A comment earlier said that less government was the reason our country became great. Really? Just when do you think our country became great? By international standards using economic analysis as well as standard of living and military improvements, our country became great after the start of World War 2. Which was after the enactment of Social Security and long after Sherman Anti-trust. After the SEC and FDA. Unions were well established. WPA,CCC, etc etc. The founding fathers who wanted a small, weak central government were protecting their property rights, to wit slavery. Is that the lack of government you espouse? The founding fathers were dead set against a standing army, remember? "You can build an army but must maintain a navy". The founding fathers were dead set against involvement in foreign wars. So I imaging you are protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Public health programs(all government run) eradicated such diseases as polio, typhoid, small pox, cholera etc etc. I gues you are in favor of people dying from those epidemics since government involvement is so evil. Ever see a polio victim? Socialism, to a certain degree is what has civilized us as a species. We are all better off for it.

I'm still working on the links.  You're correct that the left and right have muddied them up.  I did find a link in a NY Times article that tracks the bailout:  http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/200904_CREDITCRISIS/recipients.html

If you take the time to add up what happened under both administrations it's pretty much even.  However, if my memory serves correctly in Dec of 2008 Bush contacted Obama and asked if he thougth they were going to be spending more of the TARP funds than had already been earmarked.  Obama said yes and in fact wrote a letter to Congress or the Sentate I don't remember which one stating the same.  Bush made the request official.  So, officially it appears that they have spent an equal amount.  In reality that's not the case.  There were several articles I found that referenced that exchange and the dollar amount, but they were from places like Fox News, so I didn't figure they would be sufficient. 

I spent some time one day looking for an official tally on the Treasury.gov website, but that's more painful than reading a prospectus. 

So, until I can find the proof to back up my accusations, I'm willing to concede that it is my opinion, based on what I have heard from various sources that may or may not be fair and balanced. 

As to the Rand Paul comment, I don't believe that his comment was an implication that he was a racist.  I think it was his opinion on the reach of the federal government into private business.  He's a Libertarian.  By their very nature they want big government out of the private sector altogether. You have, as the rest of the left leaning folks out there, made the jump that he is a racist.  It's the same type of jump that navet made that assumes that because someone is active in the Tea Party movement that they both religious and racists.  He might actually be a racist.  I don't know enough about him to say one way or the other. 

Fair enough on the links.

Rand Paul called for the repeal of the civil rights act. He later recanted. Many people call Libertarians morons. That Paul is confused on his Libertarian history puts an exclamation point on that perception.

As for less government, how'd the Great Depression work out for the United States? That's a prime example of less government. No regulation, and a hands off approach for years. And, i realize the Libertarians blame the Fed for the the Depression. While true that the fed made wrong moves after the bottom fell out, the Fed wasn't the reason the bottom fell out. It was a toothless agency.

Libertarians/tea partiers are also against big banks. Yet, it was the roll back of regulation that allowed banks to become so big. In 1998 Glass-Steagall was rolled back. Banks were once again allowed to bet it all on the Pass LIne. And they did! It took only ten years of pre-depression regs for the banks to blow up the economy for the second time in 80 years. Go figure!

Libertarians and Tea partiers should be carefull what they wish for-they may get it!

[quote=navet]

A comment earlier said that less government was the reason our country became great. Really? Just when do you think our country became great? By international standards using economic analysis as well as standard of living and military improvements, our country became great after the start of World War 2. Which was after the enactment of Social Security and long after Sherman Anti-trust. After the SEC and FDA. Unions were well established. WPA,CCC, etc etc. The founding fathers who wanted a small, weak central government were protecting their property rights, to wit slavery. Is that the lack of government you espouse? The founding fathers were dead set against a standing army, remember? "You can build an army but must maintain a navy". The founding fathers were dead set against involvement in foreign wars. So I imaging you are protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Public health programs(all government run) eradicated such diseases as polio, typhoid, small pox, cholera etc etc. I gues you are in favor of people dying from those epidemics since government involvement is so evil. Ever see a polio victim? Socialism, to a certain degree is what has civilized us as a species. We are all better off for it.

[/quote]

Good job.  Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. 

I guess you're going to dismiss the 200 years between the signing of the Declaration of Independance and the Consititution and the end of WW2 as inconsequential.  Never mind the westward expansion of the late 19th century.  The Industrial Revolution.  Those things weren't important.  I guess all of those immigrants wanted to come here because it was the second or third best country in the world.   The French gave us that big statue in NY because we were just a mediocre country.  The land of opportunity was just a figment of the world's imagination.

Social Security and the Sherman Anti-trust act are the progressive claims to fame that we should all be applauding?  How well is that Social Security program going to work out for us?  My statment says bankrupt in 2037 or somewhere close to that.  Too bad for me.  Congrats on the Sherman Anti-trust act.  You guys took down the railroads and Major League Baseball.  

Polio -  FDR created the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis after he contracted polio as a child and then became President.   The NFIP later became known as the March of Dimes. It was not a governmental agency that took down polio in the US.  It's not even a governmental body that is trying to eradicate polio worldwide now.  It's Rotary.    

The other diseases have similar stories.  Typhoid was controlled because municipalities started filtering their public water supplies.  So, maybe I'll give you that one.  But that was more municpal than federal. 

It takes some big one to even propose that Socialism is what civilized us as a species.  Even for someone with your ability to make a leap, that's a pretty big one.     

The comments was that lack of government made our country great. I assumed that by great the writer meant great in relation to other countries. It wasn't until the twentieth century that The US became great. Immigrants came to this country for work and cheap land. Because of lack of government control, the US was victimized by frequent panics that devastated much of the polulation. Lack of government control allowed slavery and horrible working conditions that were a curse to the average american. Wealthy stock manipulators took advantage of lack of government control. Polio was cured by the Salk vaccine, not the march of dimes. The discovery and creation of said vaccine was the result of government subsidy and FDA regulation. The reason big government has evolved is that businesses and corporations cannot be trusted. Socialism has benefited all of us. Lack of adequate regulation, aka the recent market meltdown, is a testiment to this obvious fact of life. The fact is that the lack of regulation( in the belief in the efficient market theory) led to our current economic meltdown. Deregulation is a conservative mantra. Teabaggers are anti regulation. That makes teabaggers dangerous.

Businesses and corporations will always act in their best interests.  People will always act in their best interests.  A regulated market does not make these basic facts go away.  If people will not buy a product that a business produces, that business will fail.

As a financial advisor, if you charge 4% on assets under management, when your competitor is charging 1%, who is going to receive the most clients?

Regulation creates complexities that are not needed in a market.

I will grant you that certain regulations are needed for the good of ALL.  But they should be crafted with the good of ALL in mind.

Did the Soviet Union collapse because of lack of regulation?  Or because it's socialist policies destroyed the country from within?  People starved to death under Soviet rule.  

When did China start it's rise to prominence?  When it loosened certain government regulations.

What about Cuba?  Why is half of the Cuban population in Miami?  

Why is Social Security failing?  I wrote a journal article published in the Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning on Social Security.  Interestingly enough, the SSA is one of the most efficient government agencies.  Perhaps THE most efficient organization in our government.  Yet this efficient organization is failing.  What does that tell you?

Let's talk about a standing military.  I believe that the founding fathers were fallible.  A standing army is necessary for the protection of the Republic.  The military however, is designed to protect our country from foreign threats.  You mentioned foreign wars.  The age of communication has necessitated a military that can protect our nations interests abroad.  

There is no such thing as the efficient market theory.  It is a hypothesis.  EMH is hokum, but applies to traded assets.  Lack or regulation and EMH do not go hand in hand.  Are you saying you want the government to set the prices on traded assets?  You would be out of a job, for sure.

In Germany, that's how it is.  You want to buy a car?  Ok, here we go.  I go to the dealership in Frankfurt.  I want to buy a BMW.  'Zat will be 30,000 Euros".  Don't like that price, go to Berlin.  "Zat will be 30,000 Euros".

Slavery was in place in governments where there was a strong central government, so that idea is BS.  The best AIDS medicines were developed by private companies.  When people were afraid of swine flu, where did the government turn?  Private industry.  Why?

Simple economics.  Talented individuals get paid what their market value is.  If you are a brilliant researcher, you don't work for the government.  

Advances in cancer, surgical techniques - private industry.  

GPS technology is attributed to the military - however it was a Raytheon researcher who came up with the idea and who created the technology behind it.

Who invented the internet?  Tim Berners-Lee, an MIT professor.  How was the project funded?  The endowment at MIT.

Hmmmm, what else?  I did microbiology research before this business.  Way back when.  At NIH.  NIH is where post-docs go to die.  Why?  These are the scientists who can't get a fellowship because they aren't smart enough.

Government has it's place.  It's place is in support of the people.  All people.

Regulation should be common sense, not overbearing.  Government regulates to increase it's own power.  

So you are for a strong central government.  Does that mean you approve of FISA warrants?  

Regulation is needed because the strong will feed on the weak. 2007-2008  is a great example of this in action. The mortgage meltdown involved predatory behavior at EVERY level. Predatory borrowers feeding on local banks., Predatory realtors and loan brokers feeding on borrowers. Predatory banks feeding on Fannie and Freddie.  Wall Street banks feeding on local banks, the Feds, and insurance companies. At every level people knew these loans were shit, but still, they sought to get over on the system to benefit themselves. It was a free for all caused by lack of regulation and lax oversight of what regulation was there. Why did this happen? Simple answer; because it could. Want to know what less government looks like? Were living it right now.

Lack of regulation would work without predatory behavior. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, that ain't happenin.'

And, if that's not enough, there's a pretty good example of less government happening in the Gulf of Mexico right now as well. We can't unring the bell in that situation so we'll never know if regulators doing their jobs as they should have would have made a difference. We do know, it couldn't have hurt.

I'm not for more government or even big government, but i am anti no government or bare bones government. Personally, when i get on one of Southwest's 737s i like the idea that they have to answer to someone regarding safety. If the Tea Partiers want to fly on Ariana Afghan Airlines or Air-koryo well, be my guest!

Qantas has the least amount of crashes for a major airline.  Austrailia (other than gun control) has some of the least strict regulations, and are some of the least politically correct people.

The FAA has failed on so many levels it's not even funny.

I'd fly Emirates Air in a heartbeat if I didn't think I'd get beat up.

The comment about the strong preying on the weak is a little strange.  You said the predatory borrowers were feeding on the banks.  Those predatory borrowers were the weak? 

If the regulations pre- Clinton had been left in place (and don't get me wrong, I like Bill Clinton, but the loosening of restrictions to allow bad lending was dumb), there would have been no predatory lending.  Easy money wouldn't have been that easy.  Home prices wouldn't have inflated so much.  Soccer moms would still be soccer moms instead of realtors.

The National Association of Realtors would still know they are a joke.

And none of this would have happened.  Because the government tried to flex it's muscle and attempt to force rules on banks, this is what we get.  Why?  Because the banks start using ridiculous leverage. 

Someone made a comment about houses that have lost 30% of their value even though they put 20% down.  Yes, that 20% is gone.  But if you got a mortgage that would allow you to keep paying, you would be ok.  Why do people have $2000 mortgages, when they only make $3000 a month?  That's ridiculous.  Irresponsible.  Dumb.  Idiotic.

Why would you get an adjustable rate, when interest rates have a history of changing?  Balloon payments?  Oh, that's right, you're going to win the lottery in five years, so who cares?  Or the home price is going to appreciate so much you'll be able to refinance? 

Did the banks make stupid bets?

for some reason people like navet and bondguy thinks the world is all fluffy teddy bears and cotton candy. people are by nature manipulative and competitive. there is not enough regulations in the world to supress this fact. let them place the blame where ever they choose. fact is we are all to blame. the poor blame the rich. the rich blame the government. the government blame terrorists. terrorists blame our way of life.

the world will be a better place if people become responsible for their own actions and the reactions afterwards. no mater how much you point the finger at someone else it all starts with you.

we could go on and on but it is now obviously wasting breath.

[quote=Magician]

Qantas has the least amount of crashes for a major airline.  Austrailia (other than gun control) has some of the least strict regulations, and are some of the least politically correct people.

The FAA has failed on so many levels it's not even funny.

I'd fly Emirates Air in a heartbeat if I didn't think I'd get beat up.

The comment about the strong preying on the weak is a little strange.  You said the predatory borrowers were feeding on the banks.  Those predatory borrowers were the weak? 

If the regulations pre- Clinton had been left in place (and don't get me wrong, I like Bill Clinton, but the loosening of restrictions to allow bad lending was dumb), there would have been no predatory lending.  Easy money wouldn't have been that easy.  Home prices wouldn't have inflated so much.  Soccer moms would still be soccer moms instead of realtors.

The National Association of Realtors would still know they are a joke.

And none of this would have happened.  Because the government tried to flex it's muscle and attempt to force rules on banks, this is what we get.  Why?  Because the banks start using ridiculous leverage. 

Someone made a comment about houses that have lost 30% of their value even though they put 20% down.  Yes, that 20% is gone.  But if you got a mortgage that would allow you to keep paying, you would be ok.  Why do people have $2000 mortgages, when they only make $3000 a month?  That's ridiculous.  Irresponsible.  Dumb.  Idiotic.

Why would you get an adjustable rate, when interest rates have a history of changing?  Balloon payments?  Oh, that's right, you're going to win the lottery in five years, so who cares?  Or the home price is going to appreciate so much you'll be able to refinance? 

Did the banks make stupid bets?

[/quote]

Im not defending the FAA. however, as former Air taxi and commercal cargo operator i can tell you, they have big teeth.

Nothing against the writers of Rainman but Qantas has had fatal accidents. Still, a good airline with an impressive safety record. Butttttttt, not the point and you know it. The predatory behavior I mentioned extends to all facets of business. From predatory lending, to sales scams and ponzi schemes, sweat shops, to airlines shipping old oxygen generators as cargo on their airliners.

The banks made bets because they could. Noone was minding the store. Banks would sell the mortgages before they blew up. Many bankers probably couldn't believe their were buyers for this junk, thus feeding on those buyers.

Where borrowers fed on banks, it was the banks that were weak. They wanted in on the boom. They lowered their standards or were careless in due diligence. Still, it is and was this predatory behavior that brings in the need for regulation.

The real debate is over bailouts. The tea partiers don't want bailouts and want to punish anyone who had a hand in them. Yet,  few of them are really aware of the consequences had we not bailed out the banks. I say this based on my own clients and friends who are anti bailout. These are, for the most part, smart and well educated people. Many are professionals or business owners. Yet they fume at the bailouts. When i tell them of the credit lockup, the freeze and the fallout of not doing the bailouts I get a deer in the headlights look. I know they are doubting my word or not understanding it. What i'm saying is news to them. But as we know, the real deal, no bailouts and life as we know it ceases to exist.  But, again, most of the TPs and Libertarians stomping for no bailouts do not get this economic fact. They are average uniformed citizens. Just like my clients and friends. And this leads to the ultimate predatory behavior; their leadership who do get it, feeding on them. Pandering to their stupidity or naivety. Rah rah no bailouts!!!!! Throw those bastards out of office and take our government back!!!! Sound familiar?

The intellectual dishonesty of the Libertarian/Tea party movement moves beyond the bailouts. In the Rand Paul dustup Libertarian bat boy, John Stossel, of all people , spoke up. He defended Rand's anti civil rights comments saying, and i'm paraphrasing here, " that business men should have the right to pick and chose who they serve. if they don't want to serve men with mustaches or blond woman, it should be their right to do so without government interference." Ok, here's the problem with that statement; It's not about serving men with mustaches or blond woman. It's about serving black people. And again, we all know that.  The dishonesty in play here emboldens the cause while masking it's true intent.

[quote=navet]

The comments was that lack of government made our country great. I assumed that by great the writer meant great in relation to other countries. It wasn't until the twentieth century that The US became great. Immigrants came to this country for work and cheap land. Because of lack of government control, the US was victimized by frequent panics that devastated much of the polulation. Lack of government control allowed slavery and horrible working conditions that were a curse to the average american. Wealthy stock manipulators took advantage of lack of government control. Polio was cured by the Salk vaccine, not the march of dimes. The discovery and creation of said vaccine was the result of government subsidy and FDA regulation. The reason big government has evolved is that businesses and corporations cannot be trusted. Socialism has benefited all of us. Lack of adequate regulation, aka the recent market meltdown, is a testiment to this obvious fact of life. The fact is that the lack of regulation( in the belief in the efficient market theory) led to our current economic meltdown. Deregulation is a conservative mantra. Teabaggers are anti regulation. That makes teabaggers dangerous.

[/quote]

You really are completely discounting our entire history until the 20th century, aren't you?  Seriously?  We weren't a great nation until the 20th Century?  You failed your American history classes in high school and college didn't you? 

Was it the government or was it the Unions that changed the working conditions in this country? 

What were these frequent panics that devastated much of the population?  I'm curious what you're referring to. 

As to polio - wrong again.  You are correct that it was Jonas Salk and his work on the vaccine that would eventually rid this country of polio.  But, the funding for his work, and the resulting campaign to vaccinate children, was primarily funded by FDR's non-profit organization that would become known as the March of Dimes. 

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=Magician]

Qantas has the least amount of crashes for a major airline.  Austrailia (other than gun control) has some of the least strict regulations, and are some of the least politically correct people.

The FAA has failed on so many levels it's not even funny.

I'd fly Emirates Air in a heartbeat if I didn't think I'd get beat up.

The comment about the strong preying on the weak is a little strange.  You said the predatory borrowers were feeding on the banks.  Those predatory borrowers were the weak? 

If the regulations pre- Clinton had been left in place (and don't get me wrong, I like Bill Clinton, but the loosening of restrictions to allow bad lending was dumb), there would have been no predatory lending.  Easy money wouldn't have been that easy.  Home prices wouldn't have inflated so much.  Soccer moms would still be soccer moms instead of realtors.

The National Association of Realtors would still know they are a joke.

And none of this would have happened.  Because the government tried to flex it's muscle and attempt to force rules on banks, this is what we get.  Why?  Because the banks start using ridiculous leverage. 

Someone made a comment about houses that have lost 30% of their value even though they put 20% down.  Yes, that 20% is gone.  But if you got a mortgage that would allow you to keep paying, you would be ok.  Why do people have $2000 mortgages, when they only make $3000 a month?  That's ridiculous.  Irresponsible.  Dumb.  Idiotic.

Why would you get an adjustable rate, when interest rates have a history of changing?  Balloon payments?  Oh, that's right, you're going to win the lottery in five years, so who cares?  Or the home price is going to appreciate so much you'll be able to refinance? 

Did the banks make stupid bets?

[/quote]

Im not defending the FAA. however, as former Air taxi and commercal cargo operator i can tell you, they have big teeth.

Nothing against the writers of Rainman but Qantas has had fatal accidents. Still, a good airline with an impressive safety record. Butttttttt, not the point and you know it. The predatory behavior I mentioned extends to all facets of business. From predatory lending, to sales scams and ponzi schemes, sweat shops, to airlines shipping old oxygen generators as cargo on their airliners.

The banks made bets because they could. Noone was minding the store. Banks would sell the mortgages before they blew up. Many bankers probably couldn't believe their were buyers for this junk, thus feeding on those buyers.

Where borrowers fed on banks, it was the banks that were weak. They wanted in on the boom. They lowered their standards or were careless in due diligence. Still, it is and was this predatory behavior that brings in the need for regulation.

The real debate is over bailouts. The tea partiers don't want bailouts and want to punish anyone who had a hand in them. Yet,  few of them are really aware of the consequences had we not bailed out the banks. I say this based on my own clients and friends who are anti bailout. These are, for the most part, smart and well educated people. Many are professionals or business owners. Yet they fume at the bailouts. When i tell them of the credit lockup, the freeze and the fallout of not doing the bailouts I get a deer in the headlights look. I know they are doubting my word or not understanding it. What i'm saying is news to them. But as we know, the real deal, no bailouts and life as we know it ceases to exist.  But, again, most of the TPs and Libertarians stomping for no bailouts do not get this economic fact. They are average uniformed citizens. Just like my clients and friends. And this leads to the ultimate predatory behavior; their leadership who do get it, feeding on them. Pandering to their stupidity or naivety. Rah rah no bailouts!!!!! Throw those bastards out of office and take our government back!!!! Sound familiar?

The intellectual dishonesty of the Libertarian/Tea party movement moves beyond the bailouts. In the Rand Paul dustup Libertarian bat boy, John Stossel, of all people , spoke up. He defended Rand's anti civil rights comments saying, and i'm paraphrasing here, " that business men should have the right to pick and chose who they serve. if they don't want to serve men with mustaches or blond woman, it should be their right to do so without government interference." Ok, here's the problem with that statement; It's not about serving men with mustaches or blond woman. It's about serving black people. And again, we all know that.  The dishonesty in play here emboldens the cause while masking it's true intent.

[/quote]

BondGuy - I know that Qantas has had some major crashes.  But, as you said, impressive safety record, which is what I was referring to.

Personally, I think the bailouts were necessary.  But this is what is interesting.  Bush is criticized for the bailouts, and as you pointed out, he owns TARP.  It's like the people who criticize Obama for things Bush did.  Where were they when Bush was doing them?  It's all political, and no politician really cares about the people.  I fully believe that once a president is into their second term is when they begin to care.  I personally feel that it happened with Bush sooner due to 9/11, but that may be my naivete talking.  Whatever, everybody has their opinions.

I may disagree with your position or opinions, BondGuy, but some of what you say is right on. 

However, I have to agree with Stossel.  If someone is racist and doesn't want to work with black people, then you shouldn't legislate that.  I know a mortgage broker who refuses to work with white people.  He's white.  Is that racist?

I think so.  But it's not my job to tell him what to do.

You should be able to work with whoever you want to.  If I choose to work only with UHNW business owners, the majority of my clients are going to be white.  If I choose to work with basketball players, the majority of my clients are going to be black. 

There will likely always be racism.  Which is fine.  Personally, I hate dealing with morons.  I always tell a story of when I had a couple with four children walk into my office.  They were going to be inheriting some money and wanted to invest some of it.  Was going to be about $100k.  I was new, so of course this was a big account for me.  After doing my fact finding, I found that neither one of them worked and were on disability and welfare.  Between the two of them, they were pulling in about $40k a year.  Their house was paid for, because it was inherited.  They had several cars, a few of them worked.  He was scamming the SSA because he still worked as a self-employed brush hauler at $15 an hour, but yet he was physically disabled.  Of course, none of that income was claimed.

They wanted to invest exactly $1000 of that $100,000.  I was so furious I told them to get out and never come back (at the time, I think I was more furious that the commission would be so low, but later realized that I was pissed that they were using my tax money like that). 

Most people I tell that story to assume these people were black.  They weren't.

Yet, this ignorance knows no color.  It's everywhere. 

ND - navet and BondGuy have opinions and they should be allowed to express them.... at least until the government starts regulating our opinions.  But I'm sure navet is all for that, because some people have "dangerous opinions".

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

[quote=navet]

The comments was that lack of government made our country great. I assumed that by great the writer meant great in relation to other countries. It wasn't until the twentieth century that The US became great. Immigrants came to this country for work and cheap land. Because of lack of government control, the US was victimized by frequent panics that devastated much of the polulation. Lack of government control allowed slavery and horrible working conditions that were a curse to the average american. Wealthy stock manipulators took advantage of lack of government control. Polio was cured by the Salk vaccine, not the march of dimes. The discovery and creation of said vaccine was the result of government subsidy and FDA regulation. The reason big government has evolved is that businesses and corporations cannot be trusted. Socialism has benefited all of us. Lack of adequate regulation, aka the recent market meltdown, is a testiment to this obvious fact of life. The fact is that the lack of regulation( in the belief in the efficient market theory) led to our current economic meltdown. Deregulation is a conservative mantra. Teabaggers are anti regulation. That makes teabaggers dangerous.

[/quote]

You really are completely discounting our entire history until the 20th century, aren't you?  Seriously?  We weren't a great nation until the 20th Century?  You failed your American history classes in high school and college didn't you? I suggest you read some history. The USA was not an economic or military leader in the world prior to the 20th century. In fact, prior to WW1 we had a tiny standing army that had difficulty fighting Ponch Villa in Mexico. WW2 brought our economic and military greatness to light. And socially we were a racist, sexist country with clear class distinctions. What we had going for us was free land(homesteads) and a workable constitution. I will compare my understanding of history with your kool-ade approach any day.

Was it the government or was it the Unions that changed the working conditions in this country?  Unions were formed because of the violence and abuse by management and owners. Because of the unions large numbers they became a political force. The improved working conditions that were the result benefited all americans. I consider the union movement in the USA to be heroic.

What were these frequent panics that devastated much of the population?  I'm curious what you're referring to. Read some history. You may learn a little about past government bailouts.  

As to polio - wrong again.  You are correct that it was Jonas Salk and his work on the vaccine that would eventually rid this country of polio.  But, the funding for his work, and the resulting campaign to vaccinate children, was primarily funded by FDR's non-profit organization that would become known as the March of Dimes.  Nonsense. Big pharma sold those vaccines at a tidy profit. Salk had the patent on his and made a tidy profit as well, and I believe he gave most of it away. The government subsidized both organizations with bax breaks. Now I'm not putting down the March of Dimes. And they may have paid for some vaccines. But don't think for a minute that government didn't have a large hand in the growth of big pharma. You are out of your league if you intend to argue that point with me.

I would suggest you start reading some non politically biased history. Get out of the conservative book club and at least join the history book club. And turn off that jackass glen bicker.

[/quote]

The only reason government has had any hand in big Pharma is simply because they know that private industry is better equipped to advance science.  Brilliant people don't work for peanuts, and that's what the government pays.  Seriously, you need to take a remedial economics course.

The government may pay for things (out of taxpayer money), but it is not a government organization that discovered these vaccines.  You are arguing something ridiculous.  Just because the money comes from the government (which comes from the people), doesn't mean government should be bigger.  In fact, it's an argument that government should be smaller.  Use the taxpayer funds to fund grants that will allow private industry (the smart people in the room), to improve quality of life for everyone. 

Nowhere in your argument does it state that the government actually created an agency that created a vaccine.

Most of big pharma discoveries came from (or the science originated from) NIH research. And it's been a boondogle for big pharma. Big pharma R&D has been a black hole of cash for at least a decade. You don't know s--t about the industry. The best and the brightest minds in medicine work at teaching hospitals, not big pharma. Most discoveries originate there. And teaching hospitals are either government run, or public or private university run. Salk and Sabin worked for universities or foundations. Your ignorant response proves the value of public support for the sciences.

You're pretty good at answering my questions, but not with enough facts to actually be believable. 

We can agree that the unions cleaned up working conditions in this country.  Heroic is a stretch.  They've outlived their usefulness, BTW. 

It is true that our national military became the reigning world power in the 20th century.  Mostly because people were more concerned with their state militias than the Army or Navy.  Today those roles are reversed with the National Guard being in a support role to the regular Army (or Marines, or Navy, or Air Force).  My opinion is that if you were to take the combined forces of all of our original state militias, we would have been one heck of a military presence. The reason we were became such a force in WWI and WWII is that we were forced to create a large national military presence.  If we were going to fight as one US military force, that couldn't be accomplished on the backs of the state militias.

You don't know when to stop with this polio thing do you?  Jonas Salk became a national hero who endeared himself to the masses BECAUSE he DIDN'T patent his vaccine.  I believe he said that the people owned the patent.  He might have become a wealthy man, but I don't believe it was because of his patent rights on his vaccine.

You have nothing against the March of Dimes, but refuse to acknowledge that it wasn't the government that played the primary role in the eradication of Polio in this country.  It was a US president's non-profit organization that raised money to conduct clinical trials and dispense thousand of doses of free vaccines to school children.  Your desire to prove that government is the only thing that can save us from ourselves is mind boggling.  Now, did big pharma produce the vaccine.  Yep.  Did the government give those not for profit organizations tax breaks?  Most likely if they worked then like they did now.  But claiming the government is the reason our kids don't have to worry about polio is just plain stupid. 

Since this thread was originally about Beck, I'll bring him back up.  You know why I like watching his show?  He brings on experts that can give the balanced view of the history books.  Now, I know his primary job is to make money for Fox and for himself.  But it's comments like the one you made telling me to read non-biased history that make me chuckle.  You, a progressive, telling me, a conservative, to read non-biased history book.  Perhaps you should follow your own advice.  This conversation might be different.    

[quote=N.D.]

for some reason people like navet and bondguy thinks the world is all fluffy teddy bears and cotton candy. people are by nature manipulative and competitive. there is not enough regulations in the world to supress this fact. let them place the blame where ever they choose. fact is we are all to blame. the poor blame the rich. the rich blame the government. the government blame terrorists. terrorists blame our way of life.

the world will be a better place if people become responsible for their own actions and the reactions afterwards. no mater how much you point the finger at someone else it all starts with you.

we could go on and on but it is now obviously wasting breath.

[/quote]

A person certainly should take responsibility for their own actions. And it is up to the government to insure a level playing field. Read some history. You encounter stories that involve Standard Oil and US Steal, where the Sherman Anti-trust Law was needed to keep large corporations in check. I'm sure that you will agree that we need to reintroduce trust legislation to reduce the dangerous power of large multinationals.

[quote=navet]

Most of big pharma discoveries came from (or the science originated from) NIH research. And it's been a boondogle for big pharma. Big pharma R&D has been a black hole of cash for at least a decade. You don't know s--t about the industry. The best and the brightest minds in medicine work at teaching hospitals, not big pharma. Most discoveries originate there. And teaching hospitals are either government run, or public or private university run. Salk and Sabin worked for universities or foundations. Your ignorant response proves the value of public support for the sciences.

[/quote]

This is the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.  I worked for NIH.  As an undergrad, I corrected bad calculations, watched DNA and RNA assays done without any protocols, and even saw electrophoresis gels mixed wrong on a regular basis.  The people who get promoted to Director level positions conducted research that had absolutely no impact on anything.  People leaving acids out overnight.

I saw a guy on his 3rd postdoc let test subjects hemorrhage and still include them in the population.  I have also worked at GSK, where the protocols are stringent, the scientists are top notch researchers with multiple degrees from programs that are also top notch.  

The real research comes out of big pharma.  As someone who has actually spent time in the industry, I think I know a little more than you do.  But if it makes you feel better to think you do, go for it.

[quote=navet]

[quote=N.D.]

for some reason people like navet and bondguy thinks the world is all fluffy teddy bears and cotton candy. people are by nature manipulative and competitive. there is not enough regulations in the world to supress this fact. let them place the blame where ever they choose. fact is we are all to blame. the poor blame the rich. the rich blame the government. the government blame terrorists. terrorists blame our way of life.

the world will be a better place if people become responsible for their own actions and the reactions afterwards. no mater how much you point the finger at someone else it all starts with you.

we could go on and on but it is now obviously wasting breath.

[/quote]

A person certainly should take responsibility for their own actions. And it is up to the government to insure a level playing field. Read some history. You encounter stories that involve Standard Oil and US Steal, where the Sherman Anti-trust Law was needed to keep large corporations in check. I'm sure that you will agree that we need to reintroduce trust legislation to reduce the dangerous power of large multinationals.

[/quote]Says who? The Federal Government has the right to enforce and collect taxes to fund foreign policy, military and interstate commerce. Everything else should be left to the individual states.

The phrase does not state "This is the United States of America" the phrase states "We are the United States of America"

And they said Beck is an idiot.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280363277341150.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEADNewsCollection