Progressivism: Enemy of America. Enemy of Humanity.

Who cares what the government wants? It serves the people. The people don't serve the government. We can make it any size we want to.

It’s possible to make government small, but still big enough to maintain order and avoid anarchy.

 

The government could be cut in half and we’d be better off.

 

Which clearly will never happen. Even with the "drain the swamp" president. Clearly he isn't for draining it enough to cut the govt in half. But neither is any other politician.

 

If I may interject.... I'm not a number cruncher but I believe government expenditures should be limited to a percentage of the GNP. War and National Emergencies being the only exception. I'll take a gamble and say maybe 20% ? I know if it gets over 50% we lose our freedom. Government profiteers will never vote to reduce the power of government.

 

What you just said is why government power is so dangerous.

 

Correct. It won’t happen until the system crashes, which it will.

 

How so?

 

You do not know? I’ve known that all along. Your ideology tells you that I must know less than you. Demands that I be inferior. It keeps you from accepting the obvious.

 

That is why there are so many wealthy seniors who made minimum wage all their life. Who do you think you are kidding?

 

Well, yeah .. in practice it's terrifying. I'll grant you that!

 

Great post!

 

Who do you think YOU are kidding, in pretending that the rules don't apply? See above for the rules. Abide by them for life, and at 58 you will be financially secure.

Edited to add: Why don't you just admit that the rules are icky and boring and fun killing? Why don't you just admit that far too many people think rules shouldn't apply to them?

 

The debt is unsustainable. The whole system will come crashing down. It could be five years, or fifty years. Or maybe 100 years.

 

Govt will always be bigger than it needs to be. Been that way for the longest time.

 

hmmmm, then I wonder why so many Canadians come to the US to access healthcare. My relatives in Quebec tell me the oft touted government healthcare is really garbage even compared to Obamacare. They say it's good if you're young because young Canadians seldom use it but the older you get the more restrictive it becomes and there is rationing. After one turns 55 elective surgeries like Lasik procedures are prohibited altogether. I don't think the government should have the power to make such decisions. Social programs such as you describe are highly regulated and do not apply to all Canadian citizens, that's the game socialists play to foist their warped ideology on to an unwary populace. You can call it what you want but socialism has NEVER worked anywhere it has been tried. It either turns into iron fisted communism or it is partnered with some form of capitalism. Progressives are frauds who sell their bullshit to stupid people.

 

Any hatred of America, or those who love & defend America, you see in any of my posts, originates entirely in your own head. It's NOT from me.

 

Where did I say you know less then I? Clearly you make far to many assumptions to be very accurate, and I'm pretty sure this instance isn't the first or last and a obviously a pattern

 

So I paraphrased. Same difference same meaning. It’s been forty years or so since I’ve read it.

I came of age, professionally, just as the computer revolution was about to explode. There was this new wonderful device called a microprocessor. To those in the know, the possibilities seemed limitless. The computer industry had been an industry of behemoth machines and companies, often seen as dark and ominous. The atmosphere was one of Revolution, with hangovers from sixties idealism and the prospect of a high tech future, where access would be available to the masses, not just to organizations. Lots of drugs and rock and roll seemed to play a part. Mostly just acid and pot.

With it came the need for a paradigm shift, in society and in business. Thus arose a certain philosophy that seemed to be heavily influenced by not only Rinker’s Winning Through Intimidation but also Richard Bach’s Johnathon Livingston Seagull.

The underlying idea was that one did not succeed by doing what was expected. Many a man has worked hard at his job, expecting his hard work to be rewarded, only to be disappointed as those who profited off his labors tossed him aside.

One does not become great by doing what everyone else was doing.

The microprocessor industry developed different than other industries. It began in jumps and starts with startups who would either explode with success, such as Apple or Google, or who would develop a viable product and sell themselves to one of the larger companies, or to conglomerates.

The best entrepreneurs tend to be engineers as they tend to be the best at problem solving, of coming up with novel solutions. The start up world was perfect for an inspired design engineer. If one works for a corporation, regardless of skills and results, one tends to be tied to one’s salary. With a start up, if one is to be a principle designer one can demand a share of the ownership. Thus if one’s design does well in the marketplace, the designer gets his share of the profits, even long after he has left the company. If the company is sold, the shares are often paid for with shares of the purchasing companies and the dividends continue to be collected. Throw in a hand in a patent or two and one gets periodic royalty payments. Royalties, the paychecks that keep on giving. Someone is doing the work, but it is not me.

The trick to success is to not be the one being exploited.

There is a reason that everywhere the high tech industry thrives, liberal politics thrive.

 

Norway is the most socialist country in the world. The government owns shares in most of their major companies. Rather than taxes, the government is funded from its share of corporate profits. Rather than strict regulation, the government has seats on their boards.

 

I really don't want to get any more into it then I already have.. You bud, presented the entire quote in its original context! The author makes note that.

​

Your quote is clearly not of the originals authors full explanation, meaning and taken out of context to mimic your ideology and its meaning.. No where does he state that working hard NEVER made anyone rich as you clearly suggest..

Lets end it there or we can the mods mull it of if you insist..

 

It was a very popular and influential book at one time. In certain circles it was common to hear one mention that no one ever got rich with their head to the grindstone. In many variations. Those in the know knew. Same as with the Peter Principle, from a different popular book of the time.

 

Ok you satisfied with that excuse and are we done?

 

Until it crashes. Then we start all over and the cycle repeats.

 

Can’t let it go eh? Hahaha. Just move on.

 

Here it is again. In every post of mine that you reply to you try to twist as if I am somehow in the wrong.

If you had read the book, and not a ten minute summary, you would have understood the meaning, the reference. ECA caught the reference. Crying to the mods will not erase the fact that you have embarrassed yourself, repeatedly.