Friday, February 15, 2008

Big Dog: Mistakenly Thinks Regulation = 'Socialism'.

I think Big Dog should avoid discussing anything related to economics primarily because he knows absolutely nothing about it. Decide for yourself though - he accuses Hillary Clinton of wanting to 'take over', among other things, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, credit card companies, etc.:

Hillary and big government are going to take over all these businesses and people and tell them how they have to conduct themselves, how much profit they can make and how much they may charge for their services.

Memo to Big Dog: Regulation does not equal socialism. There is no evidence in your laundry list of Hillary statements that she plans to 'take over all of these businesses.' You simply made a wild and fantastical leap that once again demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of economics. Remember: Regulation does not equal socialism. Write that down so you don't forget!

Even more hilarious was Big Dog's acknowledgement IN THE SAME POST that regulatory agencies (the FDA in particular) help maintain the safety of our food and drugs, among other things. At least they did until Bush put industry lobbyists in charge of the agencies that are supposed to regulate those industries. It's also worth pointing out that these agencies, which are designed to protect investors, enforce mine safety, etc. are almost always created by so-called liberals because liberals try to protect ordinary Americans. Big Dog and his conservative friends, on the other hand, would rather support big business and millionaires. They love having their wealth and tax dollars redistributed to people and entities that are already wealthy. Wingnuts are truly a bunch of suckers. They love getting duped.

Of course, in typical cut-and-running fashion, Big Dog decided not to publish my comment pointing out his confusion over regulation and 'socialism', which is why I had to address the issue here.

5 comments:

Big Dog said...

When a person says they will take money from a company and use it for something else, that is socialism. Redistribution of wealth. Regardless of your moronic charges, the removal of wealth from one entity and giving it to another is socialism.

Denying companies the ability to make profit whether through regulation or other means is socialistic. She will tell them how much they are allowed to make and how much they are allowed to charge.

The government has no business telling companies how much they have to pay a person, how much profit they may make or what benefits they must provide.

The government has screwed up Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. What makes you think they can run anything else.

The reality is, they do not want to fix these things. They create problems and then they campaign against them.

Why don't you go haunt someone else. Do you have a man crush on me?

Billy Joe said...

So the Securities and Exchange Commission, FDA, etc. are 'socialism'? The gov't doesn't have the 'right' to determine the minimum wage?

Our military is stationed in the middle east (and around the world) to defend American economic interests. If the oil industry is making record profits as the navy protects them in the Gulf we should not tax them to help pay for it?

You love giving your money to rich people and to already profitable companies.

YOUR government has been brutally effective at screwing up gov't programs. Conservatives, who think gov't can't do anything right (in spite of evidence that it can in other countries), is only true because 'conservatives' don't want it to work. Putting 'conservatives' in charge of gov't is like putting a communist in charge (as in CEO) of Exxon. Would you do that?

What a proud 'conservative' you are.

I'll keep addressing your nonsense. If you don't like it, at least try making a logical case.

Big Dog said...

It is quite simple. The government, and that includes both parties, has screwed up the monetary system. Democrats and their affirmative action forced banks to give loans to blacks who would not have otherwise qualified and then the race baiters blame the banks when they foreclose.

The war on poverty has done nothing. Since the 60's the same people are in poverty and the rate is relatively unchanged but we spent 13 trillion dollars on it.

Social programs account for the most in the budget and are way higher than defense. They tax the hell out of us and it is unnecessary. They could impose tariffs on the countries exporting to us just as they impose them on us. We lived without an income tax a long time ago and we can do it again. The problem is spending.

Companies like Exxon make an 11% profit and you guys have a cow. Microsoft had a 21% profit and not a word. Raw dollars are easy to scream about but the percentage. Only idiots believe that tax cuts are for the rich. However, the bottom 40% of wage earners PAY NO FUCKING TAXES so why should they get any back?

You have a lot of mouth for a little twit but this blog has what, 10 visitors a day? You keep fucking with me in hopes I will give you some attention so you can get some traffic.

Pathetic little man, you keep coming over and leaving comments that try to bait me. You call me names and insult me in hopes I will somehow publish it and get into a flame war and send you traffic. You write one post a month or so and they are nearly all about me. You are a pathetic little man who hides behind a keyboard typing things you would NEVER say to my face (well you might once).

Do yourself a favor, go give Obama a Lewinsky and then let Hillary corn hole you. That is your speed.

Billy Joe said...

big dog,

Care to back up any of your assertions? I didn't realize it was the 'race baitors' and their demands that banks end loan discrimination that caused 'socialism'.

Social programs account for 'most' of the budget and are 'way higher than defense', eh? Care to include some actual #'s or am I just supposed to accept your lazy assertions like your low IQ readers?

I agree with you on tariffs, but the only Republican who would EVER propose that would be Ron Paul. The rest of them think Free Trade is Godly and the entire premise of the international free trade system is that tariffs be eliminated. What will you choose? the Republicans (and to a lessor extent, the Democrats) beloved WTO Free Trade regime or tariffs? Are tariffs not 'socialistic' in the sense you speak of: forcing consumers to pay the gov't?

You just don't like me because I hand your ass to you every damn time we engage. You need to try a little harder and gather up some evidence for once. I can see why you're so eager to beat me up (or crush me under your heft). You can't hang in a debate so you devolve into your natural wingnut behavior which is noting more than run-of-the-mill violence. Criminality, really.

It would help your cause if your posts made logical sense and if you knew what you were talking about. It's just a suggestion. I have another new post up about a leading GOP conservative who had an ILLEGAL working at his lobbying firm. Give it a read and let me know what you think should be done about it.

James Rogers said...

hey I want to ask you something
how much profit they can make and how much they may charge for their services.
Buy Iraqi Dinar