We’re too broke to be this stupid

STEYN: Beleaguered taxpayers may finally put a stop to the sheer waste of government spending

by Mark Steyn on Thursday, May 27, 2010 6:58am - 599 Comments

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

It’s not so much the money as the stupidity, which massively expands under such generous subvention. When it emerged that President Barack Obama had appointed a Communist as his “green jobs czar,” I carelessly assumed it was the usual youthful “idealism”: no doubt Van Jones, the Communist Obama appointee in question, had been a utopian college student caught up in the spirit of ’68 and gone along for the ride. A passing phase. Soon grow out of it. But, in fact, Mr. Jones became a Communist in the mid-nineties, after the fall of the Soviet Union. He embraced Communism after even the commies had given up on it. Like the song says, he was commie after commie had ceased to be cool. On Fox News, Glenn Beck made a fuss about it. But the “mainstream” media thought this was frankly rather boorish, and something only uptight right-wing squares would do. I mean, what’s the big deal? True, everywhere it’s been implemented, Communism causes human misery—not to mention an estimated 150 million deaths. But it doesn’t make you persona non grata in the salons of the West. Quite the opposite. The Washington Post hailed the grizzled folkie Pete Seeger as America’s “best-loved commie”—which, unlike “America’s best-loved Nazi,” is quite a competitive title. Even so, why would you stick a commie in the White House and put him in charge of anything to do with jobs, even “green jobs”?

Well, because “green jobs” is just another of those rich-enough-to-be-stupid scams. The Spanish government pays over $800,000 for every “green job” on a solar-panel assembly line. This money is taken from real workers with real jobs at real businesses whose growth is being squashed to divert funds to endeavours that have no rationale other than their government subsidies—and which would collapse as soon as the subsidies end. Yet Tim Flannery, the Aussie climate-alarmist who chaired the Copenhagen racket, says we need to redouble our efforts. “We’re trying to act as a species,” he says, “to regulate the atmosphere.”

Er, “regulate the atmosphere”? Why not? We’re rich enough to be stupid with the very heavens.
In his book The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism (La tyrannie de la pénitence), the French writer Pascal Bruckner concludes by quoting Louis Bourdaloue, the celebrated Jesuit priest at the court of Louis XIV, who preached on the four kinds of conscience: 1) the good and peaceful; 2) the good and troubled; 3) the bad and troubled; 4) the bad and peaceful. The first is to be found in Heaven, the second in Purgatory, the third in Hell, and the fourth—the bad but peaceful conscience—sounds awfully like the prevailing condition of the West at twilight. We are remorseful to a fault—indeed, to others’ faults.

It’s not just long-ago sins like imperialism and colonialism and Eurocentric white male patriarchy and other fancies barely within living memory. Our very lifestyle demands penitence: Americans have easily accessible oil reserves, but it would be wrong to touch them, so poor old BP have to do the “environmentally responsible” thing and be out in the middle of the Gulf a mile underwater. If you’re rich enough to be that stupid, what won’t you subsidize? The top al-Qaeda recruiter in Britain, Abu Qatada, had 150,000 pounds in his bank account courtesy of the taxpayer before the comically misnamed Department for Work and Pensions decided to cut back his benefits.

The green jobs, the gay parades, the jihadist welfare queens, the Greek public sector unions, all have to be paid for by a shrinking base of contributing workers whose children and grandchildren will lead poorer and meaner lives because of the fecklessness of government. The social compact of the postwar era cannot hold. Across the developed world, a beleaguered middle class is beginning to understand that it’s no longer that rich. At some point, it will look at the sheer waste of government spending, the other shoe will drop, and it will decide that it no longer wishes to be that stupid.

Bookmark and Share
  • Mike G

    woah – there is some pretty silly stuff in here – especially all the daft commentary about how badly Europe has 'failed' because Europe is Socialist and Europeans (and Obama) just fund lazy people for fun.

    Let me just put a counter-point to you (which doesn't mean I'm "right" and know politics better than you or any leader… it's just worth thinking about)… America has the highest incarceration rate in the world – by a very long way. Horrible regimes included. At 1% that translates into 3 Million people. That's enough to throw barbed wire round the entire border of Slovenia (in Europe), then add another million people. Why such a colossal relative rate? I dunno for sure, but many would argue that this is because America doesn't catch it's bottom end. Being so 'smart', it lets the "bums" drop out the bottom. Add the gun laws and lack of "socialised" health care and you get a massive crime and health burden which simply costs (read: wastes) a ton of money.

    Personally, I'd feel a lot safer in Sweden than the US. But that's my choice.

  • fankie

    The immigrants are a big garget now…but, just wait and see…The Baby Boommers are next. Karma… for the incrediably self-centered society we created.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SunshineCoaster SunshineCoaster

    I have never purchased a McLean's magazine subscription, but was never really sure why. This article makes it clear why and makes it permanent. Makes a person wonder why McLean's doesn't insist he leave and go work for Fox News since he obviously belongs there.

    • meany

      Yeah! Opinions that differ from my own are scary, and should be banned!!!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/thm61 thm61

    Maybe Steyn's motto should be "Too stupid to come to a conclusion." At any rate, he's a splendid example of John Kenneth Galbraith 's observation that "[t]he modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

    And while we're quoting people far more perceptive than Steyn, let's not forget this one: "[The] disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition…is…the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." – Adam Smith

  • David

    In my opinion, Canadians have inherited our wealth, not earned it. We sit on a Scrooge McDuck money bin of natural resources and have been selling our birthright for a mess of pottage since our inception. My generation (1940's) in particular has been spoiled rotten. Like many children of inherited wealth, we have little idea of efficiency or thrift. We may be too broke to be stupid because being rich made us stupid.

  • Ted

    Mark,
    I could only wish I had a tenth of your wit, insight and ability to cut through the normal liberal platitudes and bulls$&! with such ease. I do honestly believe that with the election and subsequent downfall of BO, added to the implosion of the Greek welfare model that liberalism has finally “jumped the shark”.
    Nothing gets fixed overnight but I do believe the majority of voters have their eyes fully open now – fiscal conservatism, free enterprise and above all ruthless acountability of our elected officials is the only logical path to recovery – not just for the U.S but for all free republics.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sig45 Sig45

    This is what you get when 75% of the people go to PUBLIC SCHOOLS and all they care about is smelling some guys JOCK STRAP (Sports)!

  • not there

    "It means no worries, for the rest of your days / It's our problem-free philosophy / Hakuna matata!"

    Roughly translated, this is what anyone who addresses Steyn means by "lighten up."

  • Paul Monroe

    As an immigrant living and working in Montreal I find it hard to swallow too each time I look at the amount of taxes on my paycheques.
    I didn't hear any criticism when people who had held steady jobs for 4 years or more where out of a job and had to receive cheques from social security. I agree that it is just. Workers out of a job need social security.
    And I agree with Mr Steyn that sometimes (or most of the time) the work agents from the government programs don't put enought pressure on recipients in order to get them moving out of the social security tits. The reason why? I don't know.
    It's quite possible that it has something to do with government officials' need to appear benign (politicians need votes to get elected) , or the fear of being labeled a racist – I don't know.
    I agree that social programs (at least some of them) have to be there to protect the citizens from starvation AND that they have to make economic sense. So it's not one OR the other.
    I think Mr Steyn sometimes goes too wild on his criticism and this actually help polarize even more the discussion.
    Let me put it again: the common-sense thing to do is to aply AND instead of OR.
    OR leads only to endless bickering coupled with inaction.

  • smelter rat

    You're quoting a Fox News poll??? Just wake up from along slumber did you?

  • Frank Tavos

    Have you ever actually watched Fox News and compared it to its lame-o competitors like MSNBC or CNN? I suspect that you haven't, smelter rat, or you wouldn't have made your ill-informed comment. Despite what the political left is always mindlessly repeating, Fox News is about as close as you can get to "Fair and Balanced" in the mainstream media. You should give it a try and have your eyes opened.

  • malmonext

    12/08 Zogby poll on most trusted TV news source: FoxNews 39%, CNN 16%, MSNBC 15%; web news is trusted more than TV and print, combined; Rush Limbaugh was most trusted news personality at 13%, with Bill O’Reilly 10%, Chris Mathews 2%.

    Liberals don't know why they think the way they do. Walter did:

    In 1999 Walter Cronkite, at the UN: "It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the UN as a first step toward a world government."

    Dumb, dumber, smelter rat.

  • AzA

    You know, I had this experience with someone just yesterday. In my experience as a political independent, I can tell you that it is usually Leftists who think they can dismiss an idea based on the source. It's like they sit there waiting for the word "Fox" so that they can ignore everything a person has to say.

    Accepting and rejecting statements based purely on which media source they came from? That ain't thinkin'!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/RobinBC RobinBC

    Which poll would you like to quote from?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Turtler Turtler

    Since I am too damn tired to fisk every single one of you rats, let me just say this: in the time it took you to argue and sling mud all througouth this thread, you could have found the Fox poll in question, dissected it, scanned for impurities, and then used those impurities to unhinge Steyn's entire case.

    I take it that since you did not do so, you cannot do so. Which would fit you and your ilk.

  • Christian Bond

    You're commenting? Learn how to spell.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/betsp betsp

    How did you become so stupid? Is it the fault of the public education system, the public broadcasting system, public service announcements, Obama campaign literature, or is it that you simply can't pay attention to reality?

  • JeNo

    You are typing while you are asleep.

  • Jerome Bastien

    This column should be required reading for anyone under 40. The babyboomers borrowed money, expecting their children to pay it back, but most of them did not have any children. They have essentially mortgaged our future to implement idiotic leftist fantasies without providing us with the means of paying it back.

    Our taxes in the coming years will be enormous, and they will only serve to service the debt we inherited from the most irresponsible generation in the history of human kind: the baby boomers.

    On top of this, these baby-boomers brainwashed the dumbest of their children's generation in being a bunch of economic-illiterate lefty agitators. If young Canadians had any brains they should revolt against the babyboomers, demand lower taxes, lower program spending, and private health care (because paying for the babyboomers healthcare in their final days will just be the icing on the cake)

  • Laydee

    "Most" babyboomers did not have children? Where'd you get that little gem from? Check Statscan – birth rates for Canadians born in the 1950s (i.e., kids born late 60s-80s) barely dipped. Indeed, "most" babyboomers had more than 2 children on average.

  • wlpc

    As a babyboomer I couldn't agree more!

  • LC Bennett

    Yep first came endless, underfunded entitlements, debt, deficits and failing to have enough children to pay for it all. Obviously that wasn't enough of a challenge, now they want to cripple any opportunity for the younger generation to dig themselves out of this hole. They have enabled the NIMBYs, BANANAs and enviro-activists to block profitable, efficient and relatively cheap energy from fossils fuels and legislate the move to inefficient, expensive "green" energy, carbon taxes, ETS. Result : loss of jobs, skyrocketing energy prices and bigger government that spends even more tax money. You just gotta love boomer/boomer-inspired economics – spend like crazy, suck up the entitlements, leave the bills for someone else and hobble future taxpayer's ability to pay the tab.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    Jerome, you commit a single error. EVERYONE of EVERY age should read this. The younger generation to get a handle on the theft perpetrated by their parents and grandparents, and the still-living seniors for as guilt-ridden an understanding of the damage they have done as possible.

    But then, what do we make of current voting-age adults who elected an allegedly conservative federal government that went on to unleash that bilge-ridden budget last year?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Viva_Vivian Viva_Vivian

    And isn't it prescient that today in the news it was reported in 20 years time elderly baby boomers wil outnumber the number of children in Canada at the same time healthcare will gobble up 80% of the GDP? What a disaster.

  • pjean

    I just wonder why Progressives don't do the math when it comes to needing capital from the private sector, to pay for the wants and desires of an insatiable public sector. Are they afraid to face the truth or are they simply that naive? Working for the government may be a good deal, but for how long? The money HAS TO dry up if the private sector is demonized and forced to shrink and reduce revenue coming in. Progressives have dumbed down their electorate to the degree that they can't even honestly intellectualize that the money cannot always be there in an unlimited supply.

  • BigBill

    You might be surprised that many American boomers want the same things you do! Don't assume we are all the same and don't play class warfare games. We have a problem here in North America and we all need to pull together to fix them.

  • Dave

    Seems to me its the governments that did the borrowing that we all will pay for. I was born on the tail end of the boom and any money I borrowed I paid back with interest. If you want to blame someone remember it was the politicians who borrowed money in our names so they could give it to their friends and supporters

  • justdropinin

    There is some hope that boomers may get a chance to reap what they've sown, according to prominent hedge fund manager David Einhorn. Here is a brief excerpt and a link for his recent New York Times article -

    Easy Money, Hard Truths
    By DAVID EINHORN

    Are you worried that we are passing our debt on to future generations? Well, you need not worry.

    Before this recession it appeared that absent action, the government’s long-term commitments would become a problem in a few decades. I believe the government response to the recession has created budgetary stress sufficient to bring about the crisis much sooner. Our generation — not our grandchildren’s — will have to deal with the consequences.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27einho…

  • Wallhouse Wart

    'Scuse me? I have held a job since 1971 and paid taxes, EI, and Canada Pension. I have one child and have had to struggle for most of the time to hold down a job. The REAL baby boom no worries generation was from 1945 to 1950. They never had to apply for a job and they were the original "what me worry?" generation. By the time I came along and my husband who is a few years younger, the economy was tanking in the 1970's and by the 1980's housing was unaffordable. We didn't own a home until 1992. We're still paying off a mortgage and our son is ready for university. I only have eight years before retirement. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rick013 Rick013

    What everyone needs is to watch "Generation Zero". It will wake you up to the causes for our present state and how to get back to the values rational folks once believed.

  • joannie

    Jerome, it's not the baby boomers on mass that have created this problem–It's government and the public sector unions with freedom 55 with 60% to 70% of income fully indexed to inflation, lavish pre and post retirement supplementary healthcare benefits, the sick bank which can equal almost a years salary on retirement etc. etc…..while the rest of us baby boomers are in the same boat as everyone else. The average public sector pension has accumulated about 20% of the funds necessary to purchase the promised pension annuity and the taxpayer is on the hook for funding shortfallls. Most of us would think we were dreaming in technicolor if we got the healthcare benefits we're providing for government and their unionized employees.

  • Oliver

    While it's true that European social democracy is going through a very bumpy ride it's taking it a bit far by saying it's a failed system: Greece looks like it's done for but Germany is doing rather well for itself.
    I always felt that the real problem was stupid people and not so much the system (although any system that gets complacent is doomed) and the Greece vs Germany situation is a great example: a large part of the Greek population is guilty of tax evasion and so the government is out of money, whereas the Germans a much more responsible country are doing rather well.
    But hey who needs a thoughful debate about economically integration (I feel the euro zone integration is the real problem for the European governments) when we can simply regress to left vs right?

  • Oliver

    Oops, I mean "economical integration"!

  • Jerome Bastien

    Because ultimately thats what it comes down to: will you ignore facts, economic reality, and spend other people's money as a way to alleviate your own guilt (the approach of the left), or will you face reality, act responsibly and cut spending (the approach of the right)

  • xtal

    Not if Germany keeps loaning billions it doesn't have TO Greece and subsidizing their errant ways, it won't be doing rather well for rather long.

  • Jerome Bastien

    Ok sorry bad use of 'most'. But the fact is the baby boomers are still the largest demographic. There are not as many babyboomer's children as there are babyboomers.

    You can quibble about stats all you want. The point is, the demographic tree is inverted and we have a huge debt to service thanks to idiotic babyboomers.

    We're heading straight towards Greece and yet dumb little snotnosed kids try to show off how "sophisticated" they are by voting NDP/green.

  • xtal

    Okay, so which generation was it that failed to have kids, because Canada's fertility rate is something like 1.5 kids/couple – barely above the level at which society collapses.

  • Jerome Bastien

    Well put. I had forgotten to add the enviro-crazies into the mess of insanity left to us by the babyboomers. It is absolutely criminal.

    How did it happen that the greatest generation fought and died to rid the world of fascism, only to spawn a bunch of dumb hippies who would bring back fascism, in the form of eco-fascism, feminazis, and islamofascism appeasers?

  • Dr.Dubya

    I'm sorry, did you say " Fox News" and "Fair and Balanced" in the same sentence? HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Funniest thing I have heard all week!!!!!

    Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Anne Coulter… Bible thumping, ultra right wing, creationists masquerading as fair minded "reporters" that broadcast the "news". Sorry my mistake.

  • Oliver

    And why does Germany NEED to send the money to Greece? Because of the Euro Greece doesn't have access to the traditional ways of devaluating it's currency in order to make it's exports more attractive (this is very basic, I'm no economist) so all of Europe has the same currency: if one of them goes down, they all go down.
    Again I'm no expert, but I've been doing a lot of research on the topic and this economical integration of the European countries seems to be the "problem".
    There's virtue in simplifying the issues such as going to the old adage of left vs right, it allows for principiled action but over simplifying will almost always ends up with people missing out on the key issues that need to be addressed, in this case monetary policy.

    Jerome is the perfect example: he takes the principles and applies them so rigidly that his approach will never solve anything, it'll simply prop up another set of values that in time will run into their own version of what's going on now (austerity leading to the death of economical activity).

  • Caslo Cranston

    More Mark and definitely more Mark on radio (great voice), please address the following:

    "Humane" government reveals its most insidious nature by creating dependency. Dependency for a job, hand out, protection or power; the facilitators who promote the expansion of government largess.

    A systematic plan to force governments to live within their means obviates putting huge numbers of people out of work, many of whom are incapable of operating in the private sector.

    The rubber will meet the road if this lot becomes unemployed. It is difficult to imagine that the economy will allow for their gainful employment before they choose to vote themselves back into power/dependency/security.

    caslo

  • Flo Audette

    Canada is the country's patsy, if the united states or the united nations tells our P.M. to jump he says how high. This country's debt is more than half caused by bad political decisions, likeopening the borders and letting in thousands of immigrants each year, and giving to so-called country's in need. i can't even get a family doctor and my government is wasting money on tax evading greeks over seas and gang banging haitiens and chinese kids in this country. Wake up canada your and my culture is going to the dogs and very fast at that.

  • Whitney

    Surely you can distinguish between a talk show or political show and the news? Beck, O'Reilly and Coulter are clearly not reporters nor have they (or Fox News) claimed that they are. Examine the content of the news instead of apeing what your Women's Studies professors told you.

  • Kevin

    I've seen Ann Coulter on MSNBC plenty of times. And she doesn't work for Fox News. Or are you pretending to be stupid?

  • Dr.Dubya

    Yes but many, many people watch O'Reilly et al discuss the news, give their opinion on the news, spin the news, and thereby believe that it is the news. If you honestly think that people watching shows like that are watching them critically, and balancing what is said with what is said elsewhere, then you likely have another think coming.

    Check out the Poll below (the post by malmonext), Bill O'Reilly is one of Americas most trusted NEWS sources, not COMMENTATORS. You may be able to tell the difference, but most Americans cannot.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    You mean the content where they fake numbers of people attending pro-conservative rallies?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/migtex1234 migtex1234

    socialism NEVER works (read history) always fails thoughout history!
    As it will always run out of other people's money ! Encourages
    dead beats to parasite off those who work> useless class. produces more dependends.

  • Ryan

    Yeah, all Americans just sit in front of their TV and go "derrrrr" as they watch, right?

    The problem with liberals is they think they're smarter than conservatives. They think conservatives believe whatever they believe because they're stupid or brainwashed.

    Liberals are simply not open-minded people. I know. I used to be one. I used to, for example, hate Harper and Bush because that's what you do when you're liberal. You want your entitlements, your free rewards for nothing. You want your social safety net just in case you fail because you don't believe in yourself enough to succeed.

    Socialism has already failed, and this is not surprising, because socialism requires failure in order to exist in the first place.

  • ABarlow

    A lot of people think that John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are news sources as well. That doesn't mean that they are, nor that they should be held to the same standards as a genuine news source.

    Honestly, the way the world is now, if you're only getting your news from one source–any source–then you're probably not getting the whole picture.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AtheistCon AtheistCon

    Whoah, hang on – isn't Jon Stewart the new 'most trusted man in America'?

    Why is it that lefty opinion-makers – Olbermann, Maddow, Maher, Stewart, Amanpour, King, Cooper, ad nauseum – appearing on 'news' networks or having 'news' satire/opinion shows are all okay? Oh, I know, because lefties are clearly 'smart' enough to know the difference between news and opinion, while us mouth-breathing right-wingers are too dumb for those distinctions … which is why every lefty I've ever met routinely cites propaganda they heard on The Daily Show as if it were gospel, and can't back their arguments with facts or reason, while every conservative/libertarian I've met can recite Constitutional and economic theory chapter-and-verse.

    All American news is tabloid news. And all news stations, in one way or another, have an ideology and pander to a base. But Fox as a reporting organization is just as respectable as any other – and given that their ideological bias counters the current administration, right now they're the best place to get your information.

  • http://twitter.com/FACLC @FACLC

    That entire post makes far more sense if you replace all the cases of "Bill O'Reilly" with "Jon Stewart".

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

    Yeah, but it's OK when people get their "news commentary" from a comedian Jon Stewart whose bias is so far to the left that he finds nothing to satirize in Obama and crew when the satire just writes itself.

  • Dr.Dubya

    Thought we were talking about Fox News? I've heard all the right wing dogma before, thanks. And before you have an aneurism, I'm not a liberal. Sorry if you thought that, but you didn't ask. You made an assumption based on one post. I just happen to have a strong opinion about Fox News.

    It's always funny, though, how the right seems to forget about the "social programs" they rely on everyday. Like schools, or the police department, or the fire department, or roads etc.

    The social safety net that seems to be pilloried, on this forum at least, is INTENDED to ensure that people who cannot take care of themselves have some kind of support. However, as Steyn has pointed out on numerous occasions, that system has become a bloated mess. Places like the UK where it is better to be a single teen mom on welfare than a working spouse have somehow lost sight of the intention of the programs. Greece is an excellent example of social spending excess.

    But that does not mean that all social programs should be burned. I firmly believe everyone, regardless of status, should get free access to healthcare. And people who are poor should be able to lean on a system to help them up and out.

    But governments have a tendency to screw up a good idea, so now many countries are laden with massive debt and a lazy workforce.

    And BTW, isn't America like 4 trillion dollars in debt? How's that capitalist / free market thingy working out? Sounds like a failure to me.

  • Jerome Bastien

    I dont disagree with you Oliver but the current debate is so tilted to the left that it makes any discussion of discrete issues like monetary policy pointless until there is a broad acceptance that the general direction we have been moving towards, and the current environment where entitled people scream bloody murder every time their government grants are cut (so-called women's groups here in Canada being a case in point), is absolutely unsustainable and criminal towards younger generations.

  • DPT

    one of the "reasons" Germany needs to lend money to greece and the other PIGS is that German (adn French) banks hold billions of the greek national debt. It's a house of cards, one ill breeze and their all fu%*ed.

  • Dr.Dubya

    Although I think it is much more obvious that Stewart and Colbert are news parody, you make a good point. Everyone should get their news from as many sources as possible, but I don't think many people do.

  • Ryan

    Obviously there are some taxes required for a civilized society to exist. With no taxes, yes, you would end up with anarchy.

    Schools could be argued, but most people would agree that police and road services are necessary. Though you might even get the argument against roads and expect toll roads. Healthcare is certainly debateable and the poor can turn to charities or get some grit and make something of themselves.

    The problem is when you get people in power who have these social agendas in their minds rather than just managing what's there (governance has no need to be complicated).

    As for the debt… it's just a showcase for why governments should have limited power; they just don't know how to control themselves.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AtheistCon AtheistCon

    "And before you have an aneurism, I'm not a liberal."

    Isn't it funny how liberals never want to claim the label?

    "And BTW, isn't America like 4 trillion dollars in debt? How's that capitalist / free market thingy working out?"

    I just love when lefties voluntarily reveal how stupid they are. Do you even know what causes public sector debt? Hint: it's not the private market. It's government-funded social programs. How's that hopeychange working out for you? Sounds like a failure to me.

  • http://twitter.com/FACLC @FACLC

    "I firmly believe everyone, regardless of status, should get free access to healthcare."

    So you firmly believe in enslaving anybody in the healthcare profession, and slagging "capitalism" by falsely claiming that the United States of America circa 2010 is an exact case of it? No, you're right, you aren't liberal at all….

  • SW1

    Did I read that correctly? You think everyone should get "free access" to healthcare?

    So doctors, nurses, etc. shouldn't get paid for the good work they do?

    Dr. Dubya, you my friend, are simply a moron.

  • Mike_K

    I'm not a liberal. Sorry if you thought that, but you didn't ask. You made an assumption based on one post. I just happen to have a strong opinion about Fox News.

    It's always funny, though, how the right seems to forget about the "social programs" they rely on everyday. Like schools, or the police department, or the fire department, or roads etc.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Squiggy Squiggy

    Four trillion? No, we're over thirteen trillion dollars in debt. Four trillion is how much further we went in the hole during Bush's tenure. And it's less than Obama has raised the debt in his year and a half.

    Boy are we moving now.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/globalwarmer globalwarmer

    Yea your not a liberal, but I bet you voted for Al Gore and obozo the twit.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AlistZ AlistZ

    Only a really brainless dolt that just programmatically repeats what he is told goes around spewing this classic liberal canard: Schools/parks/fire and police are "social programs".

    No, they are not. What kind of brainless turd would repeat this crap without thinking about it? Government does not equal socialism.

    You're correct, you are not a "liberal" You are a "liberal dupe".

  • Robocop

    This post breaks some sort of record. I have never seen so many moronic statements in such a small place. There are entire books that refute each of them but I doubt Dr. Dumb reads anything other than the internet.

  • sanmarino

    Um….excuse me "Dr. Dubya" but MY TAXES pay for those "social programs" such as schools, the police department, the fire department, and roads, etc. YES, I WORK AND PAY TAXES which also pay for social programs (e.g. welfare, Medicade, food stamps, free cell phones, etc.) that benefit people who don't pay taxes and who benefit from the same schools, police/fire department, roads, etc.

    BTW – I live in the US which is quickly becoming communist.

  • Peter

    "should get free access to healthcare" Typing this belies all your bleatings.

  • Debbie

    And just what news program do you find trustworthy? Which one gives you both sides of a story and let's you decide? Which one reveals Obama's BS? Do you ever watch anything that actually makes you THINK or do you like to be told what to think? My guess is the latter. You'd rather not have to do the thinking thing.

  • JAMES MC CORMACK

    13 trillion in debt as of last week may 30

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jnsesq jnsesq

    Restore America! CRUSH the Left! End the Welfare State!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    So you're advocating dictatorship over democracy?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    Perhas you should read history. There's a fair number of socialist countries out there that are doing fine. (Well.. relatively, anyway) There's also been a fair number of failures of non-socialist countries as well.

    What you should really be railing against is corruption. That seems to have the highest correlation to whether a country fails or not.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/GeoffreyTransom GeoffreyTransom

    Lots of veiled anti-Islamism, but nary a mention of the tax money that funded the four bullets that were pumped into the head of that young Yank in international waters, or the vapid response of the political class of NATO to an act of war levied against one of its members.

    Steyn, you write well, and back in the pre-9/11 Speccie days you were worth reading; but seriously – a column about wasteful government that doesn't mention massive spending on death machines and killing brown folks?

    Dole bludgers get barely enough to live on – except if they are the CEO of a weapons manufacturer: the funds come from the same source (the pockets of the productive) but the Death Merchant can buy a castle while the chavvy welfare queen lives in a flat.

    Every senior bureaucrat costs 8x as much as a dole bludger – and that's before you count the graft paid to them by rent-seekers.

    Steyn, you used to be cool, but obviously your (ahem) ethno-cultural status requires you to support anything that tears brown kiddies to shreds, so long as it enriches the Cheneys of the world.

    CHeerio

    GT

  • Marta

    What about Sweden? or former Yugoslavia? If Yugoslavia would not have the war we would emigrate there. I wish Canadians or Americans have lifes like Swidish, altough they had communism many years.

  • Dr.Dubya

    I suppose you could argue schools and healthcare, but if not publicly funded, then education and good health are only for the rich. The best way for a society to prosper is to have a healthy, well educated work force.

    And in the US, the near total collapse of the financial sector, is a showcase for what happens when corporations are allowed to run amok, with little regulation to reign them in. I refuse to believe that even conservatives think that what happened there was a good idea.

    But I guess it's totally fine for billions in public money to go into the pockets of the executives who caused the collapse, but let's not let poor people see a doctor.

    Seems like a lack of plain common sense to me.

  • Dr.Dubya

    I guess if thinking I'm a liberal makes you feel better, then by all means. Don't let the fact that I'm not get in the way.

    Yes I'm sure all 4 trillion is for welfare. Yep it's all going to a bunch of lazy teen mothers. Not one penny goes to military campaigns, or for tax breaks for the elite, or to bail out failed 'private market' companies…

  • Dr.Dubya

    Going to totally agree with you on the news point. That was my point all along, that the news is full of ideology and should never be taken at face value.

    Calling Fox News unbiased is ridiculous, but I would never turn around and say that Maher and Stewart and Colbert etc aren't biased.

    The problem is you believe that Fox is the best place to get your information because their ideology lines up with yours and you have a common enemy in the current US administration. I'm guessing, though, you're not likely to change the channel the next time there is a Republican in the White House.

  • AtheistCon

    Yes, clearly you're not a liberal, the way you speak out against capitalism and for social programs; the way you bash on Fox News and ignore the liberal bias on all other news networks; and the way you've apparently made it your mission to bash Mark Steyn.

    "Not one penny goes to military campaigns, or for tax breaks for the elite, or to bail out failed 'private market' companies…"

    Our military budget is <20% of our GDP, which is a sensible expenditure considering we are the world's military force (which also makes us the world's humanitarian force – who do you think provides the planes and logistics for relief campaigns around the world?)

    How is a 'tax break' in any way related to spending? What are 'the elite'? You non-liberals with your class warfare!

    And how can anyone be so stupid as to fail to understand that once a company is 'bailed out' by the government, it's not a private company? If you understood capitalism and free markets, you'd know that free-market enthusiasts do not support corporatism or crony capitalism. 'Bailing out' a company is just another term for socializing it.

    Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security spending along with other social programs make up the vast majority of our deficit spending. This is only going to get worse as less money comes in (more than 50% of the US population pays no taxes) and more money goes out, with an aging population and expanding entitlements. Our future is Greece.

    The only positive of being alive right now is seeing Socialism so thoroughly discredited on a global scale. But of course its die-hard apologists – people like you who have never bothered to learn about capitalism or free markets, and who either have a personal stake in furthering the unsustainable welfare state or are just too proud to grow up and admit your error – will never admit you were wrong.

  • fullofwin

    It's 13 trillion, genius. Stop now before you start to look… oh, too late :)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AtheistCon AtheistCon

    No, that's your fallback point, once you were called on your blatant hypocrisy. Believe me I know – I've had this same conversation a million times with other 'non-liberals':

    Liberal: Fox sucks! Stupid biased right-wing nonsense!
    Conservative: Really? What about all those other biased networks?
    Liberal: Oh, I hate those too! I just forgot to mention them because I have an agenda!

    "Calling Fox News unbiased is ridiculous"

    I don't call them unbiased. They call themselves unbiased. Snickers also tells me that if I miss a meal, a Snickers bar is a great replacement. I put about the same level of trust in both statements.

    "The problem is you believe that Fox is the best place to get your information because their ideology lines up with yours"

    Garsh, kind of like every other person on the planet! You mean people tend to align with their biases?

    "I'm guessing, though, you're not likely to change the channel the next time there is a Republican in the White House."

    I actually change the channel now (virtually, as I have no cable – but I consume many different media sources, which is easy since most of them just repeat AP, McClatchy, and other centralized sources). But this myth that Fox doesn't go after Republicans just cannot stand. Did you know that Fox broke the story of Bush's DUI – just before the election, no less? Fox savaged Bush on failures in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and constantly attacked him for his spending, his lax immigration policies, and so forth. Fox went after McCain constantly.

    Fox has a bias, but it's nowhere near as blatant or persistent as the left-wing bias networks.

    That said, I don't completely trust Fox. I just think it's hilarious how people like you pretend that it's some bizarre outlier in bias, or that they 'lie', and all that nonsense, simply because you're so ideologically blind.

  • http://www.AlistZ.net AlistZ

    that Fox is the best place to get your information because their ideology lines up with yours

    No, it's the best place to get your news because they've never used phony documents to discredit a president. (CBS)

    They never made a deal with the dictator of Iraq to allow him to edit their reports from his country in return for access.(CNN)

    There is no email record of their corporate President forcing a reporter to report a phony story on the US President that the corporate President had donated too (CNN)

    Ran a front page story about a false rumor of an affair based on speculation about a candidate who they opposed while suppressing reports of an actual affair of a candidate they supported (NY TIMES)

    It's simple. The mainstream media, time after time, has been shown to be completely in the pocket of the Democratic party. There is no longer even a pretense that they are "balanced" in any way.

    There is not even a legitimate alternative to Fox News.

  • Ofnir

    Eh, of the major networks, I say fox is the best of the lot since they're the only ones during my friends' years in Iraq that were reporting what was actually going on there, or not saying anything at all.

    The AP, MSNBC, CNN, and the legacy channels all reported stuff like several of my friends' entire teams being wiped out by insurgent forces because they were just blindly rote reporting what their native stringers, many of whom had heavy insurgent connections, gave them. It's always fun when the news is reporting your best friend was wiped out along with 10 or so other guys 2 days ago when you're sitting there talking to him on AIM.

    Or in one case that the majority of 2-22, 10th Mountain got wiped out because they got surrounded on a hill….and what really happened is they got surrounded on a hill while on a patrol, then shot and killed about 10 local militia and a few Iranian special forces operators who attacked them and the 50 or so other people who were in on the attack fled; with our worst casualty being a guy with a bruise from hitting the deck too hard.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AtheistCon AtheistCon

    I love left-wing propaganda – how you try to be subtle, like pluralizing a single instance (a simple b-roll editing error for which they apologized), but you're completely obvious.

    Me, I'm more worried about a network that manually edits out any shot of a man's skin color so they can call an armed black man an armed white man, to further a narrative their network established:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

    Gotta love MSDNC!

  • http://twitter.com/FACLC @FACLC

    By underestimating them slightly less than other media outlets underestimate them? You're right, that's sickening behaviour. Obama stormtroopers should seize control of the channel immediately!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

    Classic leftist projection. Conservatives don't need to fake. Facts are our friends.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    Odd. I thought we were talking about Fox.

  • Dr.Dubya

    Just to point out – I didn't say you said Fox News was unbiased, it was the 2nd poster, and I was using the statement to illustrate a point. That all major news outlets are biased on some way or another, which we seem to agree on, so why all the hostility?

    Because you think I'm a liberal? Whatever floats yer boat.

    For Pete's sake man, everyone thinks Fox is a far right leaning democrat hating Republican mouth piece, but I guess you can't see that because of your idealogical blindness.

    And to the point about "Oh, I hate those too! I just forgot to mention them because I have an agenda! " The topic was Fox News, if it had been, Stewart or Colbert, or the CBC or BBC etc, I would have stated my opinion that they are very left leaning organizations, but of course you have to use that omission as fuel for your liberal hating agenda. Which of course has nothing to do with the topic, you just seem to have a hate on.

  • Caslo Cranston

    I advocate adherence to a Federal budget that may not exceed 12% of the GNP except in time of war or national emergency. Any additional revenues that exceed 12% should be used to pay down the deficit.

    No more unfunded liabilities, no more largess that requires deficit spending.

    Without fiscal responsibility there is no security for anyone.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    Yeah, yeah, sounds lovely, and if wishes and dreams were peaches and cream we'd all be having a wonderful breakfast.

    However, the point I was getting at was this sentence:
    "The rubber will meet the road if this lot becomes unemployed. It is difficult to imagine that the economy will allow for their gainful employment before they choose to vote themselves back into power/dependency/security."

    Given this.. how do you advocate we get from here to your 12%?

  • Dr.Dubya

    So not only am I a card carrying commie, but now it's my mission to bash Mark Steyn? Dude I'm not even going to bother to respond to that, you are now just making things up.

    I am not arguing that the military is necessary, just that it is a large expenditure. (Your number posted garbled so its 4.16% (in 2008 according to the World Bank) of GDP to clarify.)

    Tax breaks are related because it reduces the amount of income. Acknowledgement of an elite ruling class isn't warfare, it's just an observation.

    And doesn't the necessary socializing of massive companies prove, at the very least, that there is a problem with the system? Or is it perfect the way it is?

    And unbelievably the US spends, on Heath Care, nearly 3 times PER CAPITA what is spent in Canada, yet they still don't have universal health care. Seems the free market isn't all that efficient there either.

    And as I pointed out before, Greece is a perfect example of socialism run amok, which clearly doesn't work either.

    What I am saying is there is room for balance between freedom and social responsibility.

    (Actually what I was saying is that I don't like Fox News very much.)

  • Daulat Ram

    and bring back hitler, i presume

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Viva_Vivian Viva_Vivian

    As the news pointed out today, in approximately 20 years time we will have the baby boomers as the median age far outnumbering the number of children and working class in this country. Coincidentally, also by that time 80% of our GDP will go towards health care. Who exactly is going to pay for that?

    The welfare state is an embarassment that should be abolished. It is a generational problem, passed down from parent to child, as much as it is an immigrant problem (all those racist employers won't hire you anyway, so get on the dole — and plenty of money for all of your wives as well!) You do not know the face of welfare — I do. Perfectly able-bodied people who aren't suckers like you and I going to work to earn a wage they can cash each month sitting on their asses. Illiteracy is a disability in this country. So is obesity. Our culture says lay down, not raise yourself up. It's sickening.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

    "Tax breaks are related because it reduces the amount of income".

    Obviously you're ignorant of the Laffer curve that demonstrates greater tax income at lower tax rates after a certain critical point. This is because people who get to keep more of their own earned money know how to spend it more productively cumulatively than the mediocre minds and venal types who go into government both elected and bureaucratic.

    Though you're in denial, you carry the hallmark of a leftist, which is smug certainty about things of which you have little knowledge. Your knowledge of the economy is juvenile, Socialism 101 and you know nothing about the American Health Care system except that it must be used as a bogeyman at all times (the leftist manual).

    Give up the unjustified cockiness and read a book by Thomas Sowell who can make basic economy clear to even dunderheads.

  • Rob

    Hey goof ball, if you think that the US Health Care even remotely resembles a free market, you need to do some more research. The market is so skewed by government spending , taxes, regulations, and laws that the free market hasn't even been tried. You have learned the straw man argument beautifully….

  • Sasklass

    And for those of you who blame the baby boomers for everything, perhaps you should take a look around yourselves. Who are the ones that beat their heads against the wall to give their kids everything they never had? The only thing our generation did that we should collectively be ashamed of is that we thought by working our asses off and giving our kids everything we could, we would be doing them a favour. Instead we raised a generation that expects that everything is put here on earth for them. That they are entitled to all the good things in life without any of the responsibilities that come with that entitlement. A bunch of whiners (like some of the commentors on here). Never mind that our generation was probably the most productive generation of all time and the following generations are reaping the benefits of our inventions, our work ethic and our commitment to responsibility. And now they are crying about how things should be. Well thing weren't exactly as they should have been when we came along but the majority of us just got a job and did the best we could and we don't get the recognition we should.

  • Caslo Cranston

    That certainly is the million dollar question and the one that I had hoped M.Steyn might discuss.

    However I am willing to take a stab at it.

    My initial premise is that there is no such thing as a perfectly designed plan. Every preplanned step is subject to unintended consequences. The key is having a clear idea of where you would like to go and continuously adapt to changing circumstances.

    Step one. Allow all registered voters through plebiscite to endorse or oppose a schedule that would reduce government spending and the size of the national debt by 5-7% every year until fiscal sustainability is met.

    If endorsed – There would be an obviated announcement that in one years time – the Federal Budget would be reduced by 5-7%; across the board. That means everything and everybody would take a haircut: entitlements, grants, defense, salaries, benefits, etc.

    The fallout will be daunting but we will have to adapt.

    Assuming there is a step 2, another plebiscite would endorse or oppose a continuation of the Federal Government reduction plan.

    Small steps will eventually get us to fiscal sustainability.

    caslo

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AtheistCon AtheistCon

    I think that reply – the hand-over-heart, eyes-closed, holier-than-thou, preening "I believe everyone should have free health care" posturing – should result in some cosmic punch in the face.

    Big deal, you believe in something beautiful and impossible. Kids believe in Santa Claus. Teenage boys believe they should be able to have sex with every woman they want and with no repercussions. I believe I should be able to earn a salary and not go to work every weekday. These are meaningless statements.

    No country has ever been able to make the idiotic dream of 'free health care' work, because nothing is free, and you can only hide and defer and shift costs for so long.

    People need to grow up. Nobody cares what pie-in-the-sky nonsense you 'believe', it's what works in the real world that matters.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AtheistCon AtheistCon

    " everyone thinks Fox is a far right leaning democrat hating Republican mouth piece"

    No, LIBERALS believe that. Which is yet another indicator that you are what you deny.

    "The topic was Fox News"

    No, the topic was a Steyn article in which he referenced a fact mentioned by Fox News. A responder immediately started with the "Ugh, Fox News, OMGROFL everyone knows they suck, and nobody I know voted for Nixon!", to which you immediately chimed in with your "OMGLOLZERCATZ I know! Fox News is just sooo icky!"

    Fox News could report that the sky is blue, and people like you – blinded by your own ideology – would respond with "That was on Fox News? It must be false!"

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AtheistCon AtheistCon

    You're talking about Fox. I'm pointing out how stupid you are. See how it works?

  • reality

    Isn’t this a knee jerk liberal/ progressive response. People that know history know that the current batch of liberals and progressive have more in common with Hitler than conservatives. The economic policies and even recent talk of “keeping the boot to BP’s neck” statements are all the proof you need.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Turtler Turtler

    Ja. Nevermind the fact that Hitler and the Kaiserreich's elite actually FORTIFIED a welfare state specifically tailored to make the citizen a mere subject dependent upon the government.

    We saw how THAT went, didn't we?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

    It was the politicians/government that caused the collapse by sticking their ignorant noses into the mortgage business and making it a charity in which banks were forced by law to loan money to members of minorities who were clearly not credit worthy so they could own houses, the same government you trust your health care to, the government that makes a mess of everything it touches.

  • PumasGrin

    You really don't understand economics do you Dr. D? This, once again, was caused many years before when well meaning govt types stuck their noses into it and passed legislations that messed with how the market (and businesses) assessed risk. The bulk of the financial crisis can be laid at mortgage boondoggle known as the Community Reinvestment Act.

    Just like the S & L crisis can be laid at the feet of congress when they jumped FDIC insurance to 100k per account.

    But hey, you drink the liberal Kool Aid of Victimhood so you won't look at the cause and effect economics that are in play. You would much rather just blame business so you can feel superior playing out a drama game of good and bad so you can feel better.

  • ablibertarian

    Not sure any clear thinking, rational person would know where to start a discussion with you Dr. D. You don't even know you're a Liberal! Ouch. . . that must make your life difficult. . . and a little confusing. Oh. . . maybe you do know and you're just a troll. If that's the case relax, have good time and enjoy being incoherent.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

    The National Inquirer for heaven's sake had to break a news story demonstrating then Dem candidate for President John Edwards was manifestly unfit for the position. They did a much better job than the "establishment" media who did their best to suppress any unflattering news about "their" i.e. leftist candidates instead of informing the public.

    Who dismisses something purely on the basis of the source and expects others to do the same? Only a fool.

  • Sue Sims

    The point about that one in six figure which people keep bandying around is NOT that they're all single mums, welfare scroungers, prostitutes or whatever – the reasons don't matter. What does matter is that these are people who are being supported by taxpayers' money, and they're people who, by definition, pay no tax. Therefore the higher the proportion of workless households (however one defines 'household', Style), the lower the proportion of taxpayers who support them, and the more tax the latter must pay. This is not a helpful situation for anyone.

  • Paul Thiel

    Boomers simply cannot stop bickering and fighting (it's the liberal's fault or it's the conservative's fault). The 40 years war grinds on. Because the Boomers are incapable of acting like adults for the good of the nation, I see only one viable course of action: Take away the keys.

    How can you call yourselves the "most productive generation" when you have squandered your inheritance, your own labors, your own credit, and your children's inheritance. If that isn't enough, you're double-timing the rape of your grandchildren. And what, pray tell, have you been so productive in producing other than a broken society?

    My generation has already been sold down the river by yours. We will have paid in all the same taxes as you have and will receive none of the benefits (do you honestly think medicare will be there in 2037 when I retire?). The fight now is for my children. I don't know if our generations are up to it, but we have no choice but to try.

    I ask you only one thing: please stop whining.

  • Paul Thiel

    Boomers on the left: Spend on what they want (welfare, social programs, etc…), lower or eliminate taxes on the poor / lower middle class, and borrow the rest. And while you're at it, impose political correctness on everyone.

    Boomers on the right: Spend on what they want (defense, corporate welfare, etc…), lower taxes on the rich / upper middle class, and borrow the rest. And while you're at it, impose your "morality" on the rest of us.

    The only thing the Boomers have in common is a shrill denial of their role in putting us down this road.

  • michael1919

    You do the Chinese a great disservice by suggesting that we are wasting tax dollars on them. Look at the graduate departments of science and engineering at any top Canadian university today and you'll find great numbers of Chinese students. These students have a great work ethic, are exceedingly polite and move on to be great contributors in our economy. We could stand to have our own students be a little bit more like the Chinese. I know, I struggled to match up with these students, even putting in 18 hour days on a regular basis.

  • Martin Utrosa

    Your culture seems to involve racial slurs and poor grammar. I'd say it is already gone to the dogs.

  • JR Cash

    Brilliant, AC. Well done.

  • DMP

    AtheistCon I wish I could give you 100 thumbs up. You have so succinctly and simply stated what none of the unthinking "liberals" or "progressives" seem to ever be able to understand.: Believing in something doesn't make it so. I guess I should just be happy that Dr. Dubya didn't tell us how he "feels".

  • ADC

    It's about time that right wing Canadians stand up and fight against these left handed money wasters. We need to flush them from our society. Let's return back to the way God created this world, strong survive and the weak die.

  • soitgoes

    Is Social Darwinism really the answer to the problems we are facing?

  • Thwim

    Except you totally disregarded what you yourself said: ""The rubber will meet the road if this lot becomes unemployed. It is difficult to imagine that the economy will allow for their gainful employment before they choose to vote themselves back into power/dependency/security."

    You're saying "this lot" will vote to give themselves a haircut, and when losing jobs won't turn around and vote to do otherwise.

    Your premise makes no sense. Thus my comment. Given your initial claim that a "humane government increases dependancy", and that in a democracy those who are dependant will vote themselves back into this situation of dependancy, it suggests that the only solution is the abandonment of democracy.

    Personally, I reject that.

    And furthermore, having in the past been on the receiving end of this "humane government"'s handouts, I can point out that what it does is give you a chance — when you're down that far, it's very difficult to see any reasonable way out. The assistance provided to me by both government and private charity allowed me to come through that time into someone who is now able to give large amounts back both to the government through taxation, and to that charity. (Side note: Support your local food bank, folks.. they need it and people need them.)

    To say that "Humane government" increases dependancy as a blanket statement is simply incorrect. Further, I'd suggest that the opposite of a humane government, one that refused to support its people, would actually lead to a worse society as those who are in that hole of desparation find themselves turning to illegal and possibly violent means to support themselves.

    Libertarian economic models always seem to have the same flaw: They imagine that when people get desparate they either turn productive or quietly allow themselves to starve. They always seem to discount that middle ground, where the people turn angry and simply attempt to take what they need to survive.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

    Since the largest cost in government is wages and benefits, and since government workers through strikes in a monopoly have pushed their total remuneration to 30 to 40% higher than the same job in the private sector while retaining far better job security, the first place to make cuts is to bring these inflated government incomes in line. Civil servants can squeal, but they have no case and their "suffering" will be to receive the same pay for work that other Canadians get and lose ridiculous privileges like retiring at 55.

    It would be fair, and a huge chunk of change.

  • American citizen

    You are so right. Chinese add a lot to our culture in our country of US as well.

  • LJBwell

    Whoa. A lot of incorrect information here, minaka. First – the collapse was not caused by government intervention, just the opposite; the financial sector was wildly unregulated which led to speculative lending (many economists are now suggesting that the reason Canadian banks fared comparatively better was due to the degree of regulation that they are beholden to). Second – no one forced banks to lend to "uncreditworthy minorities"- AND, related, what a backwards and slanderous comment to make; should we be more trustworthy of the WASPs on Wallstreet that put the USA in this mess in the first place?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Viva_Vivian Viva_Vivian

    Social Darwinism is the idea that there are races of humans and that some races have evolved over and above others. It is the Nazi-like ideal that people, by nature of their birthright, are inherently inferior to others. ADC is talking about evolutionary Darwinism in which those most adapted to their environment survive and other perish. Human beings are animals and not exempt from the natural laws despite our sentient nature.

  • soitgoes

    "Let's return back to the way God created this world, strong survive and the weak die."

    This is the doctrine of 'the survival of the fittest' that was coined by Herbert Spencer. For the clearest articulation of such a philosophy, one that ADC seems perfectly comfortable with, see the 1890 book Might Is Right or The Survival of the Fittest that was later embraced by the infamous American satanist Anton LaVey. It is the polar opposite of Christianity, or at least the message of Jesus Christ. Do unto others… meek shall inherent the Earth… ADC must be an Old Testament kind of guy.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_is_Right

    "the Nazi-like ideal that people, by nature of their birthright, are inherently inferior to others"

    This ideal was not confined to the Nazi's. And is precisely what ADC is advocating.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

    Didn't give conservatives a majority government. We'll never know whether they would have used it to cut programs, kryptonite to all 4 leftist parties.

  • Steven NIkulak

    This 'we're rich enough to be stupid' attitude is also on the workfloors of our nation. This has truely become the mantra of our nation. I work for a great company and I amoung others are called upon almost daily to step up and do extra work (sometimes double my work load) because some fellow employees has chosen to play the I need accomidation game. It does not matter that these employee's can go out and work at other jobs or play contact sports after their shift. The bosses hands are tied due to the legislation that employee's have to be accomidated til finacial hardship. Well the hardship is being felt is not only financial but also physical. It is not those of us who are getting close to retirement that have carried the load for years that are causing the problem but the fact that our young have embraced the notion that no one has to work in order to eat, drink, and live well.

  • B.B.

    Exactly right, and I'm glad someone beat me to it! The original comment was a blatant Ad Hominem fallacy: "Oh, you're quoting Fox? You must be one of those mouthbreathing knuckledraggers and so I can summarily dismiss your argument without actually, ya know, debating your points 'n stuff."

  • Polly

    You are sooo wrong in saying that "no one forced banks to lend to 'uncreditworthy minorities,'" though it wasn't ONLY to minorities, it was to anyone who otherwise would have to rent their homes. And not only did government insist that banks make those loans (starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, which was put on steroids during Clinton's reign)–and if they didn't make the loans, their planned expansion would be refused or they might even be prosecuted for their discrimination–but also various groups, especially Obama's favorite, ACORN, harassed bankers who didn't make enough risky loans, including at their banks and at their homes. Obama himself helped to organize ACORN, teaching them effective methods (remember, he was a "community organizer"). During the short time he "practiced law," he facilitated ACORN's lawsuit against Citigroup for… not lending to the poor!

    But the banks might have balked, even given the penalties, if they had been forced to continue to own those toxic loans. So Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought those loans. It's why Fannie & Freddie are still "borrowing" billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers; their portfolios were FULL of toxic loans. And they still are.

    You've heard of "carrot and stick"? That's what the banks faced. And it was the Democrats in our Congress that pushed that policy. Now, of course, it's all Bush's fault, even though Bush and the Republicans in Congress (including even John McCain) begged for stronger regulation of Fannie and Freddie (the Democrats accused them of being racist and uncaring). They similarly accused the regulators who warned that we were heading for a crisis.

    Perhaps Canada fared better because they never aggressively forced their banks to make loans to those who were manifestly unqualified and who would obviously be unable to repay them?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Viva_Vivian Viva_Vivian

    You've made an awful lot of generalizations about ADC while not refuting one iota of what I had to say about Darwinian evolution. Please take your wank elsewhere.

  • Richard_S_Argent

    Sorry, you're incorrect and soitgoes is correct – you and ADC are talking social darwinism, and not evolutionary darwinism – the latter would take millenia to work itself out.

    And ADC is talking about certain kinds of humans being better than other kinds…which is pretty much the definition of social darwinism.

  • Viva_Vivian

    I see your refutation comes loaded with facts….oh wait, it doesn't.

    I did talk about social Darwinism AS WELL AS Darwinian evolution. FYI, Einstein, evolution doesn't take "millenia" at all. Are you not aware of the evolution of the dog for example, or even at the microbiological level? Never thought about what superbugs are, did ya? Don't group me in with ADC as I didn't even give an opinion on his comment, just expanded on the definition of Social Darwinism to which soitgoes replied "The Nazis didn't own that sh*t." Never said that, but don't let the facts get in the way of pretending to be a scientist.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

    sorry, ADC was explicitly saying one type of human was better than another. He wasn't talking about "dogs" or "superbugs"…and that, my friend, is pretty much the definition of social darwinism.

  • soitgoes

    " ADC is talking about evolutionary Darwinism in which those most adapted to their environment survive and other perish."

    This is the statement I refuted. All I pointed to was a rough history of 'survival of the fittest' as a doctrine, as this is the idea that ADC was evoking in his comment. Nothing in my response was about trying to 'pretend to be a scientist', in fact, you are the only one here attempting to use scientific arguments to make your case.

    If my comment seemed unclear to you, perhaps that is because I was responding to your bizarre argument that "let's return back to the way God created this world, strong survive and the weak die" is a valid statement in scientific Darwinism.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/theintellectual theintellectual

    38 trillion actually. as if the republicans or democrats even know what that number is. (or what hyperinflation is for that matter)

  • RobAnthony

    This inter-generational conflict is silly. It was some boomers who gave life to me and did their part in creating the society that i grew up in. The faults of this society are always in focus (not necessarily a bad thing!), but I can think of much worse conditions to grow up in! They did many things right as well (on what was left from the generation before, and before, etc)

    I'm not so sure that if we could magically transplant my generation into the situation of the boomers, that we would make the decisions any differently… And who can say what bad decisions we may make that the next generation will have to deal with in our wake? In any case here is the situation we find ourselves in as a society. Whining about this or that generation doesn't amount to much more than blame placing.

  • Sasklass

    It is a fact that the Boomer generation will leave more wealth to their children than any other collective generation in history!

  • Tom P

    Most Progressives failed math. Chairman Obama is a clear example based on his governance.

  • tiddle

    Ok, the first page of the article sounds reasonable to me. But then, when it gets to the association of commies and green jobs, every argument goes downhill from there. I don't agree with the huge government bailout, because government regulations and enforcement should have come BEFORE we even get to this mess. And, government does have a leadership role to play, in terms of research and development. Dude, you won't even have the internet, if there has not been research directed to the military, and you won't be talking/publishing on the web. So, to say, let's reap the immediate benefits now, and don't worry about the future (environment), or as the article has put forth the other argument of letting oil companies like BP take the lead in drill-baby-drill the huge reserve in US, without regulations and oversight, you must be living in your little dream world.

  • Caslo Cranston

    I think you have misunderstood my original post.

    My intent was to illustrate the potential defect of a poorly constructed plan.

    Clearly a better solution is necessary – and it doesn't include putting down mass insurrections.

    If you want to be taken seriously – come up with a solution.

    caslo

  • caslo cranston

    I agree – but it will have be a slow and steady.

From Macleans