A Nation of Takers, Not Makers

[Phoenix84]

"what product or service do they "make" that is funded by the profits of the selling of the product or service they "make"?"

This is one of the most asinine comments I’ve seen in a long time.

First of all, a government, no matter it’s size or scope, is not a for profit institution. Do you really want to “sell” military, police, and fire protection. Do you really want to “sell” congressional representation or a right to speedy trial by jury. You can’t “sell” the bill of rights. You can’t sell a government to the people, and it would be a violation of the constitution to do so.

Second of all, government employees provide goods and services to the public. They provide services like police, fire, and military protection, a judicial system, safety oversight and regulation, representation, educating children, providing services for the elderly and disabled, and much more. You can certainly debate whether all those services are needed or if they are doing a good job, but to say that the government (and by extension all of it’s employees) does nothing is just silly and ignorant.

[ed1066]

Apr 5, 2011 12:18:14 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Apr 5, 2011 12:07:54 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

can anyone tell me where empty rhetoric, making shit up as you go along, and self declared victories would come in handy?

You can't handle the truth! Ma'am, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Ms mkitty? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Obama and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Obama's soon to be expected demise, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

And remember excessive obscenity by a woman is a big turn off even to a hardened old Jarhead.

Have A Nice Day,
P.I. (USMCret)

and I like your old nic better, glad to see it again.

[workpublic]

i didn't say they do nothing. i said they don't provide the funds for what they do. so in effect they are takers not makers.

everything you mentioned are expenses.
the bill of rights is free. it shouldn't cost the citizens anything. the cost of the bill of rights is incurred when the citizens have to pay lawyers to defend themselves against the govt.
i'm sure you've heard some comments more asinine than that recently?

[privateinvestor]

[
and I like your old nic better, glad to see it again.[/quote]


I don't like to pull rank as you know ...but only when necessary

It brings out all the anti-military crazies, i.e Code Pinkies,and Westboro Baptist Church Pastor and his flock...along with some Seagulls.. ;D

[burnsattornincan]

What in tarnation was that all about Mr. P.I.? The poor woman is probably in tears...

[Deleted]

And remember excessive obscenity by a woman is a big turn off even to a hardened old Jarhead.

To me too. I just skip over. Not a great way to convey a point of view.

[privateinvestor]

[quote author=burnsattornincan board=politics thread=5971 post=236598 time=1302024440]What in tarnation was that all about Mr. P.I.? The poor woman is probably in tears...[/quote][/color]

I watched "A Few Brave Men" again last night for the 45th time

And knew a Full Bird Character like Col Jessup who was my boss for two miserable years...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 5, 2011 11:24:05 GMT -5 workpublic said:

You're forgetting that the people in the article, while working for the government, are WORKING. They are by definition "Makers".

what product or service do they "make" that is funded by the profits of the selling of the product or service they "make"?

taxpayer funded jobs are not "makers" of anything.

That's just silly. Even if we were to accept the premise that government produced goods and services that could not be better produced and provided by the private sector, the fact remains that government doesn't generate wealth.

Government doesn't turn a profit. It TAKES. It takes money from those that produce and earn money.

Government is 100% dependent upon the private sector. The point at which government grows to exceed what is produced by the private sector, the government is on an unsustainable path and has to be cut.

Your argument would be akin to saying that the servants working for a wealthy owner of an estate are more important than the owner. They may well work. They may well even provide 'essential' services. But without their wealthy benefactor, they'd all have to get creative real fast.

Unfortunately due to the wildly irresponsible, out of control, decades long unsustainable spending spree both parties have been on, a lot of otherwise well meaning government employees are going to be thrust out of work, face reductions in pay and benefits, and suffer needlessly.

I suppose it does bear some commonality to the private sector-- private companies collapse all the time thrusting people out of work, we just aren't used to government having any physical limits. Well, we found the limits. We're beyond the limits.

If government is to be sparred, and our economy isn't going to collapse- we're going to have to cut.

[privateinvestor]

To me too. I just skip over. Not a great way to convey a point of view.[/quote][/color]


Why thanx Ma'am and have a Karma on me...But to her it is the only way, I guess...

[workpublic]

Government doesn't turn a profit. It TAKES. It takes money from those that produce and earn money.

that was my point windy. then i was called asinine for making it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

mkitty, I'm sure there's some parallel universe where what you posted is relevant to the discussion and makes some sense. I don't live there.

[ed1066]

Apr 5, 2011 12:38:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

mkitty, I'm sure there's some parallel universe where what you posted is relevant to the discussion and makes some sense. I don't live there.

Agreed, but I get a great deal of amusement from the posts. That kitty likes to chase her tail (but seems to have some trouble keeping the poop in the litter box)...

[privateinvestor]

Apr 5, 2011 12:38:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

mkitty, I'm sure there's some parallel universe where what you posted is relevant to the discussion and makes some sense. I don't live there.

Thanx for sharing.... ;D Didn't think you lived on Shady Lane next to the Desparate Housewives...or maybe moved because of all the noise...from moaning and screaming??

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 5, 2011 12:35:52 GMT -5 workpublic said:

Government doesn't turn a profit. It TAKES. It takes money from those that produce and earn money.

that was my point windy. then i was called asinine for making it.

My bad. I misread the post (and who posted it- or I would have known)

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2011 12:32:22 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Apr 5, 2011 11:24:05 GMT -5 workpublic said:

You're forgetting that the people in the article, while working for the government, are WORKING. They are by definition "Makers".

what product or service do they "make" that is funded by the profits of the selling of the product or service they "make"?

taxpayer funded jobs are not "makers" of anything.

That's just silly. Even if we were to accept the premise that government produced goods and services that could not be better produced and provided by the private sector, the fact remains that government doesn't generate wealth.

Government doesn't turn a profit. It TAKES. It takes money from those that produce and earn money.

Government is 100% dependent upon the private sector. The point at which government grows to exceed what is produced by the private sector, the government is on an unsustainable path and has to be cut.

Your argument would be akin to saying that the servants working for a wealthy owner of an estate are more important than the owner. They may well work. They may well even provide 'essential' services. But without their wealthy benefactor, they'd all have to get creative real fast.

Unfortunately due to the wildly irresponsible, out of control, decades long unsustainable spending spree both parties have been on, a lot of otherwise well meaning government employees are going to be thrust out of work, face reductions in pay and benefits, and suffer needlessly.

I suppose it does bear some commonality to the private sector-- private companies collapse all the time thrusting people out of work, we just aren't used to government having any physical limits. Well, we found the limits. We're beyond the limits.

If government is to be sparred, and our economy isn't going to collapse- we're going to have to cut.

Exactly. New money, Fresh money. Not recirculated money.
I think we have to really simplify here or it is beyond some peoples comprehension.

[Phoenix84]

It’s sad we have to go through things so basic, but here it goes. Paul is right, the government “takes” (i.e. taxes) money from the private sector. It then uses this money for the functioning of government. The government then provides services to the public in various forms, be that military support, providing subsidies to farmers, pell grants, the functioning of the courts ect.

So yes, the government is a “taker” in the sense that it “takes” money from people, but that’s only half of the equation. It then uses that money it “takes” to provide products and services. So to say the government is a “taker” and not a “maker” is inaccurate, as the government does produce goods and services. As I said before, it’s certainly a valid topic of debate what the government should and should not provide, if programs are beneficial or not, or if the employees are doing a good job or not. But to say the government is a “taker” and not a “maker” is just wrong.

You said: “taxpayer funded jobs are not "makers" of anything.”

To be more specific, taxpayer funded jobs provide military protection, ensure public safety, ensure the laws are followed, that offenders of the law are prosecuted and punished, that the elderly and disabled are not destitute and much more. So you’re essentially saying those things I listed (and more) are “nothing.”
I’d also like to point out the economic effect government jobs have. The money government workers make doesn’t just go into a vacuum and disappear. Government employees buy homes, send their kids to college, go out to eat, buy flat screen TV’s, donate to charity, buy furniture, buy food for their families. Government employment supports consumer spending, which in turns supports jobs in the private sector. If you want to see how devastating mass government layoffs can be to the local economy, visit a town where a major military based was closed.

This doesn’t even describe what the government buys in order for it to function, office supplies, tanks, airplanes, scientific equipment, vehicles, electronics ect. All that is money flowing into the private sector as well.

Everything is interconnected, and massive cuts in government jobs and/or spending by government agiences will “trickle down” and lead to economic hardship. Government employees will default on their homes, which will worsen the housing market and cost jobs at banks. Contracts will be cut costing additional private sector jobs. Supplies and items that might have been purchased won’t be, costing even more private sector jobs.

I don’t take issue with the fact that programs need to be cut, altered, combined, or eliminated. Some layoffs or cuts in benefits may be necessary, but I take issue with the fact that government employees produce nothing and are simply “takers.”

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

phenoix84, let me simplify it for you: What if 100% of the workforce was in government? There'd be no one to fund the government. What this article points out is that people are choosing to escape honest private sector work because they are lazy and government is a place to go where they can get paid more money, have absolute job security, and better benefits than in the private sector. This is unsustainable, lop-sided and immoral. What if everyone thought this way? And Moore's point is just that-- we've reached a tipping point where there are so many people in government that it has created an unsustainable conflict of interest at the ballot box. Productive citizens- people that fund the government, the people for whom the government works, are now outnumbered by agents of government.

The private sector can't keep paying more than the private sector produces to keep government afloat. Currently at the federal level alone, the government borrows .42 cents on the dollar. If we were to keep spending where it is, and raise taxes-- we'd have to pay 88% (ALL of us) to balance the budget.

[floridayankee]

Apr 5, 2011 13:29:28 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I’d also like to point out the economic effect government jobs have.

Actually...since every dollar spent by government must first taxed or borrowed out of the economy, there is no economic effect. A redistribution of wealth does not create any economic activity.

Removing water from one end of a swimming pool and pouring it in the other end will not raise the overall water level. Similarly, taking dollars from one part of the economy and distributing it to another part of the economy will not expand the economy.

This is an excellent article from the WSJ in January 2010 if you're interested.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646551469288292.html

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 5, 2011 13:50:49 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Apr 5, 2011 13:29:28 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I’d also like to point out the economic effect government jobs have.

Actually...since every dollar spent by government must first taxed or borrowed out of the economy, there is no economic effect. A redistribution of wealth does not create any economic activity.

Removing water from one end of a swimming pool and pouring it in the other end will not raise the overall water level. Similarly, taking dollars from one part of the economy and distributing it to another part of the economy will not expand the economy.

This is an excellent article from the WSJ in January 2010 if you're interested.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646551469288292.html

This argument is as old as "Broken Window Theory".

Sure, you keep a dollar that you earned, government doesn't spend it-- and presumably that hurts someone somewhere in a cubicle in the pentagon studying the possibility of using llama droids in combat on the moon at some point when we have had to evacuate earth due to global warming.

But that dollar will be spent- and every credible economist, and study concludes the person that EARNED that dollar will spend / invest it better than government.

[floridayankee]

Apr 5, 2011 13:55:27 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

This argument is as old as "Broken Window Theory".

That is exactly what I think of every time I hear that the government "creates economic activity".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

But that dollar will be spent- and every credible economist, and study concludes the person that EARNED that dollar will spend / invest it better than government.

Whatever it is, we have to have it......now damnit!

[Phoenix84]

I’m having trouble seeing the difference between the government spending spurring the economy and business spurring the economy. The parable of the baker with the broken window is a perfect analogy to this situation. A business “takes” (i.e. Makes sales) money from consumers and produces either a good or a service. The government “takes” (i.e. taxes) money from the public and produces either a good or a service. Both entities pay employees, both entities make purchases from outside companies, both entities spur economic activity. I’m not really understanding how a business “creates” wealth.

According to the broken window parable, a child breaks a baker’s window. He needs to spend 6 francs to fix it. He provides economic activity to the repairman to fix it by paying him six francs. Had the child not broken the window, he would have spent those six francs on something else, say a new roller pin or a new hat. In either case the baker is providing six francs of economic activity, it doesn’t matter then if it’s a six franc tax or a six franc business transaction. He hasn’t “created” wealth. The only differences between taxing and making sales is you have a choice as a consumer but you don’t as a taxpayer. However, you can’t say that the money you pay in taxes doesn’t spur economic activity, it just means the economic activity is different (Not necessarily higher).

Isn’t that all business is? Just taking money and producing a good or service at more than it cost to make said good or service? Had that consumer not purchased your product that money would have gone to another business. So one could argue that by spending money at your business, you’re “taking” money from a competing business.

How then is it possible to “create” wealth? Creating wealth would mean making the “whole pie” bigger so there’s more to go around for everyone. Running a successful business simply means you’re consolidating wealth from consumers more successfully than a failing business. I’m not trying to be a smart alec or anything, I just don’t see it.

"phenoix84, let me simplify it for you: What if 100% of the workforce was in government? There'd be no one to fund the government."

You're right, but I could turn this around and say where would a business be without customers to spend money? There would be no one to fund the business. I don't see the difference.

Paul, if I remember right, you’re a successful landlord. However you wouldn’t be making any money if you didn’t have tenants for your properties. The only difference I see between your business and the government is people can choose whether to rent from you or someone else whereas someone cannot choose not to pay taxes. But those who are renting from you are “taking” money from competing landlords anyway. How are you creating wealth and not simply redistributing it to be more in your favor? I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to just re distribute wealth to benefit you, just pointing out it’s the same thing in my mind.

[jkapp]

>>This doesn’t even describe what the government buys in order for it to function, office supplies, tanks, airplanes, scientific equipment, vehicles, electronics ect. All that is money flowing into the private sector as well. <<

You were going good up until this point...if I take $200 from your wallet and then give you $200 to buy your lawnmower, did you actually "make" any money? Now take that question and replace anything in reference to"me" with the government and "you" with a business.

Now take that same scenario above and change it up to be: I take $200 from your wallet and buy your lawnmower for $100...how much money did you "make" then?

[dancinmama]

Apr 5, 2011 12:31:11 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

[quote author=burnsattornincan board=politics thread=5971 post=236598 time=1302024440]What in tarnation was that all about Mr. P.I.? The poor woman is probably in tears...

[/color]

I watched "A Few Brave Men" again last night for the 45th time

And knew a Full Bird Character like Col Jessup who was my boss for two miserable years...[/quote]

"You want the truth? YOU WANT THE TRUTH? You can't handle the truth."

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

TAKERS: Government employees stealing from a FOOD PANTRY, treating it like their own personal grocery store. Ripping off the taxpayers isn't enough for these government TAKERS, they have to steal food from the mouths of the poor! Can you imagine being so poor and needy that you relied on a food pantry, but there wasn't enough food because some fat a** overpaid government union thug felt entitled to food meant for you and your family. How disgraceful. Do these entitled government union thugs have any shame at all?

news.yahoo.com/video/newyorkcbs2-15751042/#video=24801292