Board Thread:Watercooler 2.0/@comment-6198648-20130228045108/@comment-6209322-20130722031401

1.) I specifically said you undoubtedly were aware of the difference... but I felt that I needed to explain it anyways, just in case someone else viewing had less understanding... in other words, the lecture was not for you :P

2.) Your turn to put words in my mouth ;) ... I did not even mention the military in that post.

My Solution to solve the debt crisis would have everything on the table, not just Social Programs like the R's or the Military Spending like the D's:

- Military = Slash

- Social Programs = Slash

- Foriegn Aid (especially Military Aid to Questionable Allies) = Slash

- Anything else that we can survive without = Slash

We are at the point where we must cut some of EVERYTHING to maintain fiscal integrity, because no one area will be enough (and people get upset when their area is the only area taking the hit). WE MUST turn our deficit back into a large surplus, and then devote that suplus EXCLUSIVELY to paying off the principle of our debt (not only the interest). Anything that we can live without must go... but partizen politics and special interests will never allow this to happen until the very last moment... if we are lucky.

(Also, just to clarify, my use of CAPS is to emphasize what I am saying generally, not to yell at you personally)

3.) That assessment where Obamacare would save money no longer seems to hold since it's publication in March 2010.

http://news.investors.com/071213-663449-obamacare-boosts-deficit-in-first-decade.htm

4a.) Who said I was a Libertarian (I've actually never read Atlas Shrugged, though I probably should so as to avoid being ignorant)

4b.) Here's what killed SEARS, according to the article

- It became too big (I don't see how that's a solely Libertarian thing... I mean, Soviet Socialism is about as big as you can get)

- It was lead by someone who had no experience in the field they were in (again, not exlusive to or the fault of Libertarianism... I mean, Obama was a Senator for a few years and a 'community organizer' before that, and he is not a Libertarian by any means)

- It's management was split up with the idea that greed and selfishness were moral (Ok, that's just plain a not good idea, and if that's something that Libertarians universally believe in, then oh well, poor them -- I think there must be a healthy balance between competition and cooperation in any system, and my Christian beliefs lead me to think that being moral and following ethical rules is always good... However, the Partisan fights we have every election cycle prove that what Libertarianism might approve of in business, everyone endures in the political realm.)

- Conclusion: Eddie Lampert sucks as a manager... but I don't think that article can rightly claim that is has conclusive proof that Libertarianism fails as an economic model... I mean, what happened to SEARS could have happened even in a very socialized economy like those of Europe, and the moral of the story is that not everyone can or should be a manager, not that any particular economic theory is good or bad. Eddie happened to be a Libertarian, but he could have believed in almost any economic theory.