"Loogypicker" wrote in message
...
On Oct 28, 10:47 am, "Lu Powell" wrote:
John Stossel, inhttp://www.jewishworldreview.com/1009/stossel102809.php3
makes a convincing argument for government to butt out:

"Much of what government does is based on the premise that people can't do
things for themselves. So government must do it for them. More often than
not, the result is a ham-handed, bumbling, one-size-fits-all approach that
leaves the intended beneficiaries worse off. Of course, this resulting
failure is never blamed on the political approach - on the contrary,
failure
is taken to mean the government solution was not extravagant enough."

The entire column is worth reading.

--
The Tea Party that counts is November 2, 2010

Let's take a look at infrastructure. Let's take one small aspect of
it, our interstate highways. What if they were all built and ran by
private entities? They could charge you whatever they wanted! I
completely understand supply and demand, BUT, as a country we are a
wide flung society that needs those very roads for commerce. Now let's
say that our airline industries safety entities (FAA, etc) were
privately ran. Want to fly into a U.S. airport? Well, we'll charge the
living hell out of you until you either stop coming here, or fail. It
goes on and on.




Uncle! We have become so accustomed to the nanny state in this country that
self-reliance is no longer in our vocabulary. Just the mention of a Nobel
laureate's treatise on reduced regulation brings out the worst in you folks.
A study of Emerson's essay on Self Reliance would do you wonders.

Sorry I mentioned it. I won't make that mistake again.

On Oct 28, 10:47*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:
John Stossel, inhttp://www.jewishworldreview.com/1009/stossel102809.php3
makes a convincing argument for government to butt out:

"Much of what government does is based on the premise that people can't do
things for themselves. So government must do it for them. More often than
not, the result is a ham-handed, bumbling, one-size-fits-all approach that
leaves the intended beneficiaries worse off. Of course, this resulting
failure is never blamed on the political approach - on the contrary, failure
is taken to mean the government solution was not extravagant enough."

The entire column is worth reading.

--
The Tea Party that counts is November 2, 2010

much of what the free market does is based on the premise that the
rich have a right to steal from the middle class and the govt should
just stand by with an open checkbook in case the theft doesn't net as
much money as the rich think they're owed.

On Oct 28, 4:37*pm, "Lu Powell" wrote:



Uncle! We have become so accustomed to the nanny state in this country that
self-reliance is no longer in our vocabulary. Just the mention of a Nobel
laureate's treatise on reduced regulation brings out the worst in you folks.
A study of Emerson's essay on Self Reliance would do you wonders.

that's because reduced regulation is wrong. it doesn't work. it's not
a panacea as the most recent nobel prize winner in economics showed.

On 10/28/09 6:41 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Oct 28, 4:37 pm, "Lu wrote:



Uncle! We have become so accustomed to the nanny state in this country that
self-reliance is no longer in our vocabulary. Just the mention of a Nobel
laureate's treatise on reduced regulation brings out the worst in you folks.
A study of Emerson's essay on Self Reliance would do you wonders.

that's because reduced regulation is wrong. it doesn't work. it's not
a panacea as the most recent nobel prize winner in economics showed.



Lu-ser wants us to think he's read Emerson.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:03:27 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:47:10 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

John Stossel, in http://www.jewishworldreview.com/100...sel102809.php3
makes a convincing argument for government to butt out:

"Much of what government does is based on the premise that people can't do
things for themselves

You need to spend some on history if you believe this bull****. The
federal government has a central role in making our lives safe through
regulation.

All you silly asses like to paint it as nanny state, when it's really
infrastructure to help make our society work.

Stossel is a self-important putz.

Don't know if you've seen this, but here is the world Stossel
advocates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9Ca7LSyQ

And then he mewls like a kitty about it and sues, instead of just
taking his medicine from a stronger man, as libertarianism would
demand.
Who needs lawsuits, courts, etc.
He's an idiot. Worse, a pussy.

--Vic

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:03:27 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:47:10 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

John Stossel, in http://www.jewishworldreview.com/100...sel102809.php3
makes a convincing argument for government to butt out:

"Much of what government does is based on the premise that people can't do
things for themselves

You need to spend some on history if you believe this bull****. The
federal government has a central role in making our lives safe through
regulation.

All you silly asses like to paint it as nanny state, when it's really
infrastructure to help make our society work.

Stossel is a self-important putz.

Don't know if you've seen this, but here is the world Stossel
advocates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9Ca7LSyQ

And then he mewls like a kitty about it and sues, instead of just
taking his medicine from a stronger man, as libertarianism would
demand.
Who needs lawsuits, courts, etc.
He's an idiot. Worse, a pussy.

--Vic

Yeah, the company invites reporters in for publicity and then doesn't
protect them. Hope he got a bunch of money from the spandex fairy...

On Oct 28, 7:00*pm, H the K wrote:
On 10/28/09 6:41 PM, wf3h wrote:

On Oct 28, 4:37 pm, "Lu *wrote:

Uncle! We have become so accustomed to the nanny state in this country that
self-reliance is no longer in our vocabulary. Just the mention of a Nobel
laureate's treatise on reduced regulation brings out the worst in you folks.
A study of Emerson's essay on Self Reliance would do you wonders.

that's because reduced regulation is wrong. it doesn't work. it's not
a panacea as the most recent nobel prize winner in economics showed.

Lu-ser wants us to think he's read Emerson.

more like alfred e. newman....

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:34:31 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Oct 28, 7:00Â*pm, H the K wrote:
On 10/28/09 6:41 PM, wf3h wrote:

On Oct 28, 4:37 pm, "Lu Â*wrote:

Uncle! We have become so accustomed to the nanny state in this country that
self-reliance is no longer in our vocabulary. Just the mention of a Nobel
laureate's treatise on reduced regulation brings out the worst in you folks.
A study of Emerson's essay on Self Reliance would do you wonders.

that's because reduced regulation is wrong. it doesn't work. it's not
a panacea as the most recent nobel prize winner in economics showed.

Lu-ser wants us to think he's read Emerson.

more like alfred e. newman....

I read both, but I can still quote an Emerson line.

"Books are the best of things if well used; if abused, among the
worst. They are good for nothing but to inspire. I had better never
see a book than be warped by its attraction clean out of my own orbit,
and made a satellite instead of a system."

Actually, I cheated. Just remembered the gist.
But wait, I think I recall an Alfred E. Newman quote.
Didn't he eloquently say "Who, me?"

--Vic

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:44:34 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

But wait, I think I recall an Alfred E. Newman quote.
Didn't he eloquently say "Who, me?"

No, but Alfred E Neuman's motto was ' What, me worry?

Casady

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:21:19 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:44:34 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

But wait, I think I recall an Alfred E. Newman quote.
Didn't he eloquently say "Who, me?"

No, but Alfred E Neuman's motto was ' What, me worry?

Casady


Right. I stand corrected.
Maybe I was thinking about Sad Sack.
Or maybe it's what I said when ordered to join a work party.

--Vic