Rand Paul Proves His Ignorance, says “Liberals Have No Idea of How Capitalism Works”

rand-paul-1In all the hoopla over just how ridiculous Texas Senator Ted Cruz has been lately, along with his seemingly endless onslaught of asinine statements these last few months, I had almost forgotten about Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.  For all the attention Ted Cruz has received, we really shouldn’t forget that Rand Paul was one of his cheerleaders during the whole shutdown fiasco.

Well, Paul did an interview with Sean Hannity where he decided to continue his attack on “Obamacare” (shocking, I know) and claimed that if “Obamacare” is so good “why do they have to advertise to get you to do it?”

Funny, I’ve often asked the question, “If “Obamacare” is so terrible, why do Republicans keep lying about it?”

He also went on to say that, “Liberals have no idea of how capitalism works.”

Actually, here’s his full comment on liberals and capitalism:

“Liberals have no idea of how capitalism works.  They have no idea why, when you go to Wal-Mart, products are cheap, how they get from one point to the other, and how they’re distributed in such a cheap fashion.”

I wanted to put his full comment out there, because of the sheer irony between his statements about the need to advertise “Obamacare” and knowing how capitalism works.

First, the Affordable Care Act is not socialized medicine, it’s health insurance reform.  Maybe Mr. Paul needs to learn how the law works before commenting on it?  Just a thought.

Second, according to Rand Paul, if something is good—there’s no need to advertise it?  Using that mindset, Apple, Google, Samsung, Honda, Toyota, Southwestern Airlines — they’re all “bad.”  After all, if their products and services are so good, why do they have to advertise them?

Attention all Business majors: Forget what you know about sales, marketing and advertising.  If any company must advertise their product or service to get people to use it, it’s a failure.  Well, at least according to Rand Paul.

Now let’s move on to, “liberals have no idea of how capitalism works”—are you serious?

As a liberal, I think I have a damn good grasp of how capitalism works.  I also have a pretty good grasp of how flawed capitalism is.  “Pure” capitalism is every bit the failure as communism or socialism.  Unchecked, and unregulated, capitalism will build a society (as we’ve seen since “Reaganomics” took the U.S. by storm in the 1980s) where a small percentage of the population has everything and the vast majority has next to nothing.

Now, I’m not saying capitalism is all bad, but it has its flaws like every other economic ideology and needs oversight and regulation for it to be successful.

Capitalism is also driven by consumer spending, not tax cuts.  If demand for a product is there, jobs will be there.  Cutting taxes sounds good to those who lack the ability to think for themselves, but what these tax cuts really do is line the pockets of the rich executives while they cut and slash their workforce to “streamline” the process and increase their profits.

Another thing capitalism does well is feed greed.  The more you give it, the more it wants.  The richer you make the richest among us, the richer they’re going to want to be.  Profits in the millions get replaced by profits in the tens of millions.  Profits in the tens of millions get replaced by profits in the hundreds of millions.  Profits in the hundreds of millions get replaced by profits in the billions.

It’s perpetual and it’s never ending.

But unfortunately for 98% of us, money is not infinite.  There’s only so much to go around, and the more we allow the top 2% to hoard most of it, the worse off the rest of us are going to be.

People like Paul often talk about the greatness the United States once displayed and how we need to get “back to traditional American values.”  Well, during the strongest periods of growth our country has seen, taxes were much higher (and oddly we had balanced budgets when they were higher) and unions were much stronger than they are right now.

Why is it, in the 1950s, we could grow as a nation with much higher taxes and stronger unions, but now both of those are tantamount to “crazed socialism run amok” according to conservatives?

Rand Paul’s “Ayn Rand” Libertarian tribal beliefs are an absolute failure in practice.  “Survival of the fittest” and “every man for himself” is not a feasible philosophy with which to build a successful nation.  That’s why in all of human history we’ve never seen a successful society built on Libertarian principles, and the closest examples we have are nations like Somalia (small government, little or no taxes, no regulation) which are absolute disasters.

Liberals are also well aware of how it’s possible to produce cheap products.  And yes, unfortunately it’s necessary to outsource some jobs to keep costs lower for American consumers and keep our economy going.  That’s not always the “PC” thing to say, but it’s the unfortunate truth.

However, for Paul to act as if greed has nothing to do with the issues that are going on in this nation is absolutely absurd.  He blames hardworking people, sometimes working 50 or 60 hours a week to survive, for being drains on our economy because they need some government help.  All the while, he fiercely defends the companies that these individuals work for which pay such a lousy wage that, even when working full-time, they’re still unable to survive without help.

All while the executives at most of these companies are being paid absurd salaries.  Depending on which study you look at, the CEO to average worker pay ratio currently sits anywhere between 185: 1 to 325:1.

Yup, that’s capitalism alright.  And that’s with regulations.  Imagine how much worse that ratio would be if there were no regulations on capitalism?  You really think the median household income in the United States would rise if there were no minimum wage?  If you believe that, you’re insane.

But that’s exactly what individuals like Rand Paul believe.

So, while he might sit there and say liberals don’t understand capitalism, I think it’s pretty clear judging by the policies Senator Paul supports—he doesn’t understand much of anything.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Jim

    Right wingers fall into two general categories in re capitalism-the ones that don’t really know how it works and those that benefit from it but lie. You decide which one Paul is.

    • Dink Shwinker

      Straw man.

  • Thataboutsaysit

    If the Republican politicians are so good, why do they spend money advertising and papering us with propaganda.

    • Frederick Bastiat

      That post doesn’t prove you are economically illiterate?
      Most Republican establishment drones have a poor understanding of economics too.
      If you understood economics better, you would be attacking the Federal Reserve system. It’s the source of so much of the problem.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        How is the Fed the problem?

      • Frederick Bastiat

        “How is Fed the problem?” Thank you for asking.

        The Fed was originally advocated by the large banking interests at the turn of the 20th century (see Morgan’s Jekyll Island).

        There is no feedback with a central bank. It’s an inflationary system because member banks need not fear redemption claims. As a result they can all inflate in unison.

        Since 1971 there has been no brake on the amount of credit currency that the Fed can create (gold-exchange standard abandoned by Nixon).

        This means that U.S. can run huge current account deficits and large trade deficits. There is an artificial demand for dollars due to petro-dollar system.

        The Fed manipulates interest rates far lower than their true market rate. Finance loves this! It encourages excessive speculation and insane levels of leverage. Instead of finance directing capital to its most useful uses it is directed to very speculative activities that only benefit finance.

        Government also benefits from the Fed’s rigged, artificially low interest rate grid. The Fed can monetize a portion of the government’s debt.

        The more inflationary the Fed’s policies the greater the hidden transfer of purchasing power.

        I can’t explain all of this in a comment section. Do yourself a favor and go over to YouTube and search for “The Biggest Scam in the History of Mankind.” It’s a very sober analysis of the source of the unholy concentration of wealth.


      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Thanks. I’ll check it out.

        What would thinks look like sans Fed?

      • Frederick Bastiat

        “What would things look like sans the Fed.”

        ….Better 🙂

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Need to know more than that.

      • Pipercat

        Indeed, just what would you have in its place?

      • Matthew Reece

        The nature of money should be determined in the free market. My guess is that something resembling Bitcoin, but without so much volatility, would be the result, but the solution cannot be known in advance.

      • Pipercat

        Some futurists have suggested that energy be the basis of currency. Both stored and generated. If a system has a constant like a BTU or actual calorie then, the various business cycles would flatten considerably.

      • Matthew Reece

        In some sense, Bitcoin is a measure of energy consumed, as mining them takes a large amount of computing power now that ASICs are involved. (This is also true of the scrypt-based alternatives like Litecoin, but to a lesser extent as there are no ASICs or FPGAs for that yet.) Of course, this is a rather wasteful way of doing things, so it probably gets phased out at some point, moving cryptocurrencies closer to what you describe.

      • Pipercat

        Everybody uses energy in some form or another. Whatever is used, it has to be based on some sort of valuable constant. Problem these days is it’s all just faith. Not a great basis for anything beyond personal beliefs. I guess we really need to encourage the harnessing of fusion energy, then we all could be rich!!

    • Dink Shwinker

      Because you’re trying to enslave us?

  • Mike Williams

    Cheaper does not always = lower cost. If you have to keep replacing something that wears out or just stops working after a year (like laptop batteries..factory default on how long their life is) Then it is not cost effective.
    I would rather pay a little more now for something that will last longer and is Made in the USA than something made in a country that does not have safety of workers , environment or consumer in mind when they allow a company to utilize cheaper labor and dodge regulations placed on their products in the country they are sold.

    If a country truly makes a better product then buy it from there.
    My 2007 Chevy Avalanche has a cracking dashboard. Made in Mexico.
    The dashboard on my 1990 F150 is just fine and was made in USA.
    $2000 to fix the chevy, $150 if had to fix the Ford. Sure there is a difference between a new truck and an older one…mostly I don’t have to fix the older one every time I turn another 10k miles.

    • Pipercat

      Octopus head is stating quite clearly that he has no clue what Capitalism actually is. You are spot on in regards to his blathering nonsense about supply and demand. Oh, and I’m a Ford man! 😉

      • mark_henry15

        If he has no clue then let’s here what you have to say…

      • Pipercat

        Well gee, Capitalism is about capital and the investment thereof. Capitalism is a economic theory designed, when properly used, to create wealth; moreover, wealth at all levels. What divithead is espousing is all about extraction and the perpetuation of speculative casino gambling they call investing these days. Cut costs, at all costs and gouge the customer with inferior products. You see, back when they actually taught civics, Capitalism was all about investing in the future, a business enterprise, employees, community and country. Nowadays, it’s all about the bottom line and meeting predetermined expectations from “analysts” who probably never made a payroll, cut a business deal and/or make a tough business decision in their miserable existences.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The operative phrase is “properly used.” Right now it’s more “properly abused.”

      • Pipercat

        Outside of a few instances, I’d say it’s not being applied at all…

      • mark_henry15

        Ok, it sounds like what you are describing is, “Corporatism” vs. Free-Market Capitalism. Right?

      • Pipercat

        Wrong, it’s about capital investment after the fact. Both of your examples require a free market to exist. Corporatism is a bullshit cover for profiteering. Profiteering takes advantage of a situation to extract wealth; moreover, it does not create it. QE for example, created liquidity that went straight into the speculative markets. The liquidity is lost forever bouncing around in various accounts creating overpriced equities, commodities and debt. Then, pop!

        Capitalism is about investing capital, in multiple levels, to create future wealth. Had QE been put into the banks for the purpose of providing capital to all levels of business, those businesses would have been given an opportunity to grow.

      • Mike Williams

        If I am understanding correctly your example of profiteering, then this is exactly what lead to the falsely named “bad home loans” crash of 2007/8.
        I would reclassify that as “corporate land deals gone bad”.

      • Pipercat

        Corporatism is a bullshit term all the way around. Just a cover word for bad behavior. Actually, it’s even worse than just deals gone bad, miscreants over at Goldman wanted them to go bad so they could collect on all the Credit default swaps the took out on that nuclear waste they knowingly courted and sold. Ever wonder how AIG got involved so deeply? Guess who wrote a lot of those swaps….

      • Mike Williams

        I have always thought of AIG as the turdcutter of the corporate world with Bank of Italy, I mean America as the bivot collecting the dingleberry that ends up leaving the skidmark that is tea party gop idealogy.

      • Mike Williams

        I am too, they just did not make the vehicle that I wanted at the time…

  • ChristSandwich

    I can see how a libertarian would think this; they don’t believe in equality, only themselves.

    • strayaway

      The opposite of libertarian is authoritarian. We all have to choose where we feel most comfortable along the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum but name an authoritarian country where the leaders don’t have it better than the masses.

    • Ruchir Bhatt

      We love freedom across the board and believe that it comes as a package from our creator. The package includes freedoms across the board from social economic and personal freedoms for everyone. Inequality is created by people with appetite for more government,

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Inequality is created by greed.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        Greed makes the many things that everyone loves and cannot live without possible. It provides the fruits to everyone, it is the government that limits competition and creates inequality.

      • Mike Williams

        You really believe that don’t you?

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        Why you have doubts that I don’t?

    • Dink Shwinker

      Libertarians believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

      Most Republicans and Democrats believe in equality of outcome through forced redistribution of wealth using the threat of violence and loss of freedom.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No, we believe in some semblance of fairness and community.

  • Pipercat

    There’s a big difference between true Capitalism and extraction/profiteerism.

  • shawn_von_socialist

    capitalism is a myth- free enterprise is a myth-

    all resources come from the state

    capitalism is just a allocation method

    conservativism is four times as expensive as socialism

    american healthcare cost is 4 times as expensive as any socialized country
    workfare cost is four times as expensive as welfare was
    homelessness cost is four times as much as housing

    conservativism is the most expensive way to do things with the worst outcomes

    • xbanks

      so you’re saying the state owns all resources? what about my labor? If the state owns all resources, and labor is a resource, then you are implying the state owns me and everything I produce with my labor. Which most would consider slavery.

      what about my land, the food I make on my land, the water that sits within my land. You’re saying the state owns all of that?

      The sad part is the state agrees with you, hence the taxes we all pay.

      And how can you say capitalism and free enterprise is a myth when it was so entwined with American culture for most of its history? Make no mistake, they might not be accurate descriptions of our current economic policies, due to the centralization of government, the undeniable corruption politicians today succumb to, or the obvious favoritism to too big to fail corporations, but that doesn’t mean that in their purist forms they do not work or are myths.

      • shawn_von_socialist

        the funny thing is your labor costs more in government services than you earn in salary and pay in taxes combined

        you are a net cost to government- not a net producer

        but i am sure you concider you job-as productive and that you deserve your government subsidiy

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        We want no subsidy. Just want to keep the fruits of our labour.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        But you live in a communal society. You pay taxes as rent for living in that communal society.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        No we pay taxes because we are forced to not because we want to. I agree I would pay for national defense, the police, fire department and a few other things. Definitely not this.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You are free to find a country that doesn’t tax you. I’m not sure what you mean by “this.” Universal health care, like every other intelligent, civilized nation?

      • Charles Vincent

        Universal healthcare is failing in the majority of those countries because taxes to fund the system are outstripped by population growth, which creates unfunded liabilities.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Got some statistics?

      • Charles Vincent

        No statistics. But I found some articles that have the lack of ability to fund healthcare by government and how population growth makes it unsustainable IMHO.


        http://www DOT ncbi DOT nlm.nih DOT gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447688/

        Great Britain

        http://rt DOT com/news/uk-nhs-health-crisis-049/


        http://www DOT nationalcenter DOT
        org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care DOT html


        http://www DOT businessweek DOT com/articles/2013-01-03/frances-health-care-system-is-going-broke


        http://www DOT economist DOT com/node/21529082


        http://www DOT nytimes DOT com/2011/12/27/world/europe/greeks-reeling-from-health-care-cutbacks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&


        http://www DOT eahm DOT eu DOT org/page/show/slug/recent-developments-in-the-italian-healthcare-system


        http://www DOT economist DOT com/node/21528660


        http://www DOT ncbi DOT nlm DOT nih
        DOT gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291686/


        http://knowledge DOT Wharton DOT
        upenn DOT edu/article/ticking-time-bombs-chinas-health-care-system-faces-issues-of-access-quality-and-cost/


        http://www DOT rand DOT org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF124/CF124.chap5
        DOT html

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        By this I meant the government driven system.
        I am not looking for no taxation, but a limited government. Decent examples would be Hong Kong and Singapore. Low taxes, few and easier to comply laws has brought more prosperity than to the most resource rich countries in the world.

  • FR

    Well actually, there was one country founded largely on libertarian principles such as limiting state power by separating it, and recognition of individual rights.

    That would be the US, which, during the decades that it’s government acted in concert with those values grew into the most wealthy country in history, and one where a vibrant middle class grew out of conditions of poverty.

    Now that those concepts have been largely abandoned in favor of one strong central authority (the federal govt executive branch) we now have the means for bad actors such as mega corporations to seize power over the rest of us.

    The non aggression principle works. It’s been proven to work. It’s when it is abandoned in favor of strong central power that the bad guys can get the upper hand.

    • frihetforalle

      That is exactly right.

      • mahilena


    • greatconsumptor

      I’m pretty you’re thinking of slavery

    • TBR

      I wanted to say the same thing, then saw that you had said it much better than I could. Thank you.
      If you want to raise the standard of living for the most number of people, a libertarian, classical economic approach is the best way to do it. History has proven this. It is also the only truly moral and equitable system–it treats everyone the same, and respects everyone’s individual rights to the same degree. We no longer have capitalism in this country–we have corporatism and fascism. The problems blamed on capitalism are the result of a central government that is too powerful. Lobbyists would be out of a job if Congress stuck to their 18 enumerated powers.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I agree with you but libertarianism isn’t the solution.

      • mahilena

        Libertarianism is the greatest joke in American History it is the religion of Darwinism the strongest survives…everyone else can freely die…it is a philosophy of death, …Liberty to die not to enjoy life
        totally the opposite of what true Liberty is which is economic freedom and security

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Economic freedom and security are often contradictory.

      • mahilena

        how so? if I am free from “want” how is that a contradiction…did you ever hear of FDR’s four freedoms? there is no liberty without economic security

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yes, I am quite aware of FDRs four freedoms, which conservatives would like to destroy. But economic “freedom” to libertarians is “everyone for himself” while economic “security” is “socialism.” This contradiction became apparent when Wall Street, which doesn’t believe in any kind of government oversight, wanted government to bail their sorry asses out in 2008. So, their economic freedom should have come without any security on the part of the taxpayer, in my opinion.

      • mahilena

        I agree partially..well I agree fully with your concept of libertarians..but socialism exist within the Constitution …Article I section 8 the first enumerated power which is the power to tax for the General Welfare enhancement and protection

        What happened with the Wall Street is that the Government was trying to prevent a Domino Effect that would have happened if the Banks would have failed, it was not to protect the banksters rear but to protect all of those dependent on them…so it was an effort to protect the economic security of many industries

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I would have been far happier if several of the Wall Street bastards had been incarcerated instead of rewarded and allowed to give themselves lavish bonuses.

      • mahilena

        Libertarianism economic approach? you do understand there has never been a libertarian era…and a conservative era was the guilded age which resulted in failure and depression

        The only proved economic approach that has raised the standard of living have been the New Deal and the Great Society, and under Reaganomics which was a failure the standard of living only improved for the wealthy

        Libertarianism is Utopia, it has never existed other than in places like Somalia, the miniarchy government small government BS is worthless…

        The Union, the Central government is what the Constitution is about…not the articles of confederation…

        Actually it is the central government that saves capitalism from itself…capitalism without a strong central government and central bank does not work…

      • mahilena

        First enumerated power is the power to tax for the general welfare not constrained by the other powers…Article I section 8 Congress has used this well, while libertarians have no idea what it means

    • mahilena

      This country was founded by Liberals not libertarians …with the intention of having a strong Union, and central government, Libertarians stand for the Articles of Confederation …

      State rights yes but only subservient and limited by the Central Government as well…

      Constitution introduced taxation, first enumerated power, for the enhancement and protection of the General Welfare, Articles of Confederation did not have it

      Limited Government is only limited in decision making but not in the ability of government to grow and protect liberty for the greatest number of people there is a big difference between limited government and small government, small government is no where in the constitution

    • mahilena

      In fact Article I section 8 the first enumerated power not constrained by the other powers, is Constitutional Socialism which is as american as apple pie….and it is what makes America Exceptional

  • DesertSun59

    If [insert any pharmaceutical you care to mention that is advertised incessantly during prime time news and syndicated network TV shows at night] is so good ‘why do they have to advertise to get you to [ask your doctor about] it.’

    There. Fixed it. What a f*kking moron.

  • Charles Vincent

    “All while the executives at most of these companies are being paid absurd salaries. Depending on which study you look at, the CEO to average worker pay ratio currently sits anywhere between 185: 1 to 325:1.
    Yup, that’s capitalism alright. And that’s with regulations. Imagine how much worse that ratio would be if there were no regulations on capitalism? You really think the median household income in the United States would rise if there were no minimum wage? If you believe that, you’re insane.”

    This is corporate cronyism Allen, and it’s exactly why Rand Paul was right when he said liberals like you don’t understand what actual free market capitalism is. Furthermore a good portion of government regulation is prohibitive/protectionist in nature, an example of this is the Davis bacon act.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      We have regulations over capitalism?

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes we do but that doesn’t mean they are good. People have cancer but that certainly doesn’t mean they are healthy.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        It doesn’t mean they are bad, either. I was expressing surprise that there were ANY regulations.

  • Steeeve5

    One quick point. Obamacare is not a product, it’s a law/policy. If Google did TV ads for their new privacy policy I’d question why they feel the need to sell us on it.

    Perhaps Rand Paul is right about liberals not understanding how capitalism works.

    • Dink Shwinker

      If you’ve ever watched Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” sidewalk interviews, you would ABSOLUTELY agree with Rand Paul. Of course, the great majority of Republicans don’t understand Capitalism either.

  • Ruchir Bhatt

    Obamacare created an exchange (where buyers and sellers decide on a producet/service and price out their needs. We already have that without having any other law. Also, if you know your economics and capitalism then I am sure you understand the Insurance is a measurement of risk (implying disbursement of premiums of less likely events) and not a redistribution of premiums paid by individuals companies that forced to get into this program. Hence, I think it should be renames to Obama redistribution for healthcare.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      No, we had a system that was overpriced, inequitably subsidized and excluded people based on pre-existing conditions (and sometimes just out of spite.)

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        essentially they are taking away all the factors that make it ‘insurance’ out of the equation. By the way who pays for the difference the price offered the ‘pseudo-exchange’ and the real price and an insurance company would charge?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What makes you think the price offered by the insurance companies before the exchange was “the real price?”

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        Because it arrived from market driven indices (geography, age, sex, medical Hx, etc) versus a price driven by the government-subsidized ‘insurance exchange’. This is then not an insurance just a redistribution by the bleeding hearts.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        If you truly believe that, I have a bridge to sell.

        I think their premiums were largely determined arbitrarily and in search of profit. Why did they have to rebate $1.1 billion to 12.8 million people?

        The insurance prices on the exchange are NOT set by government. It is the direct result of competition. The government is going to subsidize premiums, that’s all.

        And there is no “market” in health care. Trust me, that is my biz. It is largely smoke and mirrors.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        They provide and do what they do in search of profit including me. That was drives them, me and many more companies and entrepreneurs.
        While the plans and companies that were forced to offer certain type of plans and that were skewed by regulation and thus lacking a true free market system, I have seen many plans that have originated that cover pre-existing conditions and treatments abroad, coverage in most states, etc. There would be more companies that would offer such benefits if the industry was not over regulated. Again businesses and entrepreneurs want to provide something that people like in return for PROFIT (too many examples to name). I agree if the industry was left alone today, you will not see the benefits immediately, instead it would happen over time but it surely would reduce costs and/or provide better product/service at the same price.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I disagree. Insurers did not offer policies to people likely to need them. It has nothing to do with over-regulation and everything to do with greed. Left alone, only healthy people would have insurance policies and, as soon as they became ill, the insurance company would dump them.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        Not True that people that fell ill were not insured or were dropped. Their premiums increased probably depending on the type of illness a person has. Yes, people with preexisting conditions like my father were not insured for the obvious reason – he would need repeated interventions and his condition can also lead to other conditions and so insurance was not offered to him.
        However someone wrote into the tax code that if he gets it through his company, somehow the insurance companies will get a higher subsidy (in addition to a long list that they already get – subsidies are something I hate). While I am for limited regulation, I am also against subsidies and surely do not like government bailing out failing companies, voiding contracts and fixing prices. This will force companies to innovate or do something different to provide better product/service. I think this is something that you might agree with.
        The goal of insurance is to disburse a limited and/or a measureable sum of money to fix/return/replenish a given person/property/asset to preferably the original or a better state than current. Thus, forcing companies to cover certain or all conditions is no longer insurance, just a redistribution of premium.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yes true, where have you been living. Medical expenses are responsible for about half of bankruptcies and about 75% of those people had insurance before they became ill. The goal of insurance is protection against financial ruin from catastrophic medical expenses. I have no problem with redistribution because a healthy workforce is a productive workforce, and we pay for it one way or another.

        Here’s a challenge. Give up your insurance, if you have it. Then get sick.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        Sorry sir the goal of insurance is to evaluate risk. I have a fair idea of the risk posed to me and I pay to insure that eventuality. Your assessment might be different and you should according to that.
        I am not for not having insurance. However, it should be free of government intervention. Allow maximum competition, rates will lower, more conditions be covered and each individual will get what they want and not the 4 options designed by bureaucrats.
        We want economics that is designed by the many for themselves and not by few designed for all.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        That’s pretty funny given that the ACA has pretty much forced competition among insurers with resulting lower rates. Before that, we’ve been at the mercy of the insurance companies and their quests for money. Did you miss the part about insurers having to rebate $1.1 billion in premium payments or did you just ignore it?

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        It is the government subsidizing using taxpayers money that is reducing the cost that the few have been able to get. If the quality of the plans were so great, why are there so many waivers?
        Yes they were forced to rebate a certain percentage of unused funds. So now the government should go to each sector and force people to rebate monies over a certain percentage?
        This will diminish the urge to have profits. Once I know that the government will ask me to return everything beyond a certain point, I would just reach the threshold and furlough the employees and see them next year.
        If government knew any better, the website of their flagship legislation would be working within the 1st week flawlessly.
        Even if they delay it by a few day or months and spend 500 million on it and still does not work, its just another thing that we have to expect because after they are not losing anything.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Here’s a explanation of all those “waivers.” http://www DOT latimes DOT com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-obamacare-waivers-exemptions-hyperbole-20131002,0,6344095.story#axzz2j88ZQmqp

        “The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to phase out by 2014 the annual limits. The rule posed a challenge, however, to employers with “mini-med” plans, which charge extremely low premiums but offer truncated benefits and low annual caps. To keep workers from losing coverage altogether while their employers searched for an alternative, HHS granted waivers that let hundreds of mini-med plans keep lower caps in place until 2014.
        There’s profit and then there is PROFIT. Analogy. I’m a physician. Most people assume physicians make a good buck and don’t begrudge them that, unless they make a show of conspicious consumption along with an obvious indifference or even hostility to the people they serve. I drive a 7 year old Altima with 101,000 miles on it. No Lexus, no BMW, no Mercedes. No vacation home in a tony place. No Rolex.
        No one minds companies making an honest profit. It becomes grating when they get tax rebates they don’t need (GE, oil companies, agribuiness), make obscene profits by manipulating markets (oil companies) gouging people or, in the case of Wall Street, destroying the economy, expecting a bailout and then being shocked when the rest of us wanted their heads for paying themselves lavish bonuses while the regular folk lost their jobs, houses and savings.
        As long as you possess such an arrogance about making money with no consideration of the bigger picture, I’m wasting my breath arguing with you.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        Agree with you on something atleast:
        Insurance companies or any other entity big or small, ran by Whites, blacks, yellows or oranges should not get subsidies or special tax assessments or breaks.
        Taxes should be low and minimum and we can argue on another day on the rates.
        I still do not care what challenged they posed, they should treat everyone equally and mandate it on the congress and white house first then the people.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Congress isn’t exempt. Look up the Grassley amendment.
        The obvious solution is a single-payor.

        Taxes should be commensurate with the services we want/expect. I don’t like my tax dollars going to military contractors.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        Agree. Taxes should not be shelled out the military industrial complex and also the Healthcare industrial complex.
        They should remain with the people who produce value. People like you and me. We then vote/choose how to spend it and whom to give it.
        I can meet you half way I suppose where I can agree that if an individual wants government healthcare, they should pay into and get the benefits of it. Whereas, individuals like me, who do not want government care should have option to opt out. We then also do not pay those taxes and get to do whatever it is we please with or money. When we land up in the emergency room, we will be expected to pay for it as well and failure to pay will then result in garnishment/repossessions, etc.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        One problem. The only “government health care” is the VA. We do not have government run health care. We have government-financed health care. It is still a private, for profit system.

        I would gladly buy into Medicare just to have that safety net.

        I think we all owe a debt to a country like this that allows one to become filthy rich. That debt is the taxes we pay to fund the infrastructure that we all depend on.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        I am all for paying for necessary infrastructure. But that cannot amount to Trillions of dollars. You are free and not bound by some code enacted by a group of people or a theocratic government. The country is you, me and the 100’s of million others. You do not ‘owe’ anything to the country. Sounds Stalinistic!
        Lets bring all troops home from Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. Stop propping dictators and send money to anyone overseas, enforce that all military action/force/wars be debated and approved by the congress, means test Medicare and SS, allow people (like me) to get opt of a significantly flawed system of Medicare and SS (suggestion = lets say everyone 45 and below can opt out and not pay those taxes, 45+ get to stay on Medicare), end the war on drugs, reform tort law, reduce and eventually end the unemployment fiasco, let people repatriate their overseas funds at lets say 5% tax (I would have not tax it), AUDIT THE FED and eventually bring the control and oversight under congress’s control, end the department of Education, agriculture, Commerce and all the subsidies they dole out.

        I think this should be a good start. This is a FREE society would have. Till all these programs are active, we live in an illusion of freedom.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I am not looking for a theocracy, but I do believe I owe a great deal to a country that allows me to live here with the freedoms and opportunities presented. That is how I was raised. Even Russians will pledge allegiance to Mother Russia.

        And we spend trillions a year anyway. What matters to some of us is where that money is spent. I’m all for getting our military out of place where it provides no benefit. I like the idea of social security because some people will never make enough to be able to amass a nice retirement plan. I would also end the drug war and subsidies to agribusiness, the oil and gas industries and other billionaires who can succeed on their own.

        However, I also believe in taking care of the least among us. Tell me now much you think we spend on “welfare,” given that term gets thrown around a lot and misused.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        Now that we are already in this situation (stuck with SS and Medicare) and with a generation of people dependent on it, obviously we cannot just stop it. Again, we must have choices and options for those who want to opt out. More people opt out reduces the amount the SS and Medicare fund has to shell out in the future + means testing the current SS and Medicare recipients will make the SS and Medicare funds soluble.
        Welfare comes from individuals. If we were to round up all people that ‘cannot help themselves’ (a tricky determination) it will not add to more than 15% (conservatively speaking) and to help these people you do not need to create a bureaucracy of 10’s of thousands of people and force the 85% in a program.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        But we LIKE Social Security and Medicare! Before SS and Medicare, about half of seniors lived in poverty and didn’t go to the doctor or hospital because they didn’t have the money. This is a communal society and I think we all need to take care of each other.

        We used to have pensions, savings and Social Security. Pensions are long gone, 401Ks have been called “a cruel experiment” and Wall Street likes to gamble with other people’s money. It;s a good thing I wasn’t planning on retiring in 2002 or 2007 when my IRA lost 2/3 of its value and then 1/2 the second time around after a modest recovery. It’s almost back where it was in 1998.

        Eliminate the income cap on SS and it will be fine. There’s no reason millionaires and billionaires should stop contributing at $106K. People are dependent on it because wages have stagnated over 30 years while the cost of living rose.

        Charity alone is insufficient for welfare. Ask the people who work charity programs. And I don’t know where you get the 15% figure. Rectal database?

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        Got that from census figures (people terminally ill and without no education – it is an approximated figure, not really rectal database – that’s the government’s job ;))
        You like SS and Medicare, I don’t. Hence should be given an option to opt out. The money that I have paid so far is forfeited (applied to the SS fund and not given to me in the future) in return for lower taxes or stop contributing to SS and Medicare taxes.
        If you lost 2/3rds of your fund then, I assume it has returned if not increased since, given the indices are back to if not better before the dip. So to be consistent with your logic, if you had not lost 2/3rd’s or whatever it is that lost and your fund increased by lets say 10%, would you give credit to the Wall Street for that? Would you say Wall Street took great interest giving a great ROI on your investment? When fuel prices increase then it is those greedy oil companies that are ripping the people off OR India and China are consuming more oil, BUT when the prices fall all of a sudden India and China reduced their demand AND/OR oil companies are not GREEDY anymore?
        I tend not to blame others for my situation!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Oil companies are always greedy.

        I am pointing out the fallacy of thinking SS fund should be available to Wall Street. I know I am taking a chance with my IRA. However, SS is a safe bet and there are many people who do not have the luxury of feeding an IRA or a 401K. They are not terminally ill or uneducated, but they are never going to make it into the 1% or even the top 50%.

        The difference between you and me is I feel a shared responsibility for those less fortunate in the society in which I reside. You do not.

      • Shockna

        “to help these people you do not need to create a bureaucracy of 10’s of thousands of people and force the 85% in a program.”

        History teaches us that yes, we most certainly do; before the advent of the modern welfare state, absolute poverty (i.e. the kind where you starve to death) was a fact of life in western countries. The rise of the welfare state (which we can thank Otto Von Bismarck for) stamped out such poverty in countries that implemented it. Being from India, I’m surprised you aren’t aware of that (given much of India has very poor to no welfare infrastructure, and absolute poverty still exists in those areas).

        Today poverty still sucks, but thanks to the help available, it’s nowhere near as lethal.

        Man is not an island, invincibly separated from his circumstances or the actions of others; this fundamental fact is why libertarianism will never work.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        US is considered the shining city on the hill because of the freedom it provided. A farmer from India can dream to come to the US and have the audacity to operate 52 Dunkin Donuts and 12 Gas stations (just one real life example, there are several I can cite).
        In India there was abject poverty because of the Gandhian narrative of ‘garibi hatao’. Gandhi’s loved poverty truly because that is what got them the votes with the narrative. Keep people poor and hungry and then be the one to be doling out the goodies was equal to a god like status.
        Only freedom and free markets can bring people out of poverty. Case in point – after 1998 Nuclear tests, the world banned India. However, India progressed with the reforms and opened up its markets to foreign investment and also allowed its own businessmen to do what they do best – Trade value. This brought (without any government handouts) brought millions of people out of poverty. Agreed a long way to go but then came the progressives and promoted the dependency on the state.
        “Man is not an island….” I believe you do not understand libertarianism too well. We believe in maximum liberty, freedom and a adherence to the constitution and founding principles. You can choose to help others, but cannot force others do to the same. You I suppose do not steal, nor do I and I certainly do not want to elect someone to do the stealing for me.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        I also hate the idea of undeclared/unconstitutional wars and NSA spying and the drone attacks just as much, if not more, than the government healthcare system.
        The purpose of government to protect and enhance the liberty, rights and privacy of the individuals. I know we are far from it, but I do believe that these are principles that were learnt not very easily and are worth fighting/dying for.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And providing affordable health care is my idea of government protecting us. The rest of the world does it.

      • Shockna

        “Not True that people that fell ill were not insured or were dropped.”

        Nonsense; they call it “rescission”. It’s easy to find a large number of cases where this happened; regulating to ensure that such things don’t happen isn’t over-regulation.

        But then, the entire concept of “for profit healthcare” is just as perverse as “for profit police department”, so that ought to be expected.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        Insurance is a not a redistribution of premiums. It is a measurement of risk. While some people (depending on condition of others factors) may have been dropped, the vast majority of people with conditions were covered at higher premiums.
        Free Enterprise should be for profit and not for ‘public good’. Then there is an incentive to propel.

        IF the government was so good, it would not be making so many blunders without someone being fired. Just remember you are infinitely more capable than the government.

      • Shockna

        “Free Enterprise should be for profit and not for ‘public good’. Then there is an incentive to propel.”

        Free enterprise is great for lots of things (I’d even argue it’s great for most things); healthcare is empirically not one of them.

        There’s a reason that all of the countries with the best health outcomes for their population have universal healthcare systems (whether single payer or a more unique system, like in Germany).

        I don’t care for ideology when it comes to healthcare. Numbers don’t lie (if you’ve got the mathematical skill to comprehend them, and I do); and the numbers are decisively in favor of universal healthcare.

        “IF the government was so good, it would not be making so many blunders
        without someone being fired. Just remember you are infinitely more
        capable than the government.”

        To say “I” am more capable than “the government” is a nonsense comparison, as “the government” isn’t a single entity.

        As with free enterprise, so it is for government; great for some things (e.g. military, social safety nets for extreme cases, etc.), horrible for other things. Fundamentalism of any kind, whether the fetish is government or the free market, is bad.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        The so-called countries with best health outcomes are rationing healthcare and not providing, innovating, investing in healthcare. The tax rates too are phenomenally high. Germany’s defense and sovereign bonds are underwritten/backed by the US (kinda makes it easy for them to borrow what they do not have, which most other non-European countries cannot). BIG DIFFERENCE. Thus they can throw money at the problem and get away with it.
        I agree there are quite a few pitfalls in the current system. They are magnified with the interference of government in the ‘marketplace’.
        Now that we have a vast population dependent on government ran safety nets, it would nearly impossible to wean them off their dependency, hence we have to allow choices.
        For people like you who love the government ran system and believe the non-singular government entity provides better value for healthcare, sure knock yourselves out. Allow me to make my own choices and ‘INSURE’ myself and my family against the likely and unlikely health events.
        Choices makes this county different. Facism, Communism, Theocracies, etc believed that they had figured out the most effective way of advancing the directives of the state. History, as we know it, tells us different.

  • James

    The writer of this article proves his ignorance by referring to Dr. Paul as “Mr. Paul.”

    • Pipercat

      Maybe you’re both knuckleheads because he’s Senator Paul….

    • Dink Shwinker

      Doctor, Captain, Congressman, best selling author, statesman, successful businessman, philanthropist.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      I thought Dr. Paul was his daddy.

  • Dink Shwinker

    Supply and Demand:

    Doctors are in a fixed supply.

    Affordable Health Care Act increases demand by providing healthcare to 20 million more people.

    What happens to the average individual cost?

    A. Cost goes down.
    B. Cost goes up.
    C. Cost stays the same.

    Place answer here—>

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Nothing, because 20 million people aren’t going to become ill at the same time. And you are confusing cost and price. The health care system cannot accurately tell you what the costs of delivery are. The prices they quote are largely pulled out of their butts.

    • Jim

      How about the US government actually starts paying people to become doctors, opens some new medical schools and brings people into the field that want to help people, not just become rich.

      • Mike Williams

        The US already does that. They are supposed to return to their back-water world and help their own people. However what they do is end up staying here and bettering themselves instead.
        (not all but enough to make a generalized statement seem bigoted) The ones that do return are pissed because they weren’t allowed to stay so they hate monger against us and tell the primitives that we eat babies and use their skins as shoe leather.

  • TregLoyden

    Its high time that libertarians & progressive hold a national 3 day conference on liberty & equality. Rather than both of us spending our time pulling on opposite ends of the political rope, in some sort of tug-of-war game that fights to influence the politically unpassionate middle, we should come together to take our ideas straight to the passionate opposition. Think of it, Thom Hartman vs Charles Goyette, Cornel West vs Walter Williams, and so on down the line. We actually may punch holes in each other’s arguments and we actually may find some common ground. Its better than progressives going off and holding their own “echo chamber” that preaches to the choir and fights viciously over the details. And its better than libertarians going off and holding their own “echo chamber” that preaches to the choir and fights over the details. Rather, by holding the big ringside “Libertarianism vs Progressivism Conference”, not only will attendance increase, more speakers will come, book sales could double, we could actually discover a new synthesis that is even better than the two ideologies we now have at each ends of the tug-of-war rope. (one thing is for sure, there will be a lot of pot smoking in the after hours as private discussions will no doubt break out. Perhaps we should hold this in Colorado? Just a thought)

  • JoeCapitalist

    “Unchecked, and unregulated, capitalism will build a society (as we’ve
    seen since “Reaganomics” took the U.S. by storm in the 1980s) where a
    small percentage of the population has everything and the vast majority
    has next to nothing.”

    If you say this, then you do not understand capitalism. You have it backwards. It’s regulations that create the extreme disparities in wealth. Corporate lobbyists write the regulations to benefit themselves, as they always have since the beginning of this country. Unregulated capitalism pits corporations against each other, where the only means of profiting is through market competition. Competition does not bring about the wealth disparities of which you speak.

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    We DO know how capitalism works…that’s why we don’t trust it.

    • Ruchir Bhatt

      I came to this country because there is capitalism. Redistribution of others money and keeping people dependent on government (and by this order the government leaches become more powerful) is plentily available in my home country. Maybe you may want to shift there!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I’d rather go to Denmark. As someone from there said, “Everyone has enough, no one has too much.”

        It is not a matter of being dependent upon government. Rather I want government to protect me from rapacious, unbridled capitalism.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        It is the rapacious unbridled capitalism that makes this conversation possible.
        You want to go to Denmark, how may more do? If you look up there pending immigration stats they wil be pale compared to the US. Why do 10 or so million want to live here illegally and perform the odd jobs that most of us do not? because the rapacious unbridled capitalist system allows them.
        The rapacious unbridled capitalism that brings us the science, technology, new ideas, etc not the bleeding hearts.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No, a lot of that comes from federal funding of research and the supporting infrastructure that allows you to function here. Imaging having to build your own roads, colleges, etc. Not sure what you people have against an equitable system where everyone derives some benefit and no one gets screwed.

        The 10 million who get here walk. They can’t swim to Denmark.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        Where is federal funding in Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.? It is capitalism and individuals that have changed that we do many things and not the government. Government has nothing, it has take from someone to give to others.
        I am not for anarchy and there is again room for LIMITED government not the government that care of us from cradle to grave.
        Capitalism is the most equitable system the world has ever known. History has tried many other forms of economic and political orders and they have not come anywhere close to the prosperity that America has brought to itself and unintentionally to the world.
        The people invented ‘stuff’ did not do so for the progress of the nation or the betterment of the world, to them something made sense and their curiosity and risk taking changed the world.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Federal funding? The federal funding that created the internet and the bandwidth that supports it.

        And how do you explain Chinese capitalism?

        And you picked some poor examples. FacebookL timewaster. Twitter: timewaster for egoists. Google: good for research but what does it produce? Google doesn’t build roads, fight fires, keep the peace, inspect my produce.

        So why are the happiest places to live those socialist paradises of Northern Europe? You know, Norway, Denmark, Finland. They feel they are their brother’s keeper. And that’s the kind of society I want to live in. We all benefit. When one of us falls, another picks him up.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        Well I respect your opinion about the companies that you do not believe provide any value. Apparently, quite a few million people might disagree with you.
        While they might be ‘happiest’ place for you, not many companies are formed their, not many innovations are invented there or the Danish and the Finnish would love to get their patens in the US and maximize their returns.
        Capitalism empowers you and provides an environment to blossom and you ventures inspire more good than you can imagine.
        I wish you get to live in the country/place of your desire and I am quite sure that you will be disappointed. I know that because I have migrated from one and see my country being eaten up gradually by the forces of socialism.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Why do you assume we want to be taken care of cradle to grave? We don’t. We just want not to be taken advantage of by rampant capitalism. And if capitalism is so great, why did wall street and GM have to be bailed out by the government? Would the wholesale collapse of the US economy have been a good thing?

        And from whence did you emigrate?

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        Wall street, GM and other companies made bad bets and decisions and they should’ve been allowed to fail or go through a bankruptcy process. Instead the government propped up bad and ‘illiquid’ assets and perpetuated the agony.
        First of all the Federal reserve along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provided ultra cheap money (which the Free market would not have allowed) which these banks and investment houses bought and tried to maximize the leverage (rational business would have), but when they fail by making bad decisions, you have to let them go under, not reward their bad behavior by propping them up. That would have been consistent with Capitalist behavior.
        I immigrated from India.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So allowing a second Great Depression would have been OK with you?

        Wall Street was looking for better returns because of record-low interest rates and pressured Fannie and Freddie, so that WAS the free market at work.

        I’ve a long-term friend from India. Never struck me as a socialist paradise such as northern europe. I suspect the situations are not comparable.

      • Ruchir Bhatt

        It was far from the second depression. But yes it would have been tough, I do not deny that but more like the depression of 1920’s, which is hardly spoken of today. The prices would have found a bottom and rebounded. There would be more restraint on part of the financial institutions and interest rates would certainly have risen, rewarding the savers.
        The cheap money dumped in the market for the Fed was not FREE MARKET at all. Now if you are bank manager and someone is giving you money for free, you will not sit on it, you will make sure your institution is in a better position. Now if you make wrong bets and wrong choices, you should be fired and your institution needs to fail.
        You cannot have it both ways. Make mistakes and get rewarded.
        Fed should be audited and restrained by the government because it dumps more money in the market then the congress does and the government borrows money from it when it is an impasse on a resolution.
        That creation of debt is paid by in taxes or devaluing of the currency. Both eventualities are equally bad.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        It was 10% unemployment and a $16.4 trillion loss in net worth. The lack of government restraint is what precipitated the problem. Even Greenspan was forced to admit he was wrong in assuming the markets would regulate themselves. The rest of us knew that was laughable.

        I agree one should not make mistakes and get rewarded, but that happens all the time. CEOs fuck up, get golden parachutes while the common folk get pink slips.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Uh huh…

        Innovation Centre Denmark
        “The innovation centres have been established in cooperation with the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Higher Education and the Ministry ofForeign Affairs. Denmark already has innovation centres in Shanghai,
        Munich and Silicon Valley.”

        From Mashable: (http://mashable DOT com/2013/08/23/denmark-innovation/)

        “”I think there is much to be said in support of an administratively functional government, and Denmark is the kind of place where the systems and bureaucracies seem to just work,” says Jamie Allen, head of research at the Copenhagen Institute of Interactive Design.A Canadian expat who has also spent time in New York, Seoul and London, Allen was drawn to CIID’s focus on the intersection of technology and traditional design. “There is definitely a sense amongst Danes that they will be taken care of no matter what, and this is something that provides a comforting backdrop for collaboration and community that’s based more on ideas than on acute or fanatical economic pressure.”

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Global Innovation Index Rankings: (http://www DOT globalinnovationindex DOT org/content.aspx?page=data-analysis)
        1. Switzerland
        2. Sweden
        3. UK
        4. Netherlands
        5. US
        6, Finland
        7. Hong Kong
        8. Singapore
        9. Denmark
        10. Ireland

        So, two socialist paradises beat the US.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Linus Torvalds developed Linux in Helsinki in 1991.

        The Latest Innovation Hotspot: Finland is a sauna for startups (http://www DOT microsoft DOT com/eu/transforming-business/article/the-latest-innovation-hotspot-finland-is-a-sauna-for-start-ups.aspx)

        “The government has certainly played its part. Through programs such as Tekes and Finnvera, the Finnish state provides relatively substantial investments
        compared to VCs and angels. So, for a start-up looking for 1 million Euros from a private investor, the government matches the funds with a loan at favourable rates, which can be repeated at future investment rounds.”

  • janetsinclair

    Love capitalism. Love being a Liberal. The difference between my brand of capitalism is what I do with the money. Do I hoard my profits, send it to the Cayman Islands, pretend I don’t have it and ask the government for a little bit more, then give myself and my buddies a big bonus with tax money? That is not ANY Kind of philosophical leaning. It is simple greed and self-indulgence. There are just as many liberal entrepreneurs as there are conservative entrepreneurs, maybe more.

  • Suzanne

    We know very well how capitalism works. It makes the rich richer, then they toss a few handfuls of change to the middle class and the poor.

  • Scottilla

    I’d like to know why a bunch of investors, who get together to sell a product, under a charter from the government, counts as capitalism, while a group of workers who get together to negotiate conditions of working for the first group does not count as capitalism.

  • Carolina Prudom

    Capitalism only works when the people who have the capital SPEND it in their own country rather than sending it overseas, either to cheap labor markets or offshore accounts

  • Common Sense

    Almost every Liberputian I have met betray a complete lack of understanding concerning macroeconomics. They equate everything to a family’s checkbook or the workings of a family business. Their ideological extremist & need for purity make them profoundly dangerous. I equate them to someone who would burn down their house because the hallway paint is the wrong color.