What Was The Politifact “biggest lie” of 2010?

[floridayankee]

Mar 16, 2011 10:14:35 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Good idea or not, every government expense must be on the table whether it personally effects me (or you) or not.

"Every" government expense? Including nuclear reactor safety?

Why do some people immediately jump to an extremely ridiculous example?

If I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of nuclear power plants are owned and operated by private companies.

This page provides an excel file listing plants / owners / operators:
www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/usnuclearpowerplantownersoperatorsandholdingcompanies/

[Angel!]

If I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of nuclear power plants are owned and operated by private companies.

Yes, but the govt has regulations & safety inspections to ensure the public's safety. The govt. also has to worry about security to ensure no terrorists attack the plants.

Of course, we could just live in PBP's fantasy world where companies do what is in the best interest of the public no matter the cost to them & assume that even without regulations & inspections these plants would be extremely safe.

[floridayankee]

Mar 16, 2011 10:46:07 GMT -5 Angel! said:

If I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of nuclear power plants are owned and operated by private companies.

Yes, but the govt has regulations & safety inspections to ensure the public's safety. The govt. also has to worry about security to ensure no terrorists attack the plants.

I agree, but I know of nothing man has ever done or created that is 100% effective and efficient, everything expense needs to be considered. This does not necessarily mean something will be cut and/or neglected, but everything needs to be looked at.

[Angel!]

I agree, but I know of nothing man has ever done or created that is 100% effective and efficient, everything expense needs to be considered. This does not necessarily mean something will be cut and/or neglected, but everything needs to be looked at.

I'm not disagreeing with that. Cuts should be made across the board.

I just get sick of certain people that keep repeating how it isn't the govt's job to regulate & that if businesses were just left alone, then everything would run fantastic because a business would never do anything that would risk public safety. -

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I don't like the underlying premise of Democrats OR Republicans who suggest that cuts in COSTS mean REDUCTIONS IN SERVICE. Why don't they simply do MORE with LESS MONEY? Kind of like many think corporations should do when their taxes are raised.

[floridayankee]

Mar 16, 2011 12:03:41 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I just get sick of certain people that keep repeating how it isn't the govt's job to regulate & that if businesses were just left alone, then everything would run fantastic because a business would never do anything that would risk public safety. -

I'm sure most here that hate large, overbearing government realize that in the long run, a purely capitalistic society would be just as unsuccessful as a purely socialistic society would be.

As you've seen, people tend to reach for an extreme argument as an example to try and make a point.

[Angel!]

I'm sure most here that hate large, overbearing government realize that in the long run, a purely capitalistic society would be just as unsuccessful as a purely socialistic society would be.

You are probably right - most people probably realize this. I think there are just some extreme conservatives that would argue otherwise. It is funny, because often on these boards I come across as very liberal, but in actuality I am pretty moderate, even conservatives in some views. But, on these boards somehow I always get into debates with people that are so conservative that they just assume I am a huge liberal for disagreeing with them.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 16, 2011 12:23:42 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I'm sure most here that hate large, overbearing government realize that in the long run, a purely capitalistic society would be just as unsuccessful as a purely socialistic society would be.

You are probably right - most people probably realize this. I think there are just some extreme conservatives that would argue otherwise. It is funny, because often on these boards I come across as very liberal, but in actuality I am pretty moderate, even conservatives in some views. But, on these boards somehow I always get into debates with people that are so conservative that they just assume I am a huge liberal for disagreeing with them.

Well, we've tried the extreme left policies for close to 70 years. So, maybe free markets would work- maybe not. I vote we TRY it. Just ONCE.

[Angel!]

Well, we've tried the extreme left policies for close to 70 years. So, maybe free markets would work- maybe not. I vote we TRY it. Just ONCE.

Your inability to see the flaws with 100% free market is just as bad as people that can't see the flaws with 100% socialist society. There has to be a balance between the two.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 16, 2011 15:27:27 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Well, we've tried the extreme left policies for close to 70 years. So, maybe free markets would work- maybe not. I vote we TRY it. Just ONCE.

Your inability to see the flaws with 100% free market is just as bad as people that can't see the flaws with 100% socialist society. There has to be a balance between the two.

That's like balancing shit with butter and spreading it on toast. Socialist policies do not work at all.

I think there's a common misconception that conservatives, and particularly libertarians are anarchists. We're not. Look, there are two ways to guarantee you live in a hellhole-- too much government, or too little.

I fully acknowledge that some of the absolute worst places on earth- places that are an abject nightmare to live in- have too little government.

What we conservatives and libertarians are debating is the ROLE of government, what function does government serve. We agree on my side of the spectrum that the United States Constitution is a near perfect (at least in this world) governing document.

We would like to see government pushed back into its Constitutionally defined (and enumerated) box and do only what it is legally authorized to do.

I am not for the breakdown of law and order. I am not for companies poisoning people and ripping us off. And it's silly to think that government has done anything to stop any of that through "regulation".

What too many people have come to think of as "regulation" actually creates murkiness, and chaos.

I'm for a combination of reasonable laws-- mostly at the state and local levels, civil tort law, and the free market to sort out most of the consumer issues in this country.

We do not need one-size-fits-all lightbulbs, toilets, laundry detergent, vitamins, pajamas, televisions, etc. dictated from a far off capitol. We will sort those things out.

Sarbanes Oxley didn't stop Bernie Madoff, or the current meltdown-- you remember, that law they passed after Enron and the tech bubble meltdown so we wouldn't have the meltdown we're having now? Now they have passed more rules and regulations, and we all know that truth be told the problems the government claims to be attempting to solve are problems it created in the first place.

I'm tired of the, "Government got us into this mess, and the government can get us out" crowd.

I am for 100% free market-- within the bounds of the Constitution. We know it works. We've tried it. And we know that the statists ideas do not work. We've tried those.

We've had big government for too long, and ALL the programs have failed.

[Angel!]

I am not for companies poisoning people and ripping us off. And it's silly to think that government has done anything to stop any of that through "regulation".

You just say this because you don't see the positive impacts of the regulation. There is a reason you haven't had a problem of lead paint in your child's toys, or lead in the paint you use on your house. There is a reason that the US doesn't have a problem of poison in baby formula or people dying from wrongly mixed prescription drugs. There is a reason that cars are safer than they have ever been. There is a reason that I don't worry about my tap water containing harmful chemicals. There is a reason that diabetics don't have to worry about products being wrongly labeled. It is really easy to say that we don't need regulation, when we haven't had to deal with the consequences of non-regulation. And it is silly to believe all these things are because companies have our best interest at heart.

Is there such a thing as over-regulation, yes. But, that doesn't mean that we need no regulations. There are regulations that are needed to keep the general population safe.

[handyman2]

Well said Angel. I could list all day things that have made our lives safer through government regulation. A karma to you

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Angel- post 40 is profoundly naive. In a free and transparent market- the supposed benefits of the government regulation happen- faster. You write a lot about "invisible benefits" but say nothing of invisible harm.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Here's a more real-world view of taxes and regulations- in the forum of a poem:

TOM SMITH AND HIS INCREDIBLE BREAD MACHINE
by R.W. Grant

This is a legend of success and plunder
And a man, Tom Smith,
Who squelched world hunger.
Now Smith, an inventor, has specialized in toys.
So, people were surprised
When the found that he instead
Of making toys, was BAKING BREAD!

The way to make bread he'd conceived
Cost less than people could believe.
And not just make it! This device
Could, in addition, wrap and slice!
The price per loaf, one loaf or many:
The miniscule sum of under a penny.

Can you image what this meant?
Can you comprehend the consequent?
The first time yet the world well fed!
And all because of Tom Smith's bread.

A citation from the President
For Smith's amazing bread.
This and other honors too
Were heaped upon his head.

But isn't it a wondrous thing
How quickly fame is flown?
Smith the hero of today -
Tomorrow, scarcely known.

Yes, the fickle years passed by:
Smith was a millionaire,
But Smith himself was now forgot -
Though bread was everywhere.
People, asked from where it cam,
Would very seldom know.
They would simply eat and ask,
"Was not it always so?

However, Smith cared not a bit,
For millions ate his bread,
And "Everything is find," thought he,
"I am rich and they are fed!"

Everything was fine, he thought?
He reckoned not with fate.

Note the sequence of events
Starting on the date
On which the business tax went up.
Then, to a slight extent,
The price on every loaf rose too:
Up to one full cent!

"What's going on? the public cried,
"He's guilty of pure plunder.
He has no right to get so rich
On other people's hunger!"

(A prize cartoon depicted Smith
With fat and drooping jowls
Snatching bread from hungry babes
Indifferent to their howls!)

Well, since the Public does come first,
It could not be denied
That in matters such as this,
The Public must decide.
So, antitrust now took a hand.
Of course, it was appalled
At what it found was going on.
The "Bread trust," it was called.

Now this was getting serious,
So Smith felt that he must
Have a friendly interview
With the men in antitrust.
So, hat in hand, he went to them.

They'd surely been misled;
No rule of law had he defied.
But the their lawyer said:
"The rule of law, in complex times,
Has proved itself deficient.
We much prefer the rule of men!
It's vastly more efficient.
Now, let me state the present rules,"
The lawyer then went on,
"These very simple guidelines
You can rely upon"
You're gouging on you prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it's unfair competition
If you think you can charge less.

"A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion:
Don't try to charge the same amount:
That would be collusion!
You must compete. But not too much
For if you do, you see,
Then the market would be yours
And that's monopoly!"

Price too high? Or price too low?
Now, which charge did they make?
Well, they weren't loath to charging both
With Public Good at stake!

In fact, the went on better
They charged "monopoly!"
No muss, no fuss, oh woe is us,
Egad, they charged all three!

"Five years in jail," then the judge then said
"You're lucky it's not worse.
Robber Barons must be taught
Society Comes First!

Now, bread is baked by government.
And as might be expected,
Everything is well controlled:
The public well protected.

True, loaves cost a dollar each.
But our leaders do their best.
The selling price is half a cent.
(Taxes pay the rest!)

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

In 1996, Reason Magazine editor Virginia Postrel wrote...

... two famous men died, both in their early 80s. One was Edmund Muskie, former senator, briefly secretary of state, and the candidate wistful Democrats like to imagine might have been their 1972 nominee if not for a dirty trick and tears in the snow. (They forget, conveniently, that McGovernites had engineered the delegate-selection rules.) Muskie's obituary took 82 column inches in The Washington Post, 84 in The New York Times.

The other man--eulogized in a mere 28 inches by the Post (eight devoted to his two years as deputy secretary of defense), 40 by the Times--was David Packard. On the day he died, the only American politician who could rival him in real-world importance was Ronald Reagan. But the papers didn't see it that way.

Packard was co-founder of Hewlett-Packard, one of the most influential companies in the history of American business. The Palo Alto garage where he and Bill Hewlett started is a state landmark, designated "the birthplace of Silicon Valley." HP has created billions of dollars in wealth, tens of thousands of jobs, and hundreds and hundreds of innovative products. …

"Profit-sharing, flex-time, management by walking around, sales force automation, global customer service systems, new employee health programs, reduced workweeks instead of layoffs--H-P has always been there first," says technology writer (and former HPer) Michael S. Malone. …

Yet the nation's leading newspapers--and the establishment culture they shape and reflect--judged David Packard less than half as important as a senator notable mostly for his might-have-been presidential bid. It is, they suggested, the Ed Muskies of the world who determine the future, not the Dave Packards.

… David Packard, along with many others, created--a culture [where business]responded to the demands not only of customers and stockholders but of employees who wanted to be treated as adults. Increasingly, it is the culture from which all businesses, and employees, must learn. … And it is far more important than anything Edmund Muskie left behind.

From John Stossel's blog at Fox Business: stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2011/03/10/americas-heroes-not/#ixzz1Gun7T4Gs

The point is that we give credit to government and unions for things that really came about as a result of business leaders.

Stossel borrowed the idea of "who are the real heroes" for his show last week.