Former Obama Official Admits She Lied About Having Evidence of Russian Collusion

disciple Clint said:

I guess the FBI did not know that when they used it to get a FISA WARRANT. Opinion | A Trail of FBI Abuse

Click to expand...

They absolutely knew it, they even stayed it in the FISA application (I don’t recall the words they used, may not have been opposition research.).

iluvatar5150 said:

I understand what your point is. My point is that 1.) you're wrong and 2.) what they do with your money (something you brought up) is irrelevant to your point.

Our government doesn't manufacture much; it's mainly in the business of providing services - often related to security, administration, and research. Those services have tons of value and that value is visible when you look at what life would be like without them. For example, the security provided by our military, police, and judicial systems provides a stable framework upon which business can flourish. Without them, we'd have less investment and higher costs of doing business. The stock market would be a sliver of what it is without something like the SEC providing oversight. The federal government also provides a ton of funding to low-level scientific research that has paid massive dividends, but for which the investment horizon is too long for most private sector investors to bother with. The entire aerospace and information technology industries wouldn't exist without government investment; most pharmaceuticals are built on government funding, too.

Click to expand...

The ability to provide those services was created by people outside of the government who had a portion of the value they created confiscated by the government.

The government is not creating value, it is using the value created by others.

VirOptimus said:

But... but... Ayn Rand! Goverment bad, not based on greed so no value.

Only rugged individualism has intrisic value and ... bootstraps!

Click to expand...

You don't understand Rand's economic philosophy.

Sorry.

K Watt said:

The ability to provide those services was created by people outside of the government who had a portion of the value they created confiscated by the government.

The government is not creating value, it is using the value created by others.

Click to expand...

You're still hung up on the means by which the government acquires its revenue, as if that somehow negates its ability to create value from the resources it has.

When the government creates a safe, secure environment in which business can flourish, it is creating and providing value beyond that of the tax dollars used to fund that security. When it conducts scientific research and provides that data to others, it is creating value beyond the tax dollars invested. When it educates children, it creates value in excess of the cost of the education budget.

If somebody robs my house and then goes and uses the proceeds of that robbery to build a billion-dollar company, they've still created value. The notion that compulsory nature of tax revenue precludes the government from creating value is absurd and is little more than propaganda from right-wing libertarian kooks.

iluvatar5150 said:

You're still hung up on the means by which the government acquires its revenue, as if that somehow negates its ability to create value from the resources it has.

When the government creates a safe, secure environment in which business can flourish, it is creating and providing value beyond that of the tax dollars used to fund that security. When it conducts scientific research and provides that data to others, it is creating value beyond the tax dollars invested. When it educates children, it creates value in excess of the cost of the education budget.

If somebody robs my house and then goes and uses the proceeds of that robbery to build a billion-dollar company, they've still created value. The notion that compulsory nature of tax revenue precludes the government from creating value is absurd and is little more than propaganda from right-wing libertarian kooks.

Click to expand...

Government is using the value created by others.

If no one produced any value, a government could not function.

K Watt said:

You don't understand Rand's economic philosophy.

Sorry.

Click to expand...

Oh I do.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Quote by John Rogers: “There are two novels that can change a bookish ...”

K Watt said:

Government is using the value created by others.

If no one produced any value, a government could not function.

Click to expand...

You don't really understand what you're talking about, do you?

VirOptimus said:

Oh I do.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Quote by John Rogers: “There are two novels that can change a bookish ...”

Click to expand...

Explain her philosophy in a couple of sentences, then.

"We the Living" is a much better book.

You obviously haven't read any of her books.

iluvatar5150 said:

You don't really understand what you're talking about, do you?

Click to expand...

That's your best answer?

K Watt said:

Explain her philosophy in a couple of sentences, then.

"We the Living" is a much better book.

You obviously haven't read any of her books.

Click to expand...

No, I post what I find interesting, not to amuse some random Randian who obviously understand less than zero about macro economy.

VirOptimus said:

No, I post what I find interesting, not to amuse some random Randian who obviously understand less than zero about macro economy.

Click to expand...

Another evasion. That seems to be the way to get out of an argument on this thread.

K Watt said:

Another evasion. That seems to be the way to get out of an argument on this thread.

Click to expand...

You get the answers you deserve.

K Watt said:

Government is using the value created by others.
If no one produced any value, a government could not function.

Click to expand...

This sounds correct to you, but actually is not, unless by "value" you mean only goods (things) and ignore services, which is primarily what a government provides. Besides, if our federal government did not exist, Lockheed-Martin would cease to exist, since almost all of Lockheed's production is purchased by the government. The same for Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman, and Huntington-Ingalls, along with a fair number of much smaller private companies that sell almost exclusively to the Department of Defense. Further, by maintaining a military, the federal government provides the service of maintaining a safe environment in which American business can prosper. So this business of the federal government producing nothing of value is a Rush Limbaugh talking point that happens to be utterly, completely, "pants on fire" false.

Evan Jellicoe said:

This sounds correct to you, but actually is not, unless by "value" you mean only goods (things) and ignore services, which is primarily what a government provides. Besides, if our federal government did not exist, Lockheed-Martin would cease to exist, since almost all of Lockheed's production is purchased by the government. The same for Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman, and Huntington-Ingalls, along with a fair number of much smaller private companies that sell almost exclusively to the Department of Defense. Further, by maintaining a military, the federal government provides the service of maintaining a safe environment in which American business can prosper. So this business of the federal government producing nothing of value is a Rush Limbaugh talking point that happens to be utterly, completely, "pants on fire" false.

Click to expand...

Evan Jellicoe said:

This sounds correct to you, but actually is not, unless by "value" you mean only goods (things) and ignore services, which is primarily what a government provides. Besides, if our federal government did not exist, Lockheed-Martin would cease to exist, since almost all of Lockheed's production is purchased by the government. The same for Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman, and Huntington-Ingalls, along with a fair number of much smaller private companies that sell almost exclusively to the Department of Defense. Further, by maintaining a military, the federal government provides the service of maintaining a safe environment in which American business can prosper. So this business of the federal government producing nothing of value is a Rush Limbaugh talking point that happens to be utterly, completely, "pants on fire" false.

Click to expand...

Government takes money from those who produce it then gives it back in another form, often a less useful form.

If there was no production to tax, government could do nothing.

K Watt said:

You don't understand Rand's economic philosophy.

Click to expand...

I do. I read the book to see what all the fuss was about. Rand's ideal system consists of 100% unregulated business. Zero government interference. Total laissez faire capitalism. The hopelessly "ivory tower" proposition that business will, if left alone, do the right thing, while government will always do the wrong thing.
This is total nonsense.
Meanwhile, Heinlein's thought exercise in explaining a guaranteed basic income does have some logical holes which he did not address, but it is a good start. Think of Asimov's planet Solaria, in which robots do 100% of the work. In such a society, there is literally no way for a human being to earn money, because robots do everything. If a man owns robots, then all his needs will be met, but a hypothetical space castaway who ends up on Solaria would have no way whatsoever to earn his keep by doing odd jobs. He must either receive "charity" or be allowed to starve.

K Watt said:

If there was no production to tax, government could do nothing.

Click to expand...

This sounds profound, but is not. Any economy must have all its parts; no one part can survive independently. Government could not exist without something to tax, but business cannot exist without somebody to sell to. People sell to one another by producing stuff of value and trading with one another, using money as a go-between for the trading. So, yes, without somebody to pay taxes, the government could not exit, but without the government, many companies could not exist. It's a balanced system, and every part counts. So saying, "Government produces nothing of value" is still a nonsense statement.

K Watt said:

That's your best answer?

Click to expand...

No, I gave you my best answers already and you replied with a claim (i.e. that government can't do anything without others producing value) that is not true and that, even if it were true, is irrelevant. Even if the government couldn't function without value created by others, that would have no bearing on its ability to create further value once it had obtained those resources.

K Watt said:

That's your best answer?

Click to expand...

See how well businesses do in failed states, states which have non-functioning governments.

Arcangl86 said:

And they disclosed that it was political research. But they had enough experience working with Steele in the past that they thought he was credible, so they included as one of several things in the FISA application, and were very clear that it was opposition research. But it wasn't the only thing they had and the judge thought that the application as a whole was scificient. Granted FISA warrants are seldom denied, but I've haven't heard much call for reforming the system as a whole, just anger that it was "weaponized against Trump."

Click to expand...

They knew it was false and they knew they needed it McCabe said that in his testimony.

disciple Clint said:

They knew it was false and they knew they needed it McCabe said that in his testimony.

Click to expand...

Did they know it was false, or did they not yet verify it? Those are not the same thing.

disciple Clint said:

They knew it was false and they knew they needed it McCabe said that in his testimony.

Click to expand...

What is “it”? The dossier is a collection of allegations. By saying that “it” is false, it makes it sound as if you don’t even know what it is. Some of the allegations in the dossier have been found to be true, some have not, and some have not been verified.