I picked up on this as well. It's scary that there are those in a position of power who will make significant decisions without considering metrics.

I like how Rangle says that percentage doesn't matter. I work in engineering and finance and this type of talk literally makes me want to puke. I actually get a physical reaction from it. Why not say, "human life doesn't matter", or, "They aren't the people's kids, they are the government's kids." "My Gulfstream is no better than a taxpayer's Ford Pinto." It is just absolute untruth. It's not just an insult, it's an assault.

It was a combination of poor design, lack of maintenance and a failure of the government inspectors. I believe it has since been fixed but the reason it made news is that there actually was no activity on it for a while. I watched the story with my mouth agape in awe.

Wow. Are people living in the subdivision or did the builder just run out of funding and abandon the project?

...Until they get tossed into the streets, their power shuts off, or there is no more running water. I fear that is where we are heading in my lifetime. Recently, not far from here, there was a new subdivision with no running water. Amazing...

When business want breaks and did not to take their loss. As the banks did in 2008. I saw so much of the book come alive. Who is attack Capitalism? I say it being Attack from the inside/ out.

True enough. Part of capitalism and the free market is assessing and experiencing the potential downside. Most experienced entrepreneurs understand that failure is often more beneficial than success. By removing the potential for failure, and failure itself, one of the primary benefits of capitalism itself is being removed. So, in a sense, recent actions could be causing an implosion of sorts.

Interesting point on the moon landing, positioning could make all the difference in terms of gaining support in any new endeavor, especially in such a large undertaking.

I am fairly new to the group (I think this may be my second day), but am really enjoying it thus far. Up until recently it has been difficult to find those who believe in these principles, or at least be willing to discuss them in an intelligent, rational manner. Since joining I have heard some really interesting perspectives, learned about new places and ways of living, and met some really intelligent people.

Glad to have you here in the group and especially in this conversation.

She was right about the Moon landing - if that was all there was to it.
We were in competition for our survival. We needed to have superior space power or we'd be facing a battle against the USSR for domination in space, and those that hold the high ground usually win.

It was competition along the lines of protection of our shores from enemies, perfectly in line with the Constitutional requirements of a Federal government - YET, it was not sold that way and the result was an erosion of the limits on Federal government.

Glad to be here amongst the group of you.
I have utter respect for what you are fighting for, and my goals are complimentary, just not your primary focus. I fight for free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, equality (real equality, not the garbage they use to push socialism nowadays), and although I also believe in the things you're all fighting for, they aren't MY focus. I doubt a single one of you is against free speech (government staying out of it, that is), free press (again, vs. government censorship), freedom of religion (though all religions are NOT equal - ask Jim Jones of the People's Temple), and equality.

They just aren't your primary focus.
Keep speaking up and fighting for the aspect of this country YOU prize most.
We'll meet in the center of the political aisle and drive in the golden stake of justice where the two railroad tracks match.

Your comment is really interesting and unique. Honestly, I was surprised to hear of your background (political and professional) as many in your field do not share your present views, or at least from my limited experience.

I especially found the JFK aspect of interest. Throughout life I had heard of nothing but positive accomplishments about JFK and had not really questioned the popular ideas and quotations of putting service before self. As I have been making my way through the various works of Ayn Rand and objectivism I had stumbled upon short critiques of JFK by Rand, mainly I believe in the form of collectivist language critiques and disapproval of government funding of the moon landing. After happening upon this I started to look at things with a more critical view.

As you are well aware, language is a powerful thing. I have experienced this firsthand in my professional experience. By being more critical of language we can spot these seemingly innocuous nuances and expose the true message of the messenger and receive an early glimpse into true intent and longer term implementation.

Substituting "I" for "we" seems harmless enough but the meanings, policies, and systems of catering to the "I" and "we" are worlds apart. "Public good" is another friendly sounding term, but in reality is often more sinister in its implementation.

Thank you for your meaningful and thought provoking comment!

As a JFK Democrat I saw it happening a long time ago. There is no ideology, economic or otherwise, more destructive to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression than socialism, if only because it is so pervasive and alluring. I mean, true equality for all by giving everyone a "fair share". That's tempting for those of us who believe in the fight for freedom.

But where is the "justice"? "Fairness" is a child's concept of "justice", where everyone gets a reward no matter what they did, making the reward meaningless. As a teacher of four decades, I have been stunned, year by year, to see capitalism vilified and socialism lauded in so many subtle and outre ways that it's hard not to assume "conspiracy". It isn't. It's a slide away from ethics and justice for the Democrats like myself, a selling of our ethics, cheaply, for a socialist agenda and a Utopian ideal that cannot be realized and would be destructive if it were.

I see the same shop closures that Abaco pointed out. But some shops are kept open no matter how they are run, like public school. I was told yearly to spend the money I was given or we wouldn't get it next year. I balked at spending it every year as I usually bought my own materials.
Yes, capitalism is under attack, and if you look at the Democratic Socialists of America, you'll see how. At one point they published, on their own website (I saw it) the list of Congress members that were members of the DSA.
It was stunning.
I stand alone, a JFK Democrat in an organization filled with socialists in Democratic Party clothing.
None of us can afford to play sheep any more.
They're winning.
And they're not done with tactics.

All I can say is this... Atlas Shrugged is coming true more so day after day......

I'm not sure. I just noticed the stat on the video; I have no idea how they derived it.

Is it based on "revenue" collected on GDP? The governement doesn't actually produce anything (other than virtual printing of $).

Wow, that's incredible. It sounds like a lack of understanding of profitability or a basic business model to me. If anything were to be taken perhaps a percentage of revenue or profit would be more appropriate, that way it could account for variations in revenue. Certainly not off the top, they're in the hole before they even begin.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this.

Great point - I had noticed that as well. Seems to be standard practice with many of these interviews.

Unfortunately I think many people are not even aware of the contradictions, perhaps even the people stating them, it just might make sense based on how they perceive the world.

Perhaps people should be better informed on how to "check their premises."

What I loved was when Rangel started by saying "Whatever you earned, you earned" but then goes on to rant about some people NOT deserving what they earned...

Anyone who starts out with a blatant contradiction like that is a pandering liar. They want you to believe that they agree with you and that you should agree with them when they suddenly flip a 180. What they are hoping is that you won't pay close attention and just keep nodding your head like "sheeple" (sheep+people - coined by Michael Savage).

This is how liberals operate. One of my favorite phrases to describe these tactics is "If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with balogna/BS". Since the arguments aren't sound, the brilliance part falls flat and they are left with the shovel.

Since the post office was privatized the government gets its take before anybody else. When a business loses that much from the start it can't succeed. Just another way of mismanagement. Why they do it that way, I'm sure someone knows and since email an paying bills online there's not much that uses the post office.

It would certainly seem that capitalism is under attack - at least the free market variety. There are also many examples of the downside of a single employer system as you stated.

I had no idea about the post office. Although I suspect that its relevance is decreasing given increasing Internet communications and free market alternatives. What is the rationale for taking $5B off the top?

Capitalism is under attack. Since Obama's push of cronyism it seems only green business' should work, or unions should get breaks. It seems that government is hiring the most people. What happens when government is the only employer? Since government makes the money, great right? We're not the Soviet Union, and by the way, that didn't work out so well.
People stick the post office as an example of why the government shouldn't run business'. The post office would make money since it was privatized except that the government takes 5 billion off the top. How can anything expect to make money if they lose 5 billion off the top every year? Government needs to be downsized. If half of government was fired and most regulations done away with we would open the way for prosperity.

I have the same concern. Regardless of future elections, it will take a long time, if things can even be reversed.

I remember being surprised and concerned after the last election. I thought for certain that there would be a change of leadership, regardless of opponents as I thought the majority would be dissatisfied with the direction the country was heading, but I was mistaken.

One of my larger concerns is that many, apparently a majority, may like where we are heading.

The thing that scares me is that I don't see an easy reversal to this. What is it going to take to make people see the light if too few have seen it yet? (insert "Who is John Galt?" here)

The "sanction of the victim" so to speak.

I am curious as to if this may already be happening, at least with a select few. I cannot say for certain, but, I suspect it may be, if Atlas Shrugged is presently playing out as some believe. If so, how long until others follow?

I recall a theme in that novel about the worst kind of men coming to power when the producers go on strike...

Interesting observation. That is the dilemma - in many ways it has never been easier to start a business - plenty of available real estate, low technology costs, availability of highly educated/experienced individuals to employ, etc..

However, as you stated the friction is what is holding people back. Instead of getting out of the way, regulators, as well as other businesses feeding off of said regulators and who derive their revenue from "helping" businesses navigate roadblocks, have increased friction. Transactional costs for operating a business (as well as just living) are continually increasing.

Similar to you, I was literally thinking how many roadblocks one must overcome to operate a business. This should not be the way of things. I find the present dilemma frustrating.