Sam's Big Government Backpack

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - It took at least a DECADE of extreme neoclassical policies imposed by Pinochet before the economy picked up. Pinochet's policies made the economy WORSE in their extreme, laissez-faire form. Only when he had to moderate his policies and scale back did things start to get better. Let's face it: the big gov't-small gov't dichotomy is phony. It's really an issue of "efficient gov't" vs. "unworthy gov't."

Reasonjester Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - Smoke some more crack, sophist.

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - Reduce taxes?? WE ALREADY HAVE DONE THAT A BUNCH OF TIMES SINCE REAGAN! dumbass... How much lower do you want? Top rate is 35%. Corporate rate is 35%. Most state income taxes are 0-10% (if any are even higher than 10% at all). Who taught this idiot Demint economics?? SUPPLY-SIDE DOESN'T WORK. And "limited gov't" is certainly no guarantee of growth, esp. equitable growth.Besides, what's this BS about "Sam has to carry the cost of Medicare and stimulus and shit"? NO, HE DOESN'T! The fuck?

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - A small businessman has to "bear" the cost of a gov't program DESIGNED TO HELP GUYS LIKE HIM AND FIX THE ECON.?? That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. I'm sorry, but you need a real education, Senator. Stop parroting failed GOP talking points. The economy is not nearly as simple as you wanna make it out to be.

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - As long as his business is profitable enough, the "cost of gov't" really isn't that big a deal! esp. if it's something as big as Walmart or Exxon.Besides, Obama's administration hasn't cost any more than Bush's did in HIS first term ($6 Billion vs. $11 Billion, as exposed by Bloomberg). Stop lying to your constituents, Jim. You're nothing but a shill for big business pretending to be a friend of the little guy.

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - What's lost in all this bogus talk about how simply the EXISTENCE of a big national debt "hinders growth" is the fact that GOVERNMENT BUYS REGULAR SHIT! A lot of gov't spending is simply buying stuff from various companies, hiring new workers, paying other workers, etc. They don't just throw it down a hole or bury it.Where the hell does Demint think this money goes? When a senior gets a SS check and stays solvent rather than being indebted, he has money to spend. That HELPS the econ.

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - When a poor person has adequate health insurance, they don't have to go bankrupt or spend exorbitant sums to try to cure themselves, which is a DRAIN on the econ. When seniors don't have to pay HUGE fees for regular care, they have more money in their pockets to contribute to corporate profits left over.You see how this works, Jim? But you only see things from the OVERT COST perspective, and that blinds you. You think "Sam" really gives a flying fuck about the national debt?

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - Believe it or not, there ARE net economic benefits to regulations!Did you know that the federal bureaucracy is REQUIRED by law to do strenuous cost-benefit analyses of every regulation they consider before putting them into effect? IT'S BEEN GOING ON SINCE AT LEAST JIMMY CARTER'S DAY! So quit acting like regulators just impose regulations willy-nilly. They DO know the costs and benefits, and you're probably just overstating the costs and understating the benefits.

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - Yet so stupid only a child would believe it.

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - What guys like Demint fail to see is that most regulations are done NOT JUST FOR OR AGAINST BUSINESS- THEY'RE DONE FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. Yes, some regulations may "cost" businesses a little, but if society benefits, why should I cry my eyes out? If the business can handle the regulation, no biggie. Of course, there may be SOME regulations out there that have negative net benefits, and those need to be replaced or abolished. but come on

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - Complaining about environmental regulations that PROTECT AMERICAN HEALTH just b/c they might cost big corporations a little money in enforcement seems hardly fair.  Seems petty to me.

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - So regulations ONLY matter insofar as how much they cost business, as if business is the end-all, be-all of American life, as if making money is the ONLY thing that matters? Not whether a certain regulation improves the QUALITY OF LIFE for lots of Americans?

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - besides, there are far more Americans than businesses. If you're weighing the needs of 300 million Americans against the "needs" of a few million businesses, why the hell would the businesses come first? Those 300 Million are, for one thing, a MUCH LARGER constituency to worry about when it comes to votes and support, and hurting 300 million to protect a few million seems like a HUGE miscalculation.

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - But does it REALLY matter if, in a less-regulated state like the U.S. (hardly comparable to the Soviet Union), you have to face a few costs like regulations as long as you can still make LOTS of profit in the end?? If you still get plenty of revenues from customers, who cares. If your business can more than stay solvent, I don't see the big deal.Let's focus on making sure businesses GET ENOUGH CUSTOMERS AND GROW IN REVENUES, not bitching about costs disportionately.

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - Is there REALLY a single company in this country, esp. a profitable one, that "goes bankrupt" simply b/c it was "overregulated"?? Please...Yes, getting rid of some of these regulations MIGHT enhance their profits a little, but would it be enough to really matter? If you can make a decent profit, surely that would more than make up for the costs of a little regulation and paperwork.

whoo689 Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - Jim Demint and other anti-regulation idiots can't see the forest for the trees. Sad, really

Pretendeavor1337 Says:

Feb 9, 2012 - "smoke some more crack, sophist."

Pretendeavor1337 Says:

Feb 9, 2012 - According to the Congressional Small Business Administration, regulation costs all businesses 1.75 trillion dollars over a year. This was in 2010, I'm sure it hasn't gotten any better. 1.75 trillion is obscene. Job growth was stagnant after the stock market crash because of the Fed's virtual monopoly on the loan market, creating a terrible atmosphere for business.Truth is, a lot of big business use government and tax rates to crush competition and small businesses.

MainiacBrainiac Says:

Feb 14, 2012 - Hi. This is Sam, he's an average worker in America. He's got to get up a hill called "life". In previous years, the government gave Sam a bike called "discretionary domestic spending" and tried to build some better roads. But then discretionary spending got slashed in half over 30 years and regulations got dismantled by supply side economics, so that the wealthy and their businesses could get tax breaks. Now the bike has no gears and the roads are filled with potholes. Obama 2012.

marley54fd Says:

Feb 28, 2012 - Republicans always fight for small government......when a democrat is in the white house. fuck the GOP. Fuck you, demint.

MrBiggMan Says:

Mar 7, 2012 - Sam's backpack is 2x that size. He forgot our global military industrial complex, and how our troops drive drunk & rape the locals all over the world.. how much we are hated by the entire world now - because we spread war. We are a war nation... the only question is have we become worse than 1940's Germany?

SoquelByTheCreek Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - See all those negative comments? Yep, they're from one person, "whoo689".

SoquelByTheCreek Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - I think you're missing the bigger point. Tax and regulator burdens DO have an impact.Need an example? According to IRS data, high-tax states CA and NY alone had $72B of income-producing taxpayers migrate to other states. Which states had the biggest increase in revenue-producing people? FL, AZ, and TX. FL and TX have no income tax. AZ and 5th-ranked NV border CA.

che1p2911 Says:

May 24, 2012 - Sam's problem is that he isn't a large corporation that buys politicians and gets corporate welfare.