Good piece from the WSJ - what the "silent majority" is thinking

admin - i wonder what percentage of the obese vote Republican? It is a known fact that most urban areas area all Democratic voters. Also most urban areas have the lowest percentage of obese. So there is empirical evidence that most of the obese are Republicans.

"an obsession with new technology, especially when it's not necessary"

right on target. i'm amazed everytime you see that the taxpayers are subsidizing drugs that are not even properly tested. why does medicare cover viagra? there's tons of fat in that program that could be cut.

"you can thank the Republicans Leave the Children Behind policy on that."

Petrfitz - Remember that in the 2004 debates, W told us that No Child Left behind wasn't just an education bill, it was also a job-creation bill, an economics bill and an environmental bill. Just one of the amazing things he enlightened us with during his presidency.

nyc10022,

some data, please, to support your contention that SEIU is the main cause of high healthcare costs?

children are such free-loaders.

Peter, I'm just saying that your understanding of some conservative tenets may come up short if you only go back to 1981.

waverly - no child left behind made me a fortune. I create software and media that teach preschoolers how to read. With the devastation Republicans wraught on education, parents were turning to my content left and right just to make sure their kids wouldnt end up illiterate.

Topper,

Here's some info re: infant mortality rates being a bit bogus.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm

happy, you had said: "outside of right-wing ideological circles history has accepted that the new deal largely worked." If you mean that the New Deal worked to get us out of the Depression, well, no, your statement is just plain wrong.

east_cider,

would you like to provide us with an example of an 'old-fashioned conservative' then?

Nixon was a republican before 1981, so was Ford.

Hoover?

licc,

you seem to be stuck on some strange diction here. not "did the new deal work," but "did the new deal work to get us out of the depression." the question for any policy has to be whether or not it worked. do you believe that the new deal worked? i believe that it did, although that it could have been bolder.

now, did it work to 'get us out of the depression.' that's a difficult question. it certainly worked to dramatically reduce unemployment, to arrest the dramatic decline in production, and to stabilize the markets. it is impossible to know what would have happened without world war ii, so it is technically impossible to say whether or not the new deal in and of itself 'worked to get us out of the depression.'

Lincoln was pretty good but I doubt he reflects "conservative" principles.

strom thurmond? george wallace?

lincoln?!?! lol. lincoln was anything but a conservative.

happyrenter,

Don't mind nyc10022's perverse anti-union bent. He's on a mission. I wasn't knocking you for bringing up the single-payer idea (it's one I more or less support), but rather pointing out some of the differences between our system and others. This is my field, and after years of reading and debating the topic, my only solid conclusion is that you really can't compare systems across country lines. There's not much good to draw from it other than heated (and tireless) debate.

I'm Bob Dole dammit.

> nyc10022,
> some data, please, to support your contention that SEIU is the main cause of high healthcare costs?

Do you understand what SEIU is?

I'll also amend, I'll put the Bush medicare part D thing in there as well...

> Nixon was a republican before 1981, so was Ford.

Perfitz is a democrat, so lets add one to the moron pile for the elephants...

Republican before 1981??? hmmm john McCain?

yes i know what the seiu is. and i am asking you for some evidence that it is the largest factor in high healthcare costs in the united states. evidence, please?

Sarah Palin is a good example of conservative principles. I hope thta she gets the next Republican nomination.

Anyone know the best corner to sell apples?

there were liberal republicans before 1981, certainly, but they can't be called old-fashioned conservatives because they were, well, liberals.

happyrenteer - NYC10022 doesnt have proof. He heard it on Rush so it is a fact.

Thanks, bjw. That was interesting.

I wonder what the real ranking would be.

The WSJ has been wrong and whiny all the way down, and it's wrong and whiny now.

East_cider, implying that the only 'productive' people in our economy are those with piles of money to invest is just laughable. There are many, many productive people who will be helped by Obama's budget, and it'll be the first time in 20+ years that their collective interests haven't been ignored.

Yes, it will cost a lot of money to get the country back on track. That's what happens when you have 8 years of do-nothing government who never missed an opportunity for short-term gain at the expense of our long-term health. Things get broken. Things that need fixing. Bush/McCain/Palin/Bohner weren't up to the job, that's why we elected a leader.

The vehemence with which Republicans are now trying to pass the buck (note that I don't flatter them by calling them conservatives) just shows that they've learned nothing from the past 8 years. It's a broken party and philosophy playing a broken record.

I'm waiting for them to nominate Rush Limbaugh for king and Dick Cheney for Grand Vizier. It would be the honest thing to do. Deep in their hearts, they know they want to.

"yes i know what the seiu is. and i am asking you for some evidence that it is the largest factor in high healthcare costs in the united states. evidence, please?"

You are denying that labor is the biggest cost in healthcare?

> Don't mind nyc10022's perverse anti-union bent. He's on a mission.

Yes, tell me my mission, bjw...

Dwight Eisenhower, an internationalist allied with the Dewey wing, was drafted as a GOP candidate by a small group of Republicans led by Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. in order that he challenge Taft on foreign policy issues. The two men were not far apart on domestic issues. Eisenhower's victory broke a 20 year Democratic lock on the White House. Eisenhower did not try to roll back the New Deal, but he did expand the Social Security system and built the Interstate Highway system.

Ike?

Taft?

"If IBM does a big consulting gig in the UK, and applies the earnings to the capital base in a UK subsidiary, should they pay US taxes on that income?"

Yes. And it works the other way around for British Petroleum - the money they make in the US is taxed when it enters the UK. Why shouldn't it be? Dividend income is taxed.

I also find it hard to believe that no other country tries to save neonates.

So untrue is it, in fact, that the CDC says this:

What is the Burden of Infant Mortality?

Infant mortality is used to compare the health and well-being of populations across and within countries. The infant mortality rate, the rate at which babies less than one year of age die, has continued to steadily decline over the past several decades, from 26.0 per 1,000 live births in 1960 to 6.9 per 1,000 live births in 2000. The United States ranked 28th in the world in infant mortality in 1998. This ranking is due in large part to disparities which continue to exist among various racial and ethnic groups in this country, particularly African Americans.

http://www.cdc.gov/omhd/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm

One more conservative health-care lie bites the dust.

"I'm waiting for them to nominate Rush Limbaugh for king and Dick Cheney for Grand Vizier."

And George W. as the Grand Poo-Bah.

Goldwater was a libertarian conservative who advocated a hands-off government where social values were concerned.

So who? Goldwater or Taft?

Steve - we don't count "racial and ethnic groups in this country, particularly African Americans."

"Goldwater was a libertarian conservative who advocated a hands-off government where social values were concerned."

Oh my lord, perfitz is copying his "insight" straight off wikipedia! I googled it and found this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

"Barry Goldwater advocated a hands-off government where social values were concerned"

ROTFL

Is that where he got his Re investment ideas from, too?

Oh my god, funniest post of the year!

NYC10022 will you tell us a conservative republican with pre 1981 values that you suppport?

Or

Are you only good at googling what i wikipedia'd?

you are an empty shell who offers no value to the conversation even to your own point of view if you have one

"One more conservative health-care lie bites the dust."

Steve, this is not a "conservative health-care lie." I should have phrased it better, but other countries do not count live births the same way. We are the only country (as far as I know) that counts a birth as live if there's any sign of life. It is a hugely significant factor - read the article I posted above. You're just wrong on this.

Teddy Roosevelt was ahead of his time when it came to conservationism.

Amazing how conservatives of today have no desire to conserve any natural resource whatsoever.

"You're just wrong on this."

I quoted the CDC, you quote a magazine article from 2006.

But if you want to quote journalism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/health/16infant.html

"In 1960, the United States ranked 12th lowest in the world, but by 2004, the latest year for which comparisons were issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that ranking had dropped to 29th lowest."

Steve,

I'm not denying what the ranking is; I'm just telling you that it's flawed. As for the CDC, what you posted in no way contradicts what the article I posted says.

"you are an empty shell who offers no value to the conversation even to your own point of view if you have one"

Dude, I'm still laughing over your wikipedia steal....

bjw - that is an interesting article...thanks. I am not sure that there is enough theorized there (homogenous and smaller populations, differences in counting) to make up for the difference in the numbers between the US and the top 3 countries, but it is still interesting to read about.

NYC - you still haven't told us us a conservative republican with pre 1981 values that you suppport. I know you've tried to pivot and change the topic a couple of times, but can you answer the question?

nyc10022,

you did not say that labor was the biggest component of healthcare costs. you said that the SEIU was the main reason healthcare spending in the US is higher than in other peer countries. so i am asking you if you have evidence to back that up? i'm not denying anything. i am asking for some evidence to back up your statement.

"what you posted in no way contradicts what the article I posted says."

I love it when you post something that contradicts what someone says, and then they say it doesn't contradict it.

The CDC data are taken from another study. I don't know whether the other study normalizes for differences in criteria. But even if they didn't, it would not explain how the US fell from 12 to 29 in 40 years.

The fact is that health care is poorly distributed among the population, with a small number of people - usually those near the end of their life - accounting for a hugely disproportionate amount of the cost. Like hip replacements for 95-year olds. In most countries these people would be kept comfortable, and allowed to die. Not kept alive forever like poor Terry Schiavo, whose last name is, fittingly, Italian for "Slave."

steve,

the problem is not simply or primarily the extremely old. the private insurance model is just totally inefficient. it means that rich and middle class folks essentially get unlimited medicine--and in fact doctors are incentivized to do as many procedures as possible on them--and that the poor get nothing except extremely expensive emergency room care. it's just a nightmare of a system from a cost standpoint.

You are correct, HR. I said about the same thing above.

"NYC - you still haven't told us us a conservative republican with pre 1981 values that you suppport. I know you've tried to pivot and change the topic a couple of times, but can you answer the question?"

Lincoln.

Seriously, I don't support too many politicians at all. I voted for Perot. I sorta liked Jack Kemp, but I was young and don't remember the entire story. I do like Bloomberg's approach to many things. I've said several times I like Obama overall, although I've seen a few missteps so far (and I definitely had issues with his EFCA support, but he seems to have forgotten about that)... but we need some time on that to see for sure.

I haven't "changed the topic", there are a hundred different topics on this thread.

I'm used to folks mischaracterizing someone they disagree with to support their argument, which happened here obviously. I'm also used to those who don't have facts going after the personal.

In the end, does that change the logic? Is a supported argument more or less correct because you can categorize the other person?

Of course not.... too many folks on this board use it to cover up actual facts and logic.

> i am asking for some evidence to back up your statement.

You need "evidence" to understand that labor unions are the biggest factor in determining wages for government-led spending?

Seriously? You are really asking this?

"I love it when you post something that contradicts what someone says, and then they say it doesn't contradict it.

The CDC data are taken from another study. I don't know whether the other study normalizes for differences in criteria. But even if they didn't, it would not explain how the US fell from 12 to 29 in 40 years."

Please Steve, it just simply does not contradict what I posted - read it before you make those claims. I've spoken to experts in this field, and it's nearly a unanimous belief that the US' infant mortality rate rank is highly misleading. You may want to chalk that up as a "Republican health care lie," but it just isn't. Here's another table that illustrates this fallacy: http://www.unicef.org/sowc03/tables/table1.html

"the problem is not simply or primarily the extremely old. the private insurance model is just totally inefficient. it means that rich and middle class folks essentially get unlimited medicine--and in fact doctors are incentivized to do as many procedures as possible on them"

The inefficiency comes from the incentives, not the market. And guess who is responsible for those incentives!

Also note that Obama supports a private insurance model... he's called for government funding and such, but for private insurers to do the work.

nyc10022,

couple things. the labor unions involved in healthcare go far beyond the SEIU. what about the UAN and the other nurse's unions? what about the AMA, for that matter, which is not technically a union but functions as one in keeping doctor's wage far higher than in any peer country?

i would add to this that to call healthcare 'government-led' as a way of lumping it in with direct government spending is disingenuous. a huge component of healthcare costs go to private insurance and hmos.

but again, i am asking for the evidence that the SEIU is the largest factor in inflated healthcare costs in the united states relative to peer countries. do you have any?

Lets see some of the current healthcare problems we have in NYC.... thank god for government!

You can't close hospitals that are redundant and non cost-effective, because the community wants the jobs and can lobby the politicians. (see Berger report problems).

You get excessive labor costs because the unions "negotiate" with the leaders they chose... which is enabled by legislation they pushed for that bans corporate contributions, but allows unlimited union contributions and phone bank work.

The government pays out a formula for non-insured treatment to hospitals not based on... uh... how many people they treat.

And this is just the first few off the top of my head...

Yes, more government please. More of this.

yes--the inefficiency comes from the incentives. the incentives come from the private insurance model. that's exactly what i said.

still waiting for evidence to support the seiu contention. a number of any kind perhaps?

Not to worry. The feds going broke quickly as are many states. Soon, the pensions will be paid in IOUs which will be traded on the black market for a fraction of their values (see California liquidity crunch). People will be back to trading for essentials (see Russia circa 90s) on the black market. I plan to own me a large chicken farm, with lots of guns to keep the riff-raff out.

"yes--the inefficiency comes from the incentives. the incentives come from the private insurance model. that's exactly what i said."

Yes, the goverment part. So why would we want more government.

"couple things. the labor unions involved in healthcare go far beyond the SEIU. what about the UAN and the other nurse's unions? "

Yup, all of 'em.

and you ignored this part, too..

"Also note that Obama supports a private insurance model... he's called for government funding and such, but for private insurers to do the work."

Lincoln....okay, so between 1865 and 2009 you have Bloomberg (who is a Democrat), Perot (who is as whacky as they come) and Kemp (who's 57.3 QB rating is more positive than his political accomplishments).

From your comments, you seem to have swallowed the whole Reagan pill (style over substance) and have not really moved beyond that too much...an example would be dinging the SEIU as the major cause for inflated healthcare costs in the US, yet never actually backing that up or retracting it when you are shown to clearly be wrong.

> you have Bloomberg (who is a Democrat),

A Democrat who ran on the Republican ticket, and is trying to do so this year as well (only question is if Republicans want him).... interesting.

Now THAT is a stretch.

> Perot (who is as whacky as they come)

If "normal" is the politicians we currently have, I'll absolutely take wacky.

> you seem to have swallowed the whole Reagan pill (style over substance)

Hey, hypocrite, haven't seen a fact from you.... and I've certainly read some of your other mindless posts.

> an example would be dinging the SEIU as the major cause for inflated healthcare costs in the US,

I still find it horribly amusing that I have two geniuses who don't understand how labor unions, which control the cost of the largest cost in healthcare, are not the major factor in costs.

You need for me to prove that the sun rose today, too?

Talk about style over substance, do you actually have a point?

You're like perfitz, who just screams "republican" incorrectly over and over again, and his only accurate facts are copied from wikipedia.

Actually, you should add the wikipedia... maybe you'll have something.

And, again, what the hell is your point with "okay, so between 1865 and 2009 you have" anyway?

Logic does or doesn't apply based on whether or not Bloomberg is a Republican or not?

"I'm used to folks mischaracterizing someone they disagree with to support their argument"

Well you should be, since that's what you've been doing with my "heading toward 6,500" comment for months now.

"The inefficiency comes from the incentives, not the market. And guess who is responsible for those incentives!"

The market.

"You can't close hospitals that are redundant and non cost-effective"

They just closed 2 in Queens.

"I'm also used to those who don't have facts going after the personal."

From the guy who insults anyone who disagrees with him. Look in the mirror and stop projecting.

> Well you should be, since that's what you've been doing with my "heading toward 6,500" comment for
> months now.

No, I didn't mischaracterize you, I just pointed out that you didn't say what you claimed you said.

You actually tried to take credit for something you said the OPPOSITE of.

Face it Steve, you were PAINFULLY wrong on those... I don't know why you keep bringing it up, its all written down pretty clearly.

> "I'm also used to those who don't have facts going after the personal."
> From the guy who insults anyone who disagrees with him. Look in the mirror and stop projecting.

Wow, did I not call it!

I respond to all your posts, all your questions, none with any hint of fact or logic in them... and your only response...

going after me PERSONALLY.

Nice!

Did I call it or what?!?!

And, Steve, just so everyone else is clear... this is the thread you are talking about...

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/8938-who-laughed-when-i-said

Where you tried to take a bow on predictions you didn't make.

The only person who mischaracterized you was... well, you!

If that is how you honestly internalized that exchange, then the therapy isn;t working and the dosage needs to be upped. Keep digging.....

Why would I expect anything less... ANOTHER attempt at an insult. And not a lick of substance.

Wow, you might just be the biggest hypocrite out here. Complaining about lack of substance and personal insults... and thats all you got.

You are a funny one...

dig...dig...dig....

I get it, you got nothing left...

"Where you tried to take a bow on predictions you didn't make."

Do you require further phenomenological explanations of what I said?

Nope, you were perfectly clear. You are the guy trying to take credit for calling 6500 after he said...

"Nor did I say that we would go to 6,500 on the Dow."

Doesn't get more simple than that...

And, best part... you said...

"Will the real fool please stand up?"

You certainly did...

"Will the real fool please stand up?"

Stand up, nyc, because here is what I said:

What I said was, in the process of a panic: "However, there is nothing to stop the stock market from panicking its way all the way to the bottom." And I meant it. "Nor did I say that we would go to 6,500 on the Dow." And I didn't. I said that that's the direction we were headed. Just because we haven't got there yet doesn't mean we won't get there, nyc. That is your mistake. There are still very good technical reasons why we could reach that bottom. The game is not over. You laughed when I said Dow 8,000, as well. Oh well.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/6284-approaching-10000-manhattan-listings

Don't know how much plainer I can be: "Just because we haven't got there yet doesn't mean we won't get there, nyc. That is your mistake. There are still very good technical reasons why we could reach that bottom."

You assumed a) that I said that the Dow would hit 6,500 exactly, and b) that I said it would be at the very moment I said it. Both of those assumptions were wrong.

Yes, Steve, we know. You called up AND you called down.

Then, when things went up, you claimed you didn't call down. Then things went down, and now you're claiming you called down the whole time.

Everybody gets it... why don't you?

Steve, this is a whole thread on this where folks pointed out your mistake and your attempt to cover it... why are you trying to move that conversation here...

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/8938-who-laughed-when-i-said

Amazing! There I quote exactly what I wrote, and nyc is still able to deny it.

Yes, there it is.. and, yes, pretty amazing that you still make the claim.

"Nor did I say that we would go to 6,500 on the Dow."

and

"Stock indices rise to Dow 11,000 as the effects of the write-downs wear off, and all the new liquidity added into the economy takes hold."

Again, steve, we only need one thread to point out your 720 on...

stick to posting on just this one...

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/8938-who-laughed-when-i-said

Oh, nyc! You're just being a silly billy.

nyc10022,

repeatedly claiming that it is 'obvious' that the SEIU is the biggest factor in health care costs in the united states is not evidence. first, you admit that you really mean unions in general, not the SEIU--that would include the UNA, the AMA, and various other unions. but even for that you provide no evidence. what evidence do you have that unions are the main factor in the discrepancy between US healthcare spending and healthcare spending in other countries. you have provided no evidence. ranting is not evidence.

i ask because you seem to be unaware of the presence of powerful unions in all of those peer countries. the union movements in france, britain, germany, etc. are far more powerful than ours here in the united states. why is it that the brits and the germans, with their socialized medicine and powerful unions, spend so much less on healthcare than we do? you really think the SEIU is the reason? it's nothing compared to the european public sector unions.

The "silent majority"???

How on earth can "conservatives" who have been wiped out by the democrats for the past few years be the silent majority? Why isn't this so-called silent majority being represented on opinion polls and most importantly where were they on November 4th?

The Republican party is a joke add it's great they have found their new leader in that fat slob Rush. I'm one of the "productive" ones that Obama is allegedly plotting to punish and my ears are still bleeding from listening to Rush's awful tirade over the weekend.

Is actually ¨the sinking majority¨ The upper republican crust, losing their millions, and the middle and lower losing their faith in the party.

Rush Limbaugh is not silent. In fact, he's quite noisy.

this majority is so silent it doesn't vote, doesn't respond to opinion polls, and doesn't exist. now THAT's silence.

Rush represents 20% of a party that has the support of 30% of the country. .2 * .3 = .06, or 6% of the population.

Let's give them 10% to be generous.

Yet they insist they are correct, they have no reason to change, and if only EVERYONE ELSE would realize how right they are, the world would be a better place.

Right, east_cider, nyc10022?

No one but you is making this about Rush Limbaugh, the GOP, healthcare, class warfare, etc. My argument is that the vast majority of Americans still favor the "land of opportunity" conceit. Most Americans have a job that was created by someone else. If you go out of your way to punish that "someone else," whether it be a person or a corporation, that job is at risk over the long term. Go ask 10 rational people and I assure you that most will understand this. THAT is the silent majority that I am referring to.

EC, are you backpedaling? Here's part of your initial post:

"Mistake #1 was being a total doormat while Pelosi dropped a truly embarrassing stimulus bill on the country. Mistake #2 was the horrendous budget planning document, which has an unmistakably hostile stance toward growth. If Obama or the people around him can't understand the long term consequences of punishing the productive, they don't deserve the trust of the public that put them in power. The "silent majority" understand the role of capitalism and the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes."

It sounds just like Rush on Saturday.

"No one but you is making this about [...] class warfare" --> "Most Americans have a job that was created by someone else."

That is inconsistent, and illogical - you are the one making it about class warfare, not us.

"If you go out of your way to punish that "someone else," whether it be a person or a corporation, that job is at risk over the long term."

Who is "punishing" anyone? Are they going to jail? Being flogged? Tar and feathered? Pilloried?

I think not. Temporary tax cuts are being allowed to expire. Some deductions are being reduced. AMT is being fixed. Hedge fund managers will no longer pay capital gains tax rates (15%) on capital gains that are not theirs. Rather, like everyone else, they will pay regular income tax.

What SHOULD have happened is that when the country was living through good economic times (7 of the last 8 years), the government should have been paying down the debt and building a reserve. Rather, taxes were cut, spending was doubled, and 2 wars were paid for off the books.

Then the bubble burst. We need to fix it. I, for one, won't mind paying a little bit more in income taxes if it will right the economy - I will certainly not pay as much in income taxes as I've lost in the stock market since September's crash.

How do you equate the statement that "most americans have a job that was created by someone else" with class warfare? It's just a fact. Why make it so ideological?

there are so many problems with the statement "most americans have a job that was created by someone else." first, it suggests that most americans have jobs that were created by ONE PERSON--that is, by somebody. that's not how job creation works. we don't live in a feudal society where the lord of the manner just decrees who gets a job and who doesn't. unless you think most americans work as domestic servants, this is just not a realistic picture of job creation. there are no 'somebody's out there creating 'most jobs.' it is the society as a whole, with a complex confluence of factors, that creates jobs. not a small elite of 'somebody's.

but it is also blatant class warfare. you are trying to divide the country into three groups, and to pit them against each other. group one: the 'somebody' group that creates the jobs. group two: the 'most americans' who have a job that was created by the 'somebody.' group three: the people who don't have jobs created by 'somebody.' if this isn't class warfare i don't know what is.

by the way, still waiting on that evidence from nyc10022 that the SEIU is primarily responsible for the discrepancy in the healthcare costs between the united states and its peer countries. i think it is going to be a long wait.

Article in the WSJ today: the majority is speaking.
Obama Gets Strong Support in Poll
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123612000246123253.html

mimi, you forget: the silent majority doesn't answer opinion polls. gosh, everyone knows that.

happyrenter, thanks for explaining your rationale, but I still don't follow. The "somebody else" could obviously be a corporation or an otherwise for-profit institution. I never meant to imply that it was just one fat cat with a top hat and a walrus moustache. Throughout this country's history (and hopefully well into the future), most jobs flow from the pursuit of profits in a free enterprise system. At the opposite extreme is central planning. I'm not sure which you favor.

east_cider, how about something in between? A free enterprise systems with adequate safeguards.

mimi, here's a nice quote from your article...

"For instance, while most Americans still support his economic stimulus package, a solid majority also say it will help the economy only a little or not at all."

I have no problem whatsoever with appropriate safeguards - even (gasp) regulation. Never said I did.

aboutready,

ding ding ding. i don't know what history books you've been reading, but every reasonably affluent country in the world has a balance between central planning and free enterprise. we have public schools. we have a public highway system. we have public mass transit. we have public emergency management. we have a public military, dams, canals, police, fire departments, food safety, drug safety, medical research, universities, air traffic control, etc. etc. etc. all of that requires central planning by states, municipalities, and the federal government.

you talk as if there are two options: completely free enterprise, or total central control. that's not how it works.

ooops,

i only meant the ding ding ding for about ready. the rest was a response to east_cider, who seems to think that anarchy and dictatorship of the proletariat are the only options we have.