments break down. But the general argument, about desired beneficial required societal services, which I gave above, is all you truly need to remember. The other stuff is icing on the cake and useful when you want to rub it in should you need to.

HOLY COW - did you just catch Ezra Klein (must be subbing for Rachel)?

I'm jumping up and down and yelling (and scaring the cat)!!!

YES!! He's got a graph and everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly!!!!!!!!!

>maphi

Everything may be in the same economy but where the money flow goes counts. In grossly simplified terms you have people that produce wealth and people that don't. If you keep taking the productive people's money and giving it to non-productive people, the economy slows. After all, why should productive people risk assets to support Govt?

It's no different than the Germans asking themselves why they should pay taxes and retire at 67 so the French can retire at 60.

No, maphi, not watching, what's he saying. Something like what is being said here?

>Hannah53

All that's necessary, but what did your father do that could be bought and sold. He facilitated others that created wealth, but he made none of his own and his salary was taken from taxes/borrowing. He was infrastructure of a sort. A bridge will facilitate commerce but it makes no commerce of it's own.

D.C.

I ran across the sarcasm mark today, but I guess you need software to do it. I tried control period greater than key didn't work on for me.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/01/12/Company-creates-sarcasm-punctuation/UPI-55751263324278/

I forgot to add:

I have not read Atlas Shrugged or any other Ayn Rand propaganda/theory (nor do I wish to) but I'm guessing that is what is being put forth from Shooter.

@Disgusted -

Yes - Exactly what we are discussing. Graph of increase in government spending during Reagan, GHWB and GWB terms in response to recession and decrease in spending during Obama first term - forced by the Republicans.

Also a terrific video of Reagan talking about compromise.

@Shooter - last try - "A bridge will facilitate commerce but it makes no commerce of it's own." That's why it can't be built by a private company - needs to be built by all of us (yes taxes) to benefit all of us.

Paul Krugman has been beating on that theme pretty strongly lately, maphi. If you don't read him, I strongly suggest that you (and everybody else, too) read all his columns and his blog. Nobody on the right holds a candle to him on being correct about the mess we're in. Indeed, the right has been completely and utterly wrong about everything, from hyperinflation to interest rates to bond vigilantes to austerity to analysis about the differences between the Great Recession and other recessions to ... Krugman's been dead on. And you'll learn a lot.

I agree - Paul Krugman has it right.

I am also reading "Our Divided Political Heart" by E. J. Dionne Jr (a wise and thoughtful man) and "Why Nations Fail"by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. Both books give historical context for current events.

And - while I am at it - "Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload" by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel. This book is non-partisan. After reading it you will never read another web article, listen to another TV pundit, etc the same way again. [The way of Skeptical Knowing]

Shooter: "All that's necessary, but what did your father do that could be bought and sold."

Information. Knowledge. All are building blocks on which society and a country is built, and the lack thereof not much can be achieved.

>maphi

That's why it can't be built by a private company - needs to be built by all of us (yes taxes) to benefit all of us.

Here's an example of how semantics affects this discussion. Who built the bridge? Govt takes money from the economy to pay for it, but the actual bridge is built by a private company not Govt. It's the private company that has the resources, vendors, hiring, and expertise. It's the the private company that actually, in reality, adds to the country's wealth.

>Hannah

Knowledge. All are building blocks on which society and a country is built, and the lack thereof not much can be achieved.

Indeed, knowledge is a valuable commodity, but I offer this question in return. Did commerce exist before your father's efforts? Yes it did. Once again your father's work may ease some aspects of commerce, like a bridge over a gorge, but knowledge is abstract until someone with resources and a purpose puts it to use.

A similar argument is used regarding Govt. funded research. The NIH discovered Taxol (cancer drug) a derivative of the yew tree. Great right? Well, sort of. Abstract knowledge doesn't help patients. It took more research to synthesize the drug and a pharma company to manufacture, test, and distribute actual medications. Not Govt.

Hannah53 & Disgusted...,

Some Looneytarians really do want total privatization and they are not even remotely scrupulous about how they go about achieving it or the flim-flam "arguments" they use in promoting it. They also are completely callous regarding people they perceive to be "in the way", such as those in the public sector. The sort of society they want could easily be seen as anarchy for the rich & powerful. Finally, this is not directed at you two, but it needs to be said. The deceitful rhetoric/propaganda of those who aggressively seek to do harm, which these days pretty much constitutes those on the right in general, cannot legitimately be seen as a "differing opinion" or "point of view". For example, climate change deniers, evolution deniers, and others are in no way deserving of consideration as "honest but misinformed". They should be treated like the intellectual con artists they are.

Shooter, this is where conservatives always lose the argument. While you are correct that abstract knowledge doesn't cure cancer, the research that took place to synthesize taxol was accomplished by a large number of people who had advanced degrees in chemistry. How many of those people were able to get their degree at a public university using federal student loans?

Conservatives love to argue that government can't do "X" but to make that argument, you have to willfully ignore that nothing happens in a vacuum. At least some of HOW taxol was successfully synthesized was due to smart people getting a degree at a taxpayer subsidized, government supported public university. And the research was conducted at Florida State University which is funded, in large part, by government research grants.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. The government was a player in getting taxol to the market. It doesn't bother me at all that private enterprise also played a part. Why can't you be as open?

Shooter:"Once again your father's work may ease some aspects of commerce, like a bridge over a gorge, but knowledge is abstract until someone with resources and a purpose puts it to use."

Thank you for agreeing with me.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone repeated this on Free Republic, or another one of those sites, as God's Own Truth about wikid libruls.

Snorts, grubs, grunts, and slobbers all over himself. I can't believe he is on National Military Radio and troops listen to his hateful root and snort.

I was in the military for more than a few years, and I believe it. It doesn't surprise me a bit.

Of course they do, and they are probably right, sad to say.

Hmmmm, where to start?

Does being able to read, write, and do basic (or advanced) math make you more productive? Does protecting personal property (i.e. keep the proceeds from starting a business) give capitalists the incentive to create and sell new products? The answer to both questions is yes.

Yes, education makes one more productive. Yes, property rights are essential to creating more property. No, education and property protection do not give capitalists the incentive to create and sell new products. Profit is the incentive.

The fact that Romney doesn't see this tells you how much he doesn't know about capitalism.

I don't think you understand the essence of Capitalism. Capitalism is all about making things and providing services. Stuff that's tradable. Business. What you're describing is like infrastructure, it doesn't proactively make anything, but helps with the process.

Romney knows how to finance stuff, make stuff, and sell stuff. Why should you care about this stuff? You should care because the nitty-gritty of goods and services is what brings profit the real incentive to risk being in business. And of course, new profit is required for new jobs and taxes. Profit is where it all comes from.

Shoot, dude, we understand the supply-side mentality. It doesn't work for the majority of the economy that isn't there.

Does being able to read, write, and do basic (or advanced) math make you more productive? Does protecting personal property (i.e. keep the proceeds from starting a business) give capitalists the incentive to create and sell new products?

Can a Job Creator monetize either one? If not, they're not valuable.

Teachers build human (aka intellectual) capital

If it can't be liquidated, it's worthless.

Police protect private property - they protect the factories where cars, washing machines, computers, etc. are built and the incomes of the people who own those factories.

So what's that worth? It can't be much or someone would be making a lot of money charging for it.

Without that protection, there would be zero incentive to start a business.

Of course there would be an incentive -- some people have become wealthy selling protection.

Fire fighters protect physical (and human) capital from relatively common disasters.

And what do they charge for it? That's what it's worth in a market economy. If you paid nothing for it, that's what it's worth.

When a Job Creator can make money on it, that's when those jobs will be positive contributions to the economy. Until then, they're just drones leaching off the productive public.

Sorry I'm not understanding. Can you rephrase?

@Shooter

I posted a comment up at #7.15 and would very much like to hear what you think about what I wrote.

If I were a shootist I would think twice about calling 911, and I'm sure his teachers aren't happy either. They're probably shaking their head saying "Where did we go wrong". Not all of us were born with a silver spoon in our mouths like Shooter. When they started putting profit before people or principles they started selling America piece by piece. You can't sell what you don't actually own.

http://www.thepocket.com/wavs/maroon.wav

that's exactly the point, Judi. When everything is privatized, only the wealthy will have services and it doesn't matter what happens to the rest of us. Those with money will hire the best teachers, live in gated communities where their firefighters and police are privately owned. This is the country and society they are hoping for. And just as we hope for the American Dream, those on the Right who buy this BS are hoping that as long as they support the lie, they too will be invited into the privately held communities....it's the NEW American Dream.