Fox News: "Obama's right, Americans can't succeed without government."

[Ryan]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...t-succeed-without-government/?intcmp=obinsite

But there were things that helped my grandfather’s business that he didn’t have to pay for. The roads trucks drove on to bring him products to sell. The court system that incorporated his business and protected the patents of what he sold. The police force that made it safe for people to shop there. The public schools that taught his employees how to read and do math, so my grandfather didn’t have to teach them.

Make no mistake about it — my grandfather succeeded because of his hard work and initiative. But government played a supporting role.

Wow. Somebody at Fox News understands context, isn't offended, and is not willing to jump on the "I'll pretend like I'm stupid and didn't hear the whole speech because it's an easy job at the president" bandwagon.

 

[her209]

Socialism!!!

 

[techs]

Meh. Its buried on the online opinion page.
Unlike the 24 hour bashing that goes on tv.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. Its buried on the online opinion page.
Unlike the 24 hour bashing that goes on tv.

Fair & Balanced, right?

 

[thraashman]

Meh. Its buried on the online opinion page.
Unlike the 24 hour bashing that goes on tv.

Yeah, but it's a start. And in truth he'll probably be fired for saying something reasonible.

 

[glenn1]

Fox News: "Obama's right, Americans can't succeed without government."

I'll concede that "Americans can't succeed without government" if you concede that Americans could still succeed if government was vastly smaller than it is now. Indeed, I'd argue that Americans would be even more successful if government was a quarter or less of its current size.

 

[MovingTarget]

I'll concede that "Americans can't succeed without government" if you concede that Americans could still succeed if government was vastly smaller than it is now. Indeed, I'd argue that Americans would be even more successful if government was a quarter or less of its current size.

I don't think anyone can honestly concede that point without knowing how those reductions would take place. "Smaller government" sounds nice to just about anyone, even the most liberal amongst us, but a drastic move towards smaller government can be disastrous depending on how it is accomplished. The big government/small government dichotomy has nothing to do with whether or not government is effective.

 

[MovingTarget]

Meh. Its buried on the online opinion page.
Unlike the 24 hour bashing that goes on tv.

This. While I'm glad that FOX does have some well-reasoned people working for it, they need to clean up their act on-air before I can take them seriously. They really used to seem "fair and balanced" when they started off.

 

[Steeplerot]

I'll concede that "Americans can't succeed without government" if you concede that Americans could still succeed if government was vastly smaller than it is now. Indeed, I'd argue that Americans would be even more successful if government was a quarter or less of its current size.

Nonsense, a well run government by the people is the foundation of a society.

Regardless of what the corporate PR spinmasters of the right endlessly repeat it is a voodoo fantasy to think that a arbitrary size fits the job in all cases.

This is nonsense, and makes no sense logically. Unless of course you think for a minute about where that message is coming from and whose interest it serves.

Critical thinking, something right wing ideologues totally fail at, thus you have become manipulated into free Public Relations tools for the corporations even against your own best interest.

Good job! You all have lost it so much you righties sound like those douchebags who sit around and talk about how great the iphone is because it's "your brand right or wrong". A mindless consumer drone of politics distracted by flashy hollow words like "liberty" and "freedom" that are about as meaningful out of your mouths as "fresh frozen" in a supermarket aisle.

 

[glenn1]

Nonsense, a well run government by the people is the foundation of a society.

Regardless of what the corporate PR spinmasters of the right endlessly repeat it is a voodoo fantasy to think that a arbitrary size fits the job in all cases.

This is nonsense, and makes no sense logically. Unless of course you think for a minute about where that message is coming from and whose interest it serves.

Crit

Being well-run has little to do with scope. If we scaled back the Defense Department 75% it should have essentially no impact on the Treasury Department being run efficiently. If you eliminated Medicaid immediately it would no impact on the Transportation Department building infrastructure. You simply want to conflate government functions you desire (like social welfare programs) with core government functions and say without the first you couldn't do the later, which is patently untrue.

 

[techs]

Yeah, but it's a start. And in truth he'll probably be fired for saying something reasonible.

Nah, Fox always has had these kind of opinion pieces hidden away on their website. When the heat comes down they point to them and say, see, we are Fair and Balanced. Just part of the propaganda.

 

[Steeplerot]

Being well-run has little to do with scope. If we scaled back the Defense Department 75% it should have essentially no impact on the Treasury Department being run efficiently. If you eliminated Medicaid immediately it would no impact on the Transportation Department building infrastructure. You simply want to conflate government functions you desire (like social welfare programs) with core government functions and say without the first you couldn't do the later, which is patently untrue.

Every modern society is a welfare state, that is reality, nor are social programs optional in the real world. You righties have not come up with a answer besides utopian free market drivel propaganda from the corporations and massive debt/economic instability.

This is why no one takes your rhetoric seriously, all talk -0% results. For 30 years now mind you of ramming through neoliberal policies.

Why should anyone care what the right says? It has no credibility. Just flashy talking points cooked up by private industry corporate monopolies and think tanks.

A total joke. And a drag on the American intelligence level.

 

[glenn1]

Every modern society is a welfare state, that is reality, nor are social programs optional in the real world. You righties have not come up with a answer besides utopian free market drivel propaganda from the corporations and massive debt/economic instability.

This is why no one takes your rhetoric seriously, all talk -0% results. For 30 years now mind you of ramming through neoliberal policies.

Why should anyone care what the right says? It has no credibility.

If that's what you believe then why don't you and Obama state your true intentions more truthfully - "Americans can't succeed without a welfare state."

 

[Matt1970]

This is why no one takes your rhetoric seriously, all talk -0% results. For 30 years now mind you of ramming through neoliberal policies.

You are the laughing stock of the forum and you don't even realize it. Just go away Commie.

 

[Steeplerot]

If that's what you believe then why don't you and Obama state your true intentions more truthfully - "Americans can't succeed without a welfare state."

You have a lot to learn about how the world works in real life. Or for that matter basic structures of governments worldwide.

ALL democratic governments are welfare states. If it is not one then it is a power vacuum run by warlords or a corporate slave state.

Those are your options, there is no free market utopia, just as there is no workers utopia for commies.

Common sense tells you they cannot exist in the current state of humanities societal evolution, we are still animals out for ourselves mainly. (well some of us try to rise above our base animal nature)

 

[MovingTarget]

Being well-run has little to do with scope. If we scaled back the Defense Department 75% it should have essentially no impact on the Treasury Department being run efficiently. If you eliminated Medicaid immediately it would no impact on the Transportation Department building infrastructure. You simply want to conflate government functions you desire (like social welfare programs) with core government functions and say without the first you couldn't do the later, which is patently untrue.

I'm tempted to agree with you, but not everyone agrees that social welfare programs are excluded from core government functions in modern society. I'd say that a government that excludes all social welfare programs whatsoever is a recipe for a third world nation. It works both ways. Even "small government" can still have some semblance of social welfare.

 

[MovingTarget]

You are the laughing stock of the forum and you don't even realize it. Just go away Commie.

You are the laughing stock of the forum and you don't even realize it. Put down the Ayn Rand crackpipe, fascist.

:thumbsdown:

See how that works? Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Why don't you try actually contributing to this thread instead of insulting others, okay?

 

[Steeplerot]

You are the laughing stock of the forum .

Shouldn't you be burning witches at the stake comrade? Next time you go on one of your self-righteous moral crusades make sure to march off a cliff.

 

[Matt1970]

Shouldn't you be burning witches at the stake comrade? Next time you go on one of your self-righteous moral crusades make sure to march off a cliff.

Back to the end of the bread line for you. And I shall take 1/4 of your government cheese. You want to talk about failed policies, sure capitalism will have ups and downs, but I will take it's low points over bread lines any day. Russia was too big to fail huh?

 

[Steeplerot]

Back to the end of the bread line for you. And I shall take 1/4 of your government cheese. You want to talk about failed policies, sure capitalism will have ups and downs, but I will take it's low points over bread lines any day. Russia was too big to fail huh?

Not that I am defending the crappy 20th century state capitalist USSR but uh...how is the USA doing nowadays under neoliberal policies?

Oh, about to fail miserably thanks to unchecked greed as the top have siphoned off the wealth of the people. What is your point?

If you knew a bit about history you would realize that the USSR and the USA's fates were always linked. What happens now is inevitable.

The USA has no moral imperative to be the shining beacon on the hill, the capitalist vultures will now pick the bones clean.

Life itself is a balance. It is a shame Mother Russia could not have become a real Democracy in 1991 like the Russian people actually fought for in 1918 before the barbarian Bolshevik betrayal of the revolution. Anyhow, I digress into agonizingly small details of ancient Russian history, how stereotypical left wing of me.

 

[glenn1]

I'm tempted to agree with you, but not everyone agrees that social welfare programs are excluded from core government functions in modern society. I'd say that a government that excludes all social welfare programs whatsoever is a recipe for a third world nation. It works both ways. Even "small government" can still have some semblance of social welfare.

Again, there is a middle ground between no social welfare programs whatsoever and the lavish ones progressives prefer. Indeed, most eastern Asian nations spend far less on social welfare programs than does the U.S. and most European nations and several with the lowest spending (Singapore, Hong Kong) are doing far better than us economically.

 

[MovingTarget]

Again, there is a middle ground between no social welfare programs whatsoever and the lavish ones progressives prefer. Indeed, most eastern Asian nations spend far less on social welfare programs than does the U.S. and most European nations and several with the lowest spending (Singapore, Hong Kong) are doing far better than us economically.

Fair point, but most east asian countries are not first-world nations. City-states like singapore probably should not be included in the comparison either. Keep in mind that the true goal is quality of life. Economic growth is a major part of that, but it doesn't paint a complete picture. A middle ground does exist, but the only lens which we can use to find it is pragmatism. The whole big government/small government dichotomy or the idealogical "purpose of government" debate does not lend itself to such a pragmatic discussion.

 

[Steeplerot]

Again, there is a middle ground between no social welfare programs whatsoever and the lavish ones progressives prefer.

Yes, it's called a modern social democratic state. (which all advanced societies are) Your strawman about the "scope" that liberals want is pure rhetoric from the cold war bed wetters.

Matter of fact it is not even remotely based in reality besides being insulting to half the country who see you naive jokers for what you are.

Liberals always stood up for this country against totalitarian communism. From even early on.

You are grasping at straws to justify your extremism all the while smearing half the population of the USA. Typical fair weather alliances from the right.

It's not very American to put your utopian idealism ahead of ones own countrymen -or reality.

This is how you divide and conquer a population into submission and exploitation.

Why is it that such simple political realities of our country and the rest of the world are lost on the modern right wing mindset? Like a bunch of tabloid fed brand loyal bubbleboys. You all need to pull your head from the corporate lackeys ass. And soon.

 

[Anarchist420]

Some American businesses were aided by the state, while some were hurt by the state. Most who govern are anti-market (but their actions can be pro-business or anti-business or a little bit of both) while a few are pro-market (they're neither pro-business nor anti-business) and Rombama falls into the former category.

 

[lotus503]

I don't think anyone can honestly concede that point without knowing how those reductions would take place. "Smaller government" sounds nice to just about anyone, even the most liberal amongst us, but a drastic move towards smaller government can be disastrous depending on how it is accomplished. The big government/small government dichotomy has nothing to do with whether or not government is effective.

Bingo, big or small dysfunctional is dysfunctional. Making government smaller is no good unless you actually fix what's wrong.

Hint: money in politics