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

[K Watt]

No, that is technically not correct. Value is created when a product is manufactured or a service is provided. Value is created when somebody collects your trash and carries it away. Obviously, for any group of people to survive, they must produce more than just one thing; they can't all be trash collectors. Anyway, things of all the ways that money is earned, not by creating value, but by preserving them or replacing them. Security companies. Insurance. Doctors. None of these create any value is a strict, narrow sense, they only preserve or replace what was already there. And yet the service they provide is considered valuable.

I agree with that to a certain extent. However, health and security have value.

Those who provide these services are creating value. The government must first confiscate the value created by others before it can transfer it. The problem is that government can confiscate the production of others and use it in any means they choose. When I pay a doctor, for example, I am exchanging my money for the value he provides. The government takes my money and I have almost no say on how they spend it.

 

[Kentonio]

I think it is safe to say that a worker in a government bureaucratic job is providing a service as valuable as a palm reader.

I learned a fun new thing the other day. Apparently the US National Weather Service (itself a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (itself a part of the Department of Commerce)) has been gathering weather data for over a century on a massive scale that no private company could afford to replicate. All those bureaucrats sitting around launching weather balloons and collating data to ensure that frivolous things like planes can continue to fly safely. And all that weather information available freely to the tax payer.

The really interesting part comes when you find out that the huge private companies like Accuweather and Weather.com just take the National Weather Services freely available data and put their own interpretation on it before selling it. Studies have shown they’re overall no more accurate than the NWS.

Yet these companies lobby constantly to have access reduced to the taxpayer funded weather information provided by government, to try and encourage people to pay for their services instead. So you paid to have the data gathered and collated and now you get to pay a second time to a middleman.

Oh and guess who Trump decides to put in charge of the NOAA? The guy whose family created and run Accuweather..

 

[Aryeh Jay]

You don't think the federal government has IT workers?

 

[Sparagmos]

The truth will set you free:

"House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election," he added. "Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment."

Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Did Hillary Clinton Give 20% of United States' Uranium to ...

www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russi…

Ok, this is interesting. Your snopes link says:
“Did Hillary Clinton Give 20% of United States’ Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?
Allegations of a "quid pro quo" deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.“

Did you even read it?

And then you post an unattributed quote which is heresay and contradicts what intelligence agencies have told us?

it’s not surprising that you’re buying into these conspiracies. You put no effort into research and don’t even read your own sources.

 

[wing2000]

5/26/2020 and some folks are still discussing RUSSIAN COLLUSION (....I thought that was put to rest with the Mueller Report)...

 

[iluvatar5150]

I agree with that to a certain extent. However, health and security have value.

Those who provide these services are creating value. The government must first confiscate the value created by others before it can transfer it. The problem is that government can confiscate the production of others and use it in any means they choose. When I pay a doctor, for example, I am exchanging my money for the value he provides. The government takes my money and I have almost no say on how they spend it.

You have little say in what the doctor does with the money you give him. Your lack of say in what the government does with its money doesn't mean that they don't create value with it.

 

[K Watt]

Ok, this is interesting. Your snopes link says:
“Did Hillary Clinton Give 20% of United States’ Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?
Allegations of a "quid pro quo" deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.“

Did you even read it?

And then you post an unattributed quote which is heresay and contradicts what intelligence agencies have told us?

it’s not surprising that you’re buying into these conspiracies. You put no effort into research and don’t even read your own sources.

Look it up yourself. I just picked the first one.

Which fact are you disputing?

 

[K Watt]

You have little say in what the doctor does with the money you give him. Your lack of say in what the government does with its money doesn't mean that they don't create value with it.

I don't care what he does with the money. I care that I get the service I paid for.

Unless I'm driving on a toll road I almost never get a say on what I get for the money the government takes from me.

You are missing the point, though. A private entity creates value and exchanges that value with for money with those who want that specific value.

The government takes money from those creating value.

 

[Sparagmos]

Look it up yourself. I just picked the first one.

Which fact are you disputing?

There is nothing to look up. I looked into the whole Uranium One theory years ago and there’s nothing there, as the article you posted states. You posted an article that clearly debunked your claim. Frank Giustra is Canadian, not Russian. Russians, let alone Russia, did not donate $145 mil to the Clinton foundation. I’m disputing that.

You also also didn’t attribute your heresay quote.

I’m also disputing your claim that Russia wanted Hillary to win. Can you please post whatever information you’ve seen that convinced you of that?

 

[VirOptimus]

I agree with that to a certain extent. However, health and security have value.

Those who provide these services are creating value. The government must first confiscate the value created by others before it can transfer it. The problem is that government can confiscate the production of others and use it in any means they choose. When I pay a doctor, for example, I am exchanging my money for the value he provides. The government takes my money and I have almost no say on how they spend it.

Are you perhaps a fan of Ayn Rand?

 

[VirOptimus]

Look it up yourself. I just picked the first one.

Which fact are you disputing?

 

[K Watt]

There is nothing to look up. I looked into the whole Uranium One theory years ago and there’s nothing there, as the article you posted states. You posted an article that clearly debunked your claim. Frank Giustra is Canadian, not Russian. Russians, let alone Russia, did not donate $145 mil to the Clinton foundation. I’m disputing that.

You also also didn’t attribute your heresay quote.

I’m also disputing your claim that Russia wanted Hillary to win. Can you please post whatever information you’ve seen that convinced you of that?

There's a complete list in the article:

Then-chairman Ian Telfer gave the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative $3.1 million. Founder Frank Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $131.3 million. Before, during, and after CFIUS’s review, Schweizer calculates, “shareholders involved in this transaction had transferred approximately $145 million to the Clinton Foundation or its initiatives.”
Russian Collusion: Democrats, Obama, Hillary Clinton | National Review


Hillary and Obama were very pro Russian. She was the one promoting the restart button.

Why wouldn't they prefer Hillary to Trump? One of Trump's first moves was to bomb Russian allies in Syria.

Trump has continued to keep sanctions on Russia and has encouraged NATO nations to increase their military spending to defend against Russia. In addition, he is undermining the Russian natural gas business by seeking more deals for US companies in Europe.

 

[K Watt]

Are you perhaps a fan of Ayn Rand?

Yes, I like her books and many of her ideas.

 

[K Watt]

I never even brought up uranium one, not that the video clears her in any way. She was in position to help or hinder the Uranium 1 deal and she received millions from interested parties. That's called corruption.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes, I like her books and many of her ideas.

Yeah, I guessed so.

Now I know not to ever take anything you post about economy seriously.

 

[VirOptimus]

I never even brought up uranium one, not that the video clears her in any way. She was in position to help or hinder the Uranium 1 deal and she received millions from interested parties. That's called corruption.

I see, all conspiracys about the Clintons are true! Keep your tinfoil at hand.

 

[Sparagmos]

Then-chairman Ian Telfer gave the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative $3.1 million. Founder Frank Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $131.3 million. Before, during, and after CFIUS’s review, Schweizer calculates, “shareholders involved in this transaction had transferred approximately $145 million to the Clinton Foundation or its initiatives.”
Russian Collusion: Democrats, Obama, Hillary Clinton | National Review

Giustra is $131 of the $145 AND HE’s CANADIAN. So who are the Russians that donated $145? Ian Telfer isn’t Russian either!

Hillary and Obama were very pro Russian. She was the one promoting the restart button.

Why wouldn't they prefer Hillary to Trump? One of Trump's first moves was to bomb Russian allies in Syria.

This isn’t evidence. This is meaningless.

Trump has continued to keep sanctions on Russia and has encouraged NATO nations to increase their military spending to defend against Russia. In addition, he is undermining the Russian natural gas business by seeking more deals for US companies in Europe.

. You should look into what congress had to do to force Trump to uphold those sanctions.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

I agree with that to a certain extent. However, health and security have value.

I certainly agree with you. However, there are people (including professional economists) who insist that "value" is only a function of what people choose to pay. That is, if a really fancy object at an auction attracts zero bidders, it has zero value, and if somebody wants to pay $10,000 to see a football game in person and has it to spend, then that is the "value" of the ticket. To such people, the sanctity of the free market is everything. Therefore, to a healthy person with not a lot of extra money, a good medical system may have no value at all if he expresses a complete disinterest in buying its services.
I don't believe there is any easy way to balance free market forces and government regulation, but I do believe a democratic government must at least make an attempt to do the best it can.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't care what he does with the money. I care that I get the service I paid for.

Unless I'm driving on a toll road I almost never get a say on what I get for the money the government takes from me.

You are missing the point, though. A private entity creates value and exchanges that value with for money with those who want that specific value.

The government takes money from those creating value.

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.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

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

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