NY Times Left Winger Says United States Is Like Pakistan & The Congo

[Obama 2012 1,714]

This guy is truly special and ignorant. I'll give him the oversized military and the wars overseas, but that's it.

Everything else he's a blind little liberal moron who thinks only government can fix things, eventhough it's government who is at fault for continuing to break things and then make them worse by trying to fix things.

Government isn't the solution, Government IS the PROBLEM.

-------

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05kristof.html

With Tea Party conservatives and many Republicans balking at raising the debt ceiling, let me offer them an example of a nation that lives up to their ideals.

It has among the lowest tax burdens of any major country: fewer than 2 percent of the people pay any taxes. Government is limited, so that burdensome regulations never kill jobs.

This society embraces traditional religious values and a conservative sensibility. Nobody minds school prayer, same-sex marriage isn’t imaginable, and criminals are never coddled.

The budget priority is a strong military, the nation’s most respected institution. When generals decide on a policy for, say, Afghanistan, politicians defer to them. Citizens are deeply patriotic, and nobody burns flags.

So what is this Republican Eden, this Utopia? Why, it’s Pakistan.

Now obviously Sarah Palin and John Boehner don’t intend to turn Washington into Islamabad-on-the-Potomac. And they are right that long-term budget issues do need to be addressed. But when many Republicans insist on “starving the beast” of government, cutting taxes, regulations and social services — slashing everything but the military — well, those are steps toward Pakistan.

The United States is, of course, in no danger of actually becoming Pakistan, any more than we’re going to become Sweden at the other extreme. But as America has become more unequal, as we cut off government lifelines to the neediest Americans, as half of states plan to cut spending on higher education this year, let’s be clear about our direction — and about the turnaround that a Republican budget victory would represent.

The long trajectory of history has been for governments to take on more responsibilities, and for citizens to pay more taxes. Now we’re at a turning point, with Republicans arguing that we need to reverse course.

I spend a fair amount of time reporting in developing countries, from Congo to Colombia. They’re typically characterized by minimal taxes, high levels of inequality, free-wheeling businesses and high military expenditures. Any of that ring a bell?

In Latin American, African or Asian countries, I sometimes see shiny tanks and fighter aircraft — but schools that have trouble paying teachers. Sound familiar? And the upshot is societies that are quasi-feudal, stratified by social class, held back by a limited sense of common purpose.

Maybe that’s why the growing inequality in America pains me so. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans already have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent, based on Federal Reserve data. Yet two-thirds of the proposed Republican budget cuts would harm low- and moderate-income families, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

For a country that prides itself on social mobility, where higher education has been a traditional escalator to a better life, cutbacks in access to college are a scandal. G. Jeremiah Ryan, the president of Bergen Community College in New Jersey, tells me that when the college was set up in 1965, two-thirds of the cost of running it was supposed to be covered by state and local governments, and one-third by students. The reality today, Dr. Ryan says, is that students bear 78 percent of the cost.

In fairness to Pakistan and Congo, wealthy people in such countries manage to live surprisingly comfortably. Instead of financing education with taxes, these feudal elites send their children to elite private schools. Instead of financing a reliable police force, they hire bodyguards. Instead of supporting a modern health care system for their nation, they fly to hospitals in London.

You can tell the extreme cases by the hum of diesel generators at night. Instead of paying taxes for a reliable electrical grid, each wealthy family installs its own powerful generator to run the lights and air-conditioning. It’s noisy and stinks, but at least you don’t have to pay for the poor.

I’ve always made fun of these countries, but now I see echoes of that pattern of privatization of public services in America. Police budgets are being cut, but the wealthy take refuge in gated communities with private security guards. Their children are spared the impact of budget cuts at public schools and state universities because they attend private institutions.

Mass transit is underfinanced; after all, Mercedes-Benzes and private jets are much more practical, no? And maybe the most striking push for reversal of historical trends is the Republican plan to dismantle Medicare as a universal health care program for the elderly.

There’s even an echo of the electrical generator problem. More and more affluent homes in the suburbs are buying electrical generators to use when the power fails.

So in this season’s political debates, let’s remember that we’re arguing not only over debt ceilings and budgets, but about larger questions of our vision for our country. Do we really aspire to take a step in the direction of a low-tax laissez-faire Eden ...like Pakistan?

[^_^ 5,021]

commie #######!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Which of the observations are incorrect? Are we saying that starving the government beast won't have any real life consequences aside from lower taxes? We can have our cake and eat it, too?

[The Dude 206]

This guy is truly special and ignorant. I'll give him the oversized military and the wars overseas, but that's it.

Everything else he's a blind little liberal moron who thinks only government can fix things, eventhough it's government who is at fault for continuing to break things and then make them worse by trying to fix things.

Government isn't the solution, Government IS the PROBLEM.

And you wonder why people on these boards don't take you seriously....

[Obama 2012 1,714]

And you wonder why people on these boards don't take you seriously....

Rob, unless you have something to say to dispute what I said, how about you seriously shut the ** up.

When you're willing to debate, when you're willing to discuss, come on back.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Which of the observations are incorrect? Are we saying that starving the government beast won't have any real life consequences aside from lower taxes? We can have our cake and eat it, too?

The problem is that you have it beaten into your head that the government can take care of your health, your welfare, etc. and that nothing else can.

It's a falsehood. The problem with our system as with so many things, is that government is too involved and restricts business, restricts growth in certain areas, and creates monopolies in areas where there should not be monopolies.

Why is this? With every government regulation and/or tax, comes a cost to business. If you're a small business, it becomes increasingly hard for your to A) Start and B) Maintain. It all depends on your industry of course as some are more regulated than others. This doesn't effect big business/publicly traded companies, because they have the revenue stream to eat the costs or pass them off elsewhere because of their size.

You have to stop and ask yourself, why do we need large-scale social programs? Why do so many people have to be on welfare/public healthcare assistance. If government were out of the way, if government didn't impede growth and the market system, then we'd see a much smaller scale of assistance needed only for those who are incapable or taking care of themselves.

When able bodied people are living off of the taxpayers/government assistance, the problem isn't the private sector or the tax rates, the problem is the government. It always has been and always will be.

[The Dude 206]

Rob, unless you have something to say to dispute what I said, how about you seriously shut the ** up.

When you're willing to debate, when you're willing to discuss, come on back.

What is there to discuss? You've got you're marginal mind made up on this, all liberals are by default stupid compared to the superior intellect of the uneducated.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What is there to discuss? You've got you're marginal mind made up on this, all liberals are by default stupid compared to the superior intellect of the uneducated.

uneducated?

Oh come on Rob, you can do better than that. Your normal insults falling short? Losing your flare?

Seriously though, you do this in every thread against every person you disagree with. It's like you lack the ability to make your own point on the issue. The only thing you know how to do is troll and name call, or attack the poster in some way or fashion.

You say no one takes me seriously? No one takes you seriously bro. You'd have to actually make an entire post that's not full of insults to be taken seriously.

So I'll say it again, when you have something to contribute regarding the topics at hand, please do so. I'll be more than happy to debate those points. Take a lesson from Big Dog. He may disagree with me, but he's willing to debate the issue and is willing to keep reiterating his points. He doesn't just run in, make an insult and then leave. Do yourself a favor and take some pointers.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem is that you have it beaten into your head that the government can take care of your health, your welfare, etc. and that nothing else can.

Your problem is that you operate on an incorrect premise. I've got no such thing beaten into my head. Not sure what you think puts you into a position to ascertain what view I have of government and how I have build that view. Trust me, there was no beating involved.

Your other problem is that you can't - or simply won't - answer a rather simple question but rather go off on some tirade against the government.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Zero Sum 305]

The schools have failed some.

[The Dude 206]

uneducated?

Oh come on Rob, you can do better than that. Your normal insults falling short? Losing your flare?

Seriously though, you do this in every thread against every person you disagree with. It's like you lack the ability to make your own point on the issue. The only thing you know how to do is troll and name call, or attack the poster in some way or fashion.

You say no one takes me seriously? No one takes you seriously bro. You'd have to actually make an entire post that's not full of insults to be taken seriously.

So I'll say it again, when you have something to contribute regarding the topics at hand, please do so. I'll be more than happy to debate those points. Take a lesson from Big Dog. He may disagree with me, but he's willing to debate the issue and is willing to keep reiterating his points. He doesn't just run in, make an insult and then leave. Do yourself a favor and take some pointers.

Paul, I tried to help, but you seem to be immune to logic, or facts, or reason. You are free to be as foolish as you want.

Edited June 6, 2011 by The Dude

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Which of the observations are incorrect? Are we saying that starving the government beast won't have any real life consequences aside from lower taxes? We can have our cake and eat it, too?

The comparison of the US (where votes DO count) with Pakistan (which hasn't seen democracy since 1951/10/16--and hasn't made a real attempt at it since 1971/03/26) and DRC didn't hit you?

Had he said similar to Bangladesh (which actually does have the similarity of being an overpolarised 2-party system), he could get some salvage--but as it stands, his article is worthwhile only as loo-paper!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The comparison of the US (where votes DO count) with Pakistan (which hasn't seen democracy since 1951/10/16--and hasn't made a real attempt at it since 1971/03/26) and DRC didn't hit you?

No time to read the article in full or is you attention span not supporting that much intake at once? Try again before engaging in a debate.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Rob, unless you have something to say to dispute what I said, how about you seriously shut the ** up.

When you're willing to debate, when you're willing to discuss, come on back.

Rob doesn't debate. He's only good for one liners.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Rob doesn't debate. He's only good for one liners.

Funny that you make that statement in a one liner.

Funnier yet that I almost pointed that out in yet another one of those.