I don’t think there is such a thing as objective reporting. People think NPR and PBS are unbiased because they have a “neutral tone” but the more I listen to them the more I see that they choose to cover certain things and not others, and in that alone there is an evident bias. I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t really trust anything that isn’t an op ed piece, because as least with an opinion column I know where the person is coming from. But if they tell me they’re being objective then I have to figure out what their biases are and try to piece together the real story. I find that a quicker way to reach the truth is to listen to opinionated people from both sides of an issue who aren’t trying to hide anything.

I don’t see the conservative goal of capitalism as “getting rich” but more as one of freedom. I know hundreds of business people and I don’t know any of them who are greedy or in it just for the money. For them it’s more a sense of achievement and accomplishment or in some cases their businesses fulfill a sort of “mission” in life. They would get the same type of high from running a marathon or winning a game. I think there are a lot more generous and charitable business people out there than you might think.

When government’s place taxes on success they lessen the incentives for success, and I believe that hurts everyone. I believe it’s virtually impossible to get rid of the poor, but I believe it’s quite easy to get rid of the rich and that when you do, you don’t end up with society being better off as a result, you just end up with more poor people.

I do agree that unmitigated greed has led to the crisis we now face, but I believe the greed is largely centered in the government, and the greed that is evident in the market was a result of government policies. This housing debacle was a direct result of mis-regulation by the government. The government wanted more poor people in houses, but poor people aren’t very good at paying loans back, so the government removed the risk from lenders by buying loans through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Everything was great until people were no longer able to pay the loans, and now everything is falling apart. If the government hadn’t made it so easy for banks to close loans and then transfer the risk to FC and FM there would never have been a real estate bubble. I think there’s plenty of blame to go around on that one, and although I’m usually against regulation, ironically I believe this is a case where there weren’t enough regulations, and those regulations that were in place were backwards. To place the blame on corporations (other than FC and FM, which were really an extension of the government) is to ignore who it was creating incentives for corporations to do what they did and encouraging the corporations all the way. Conservatives were the ones trying to rein in the mess, while liberal Democrats like Barney Frank were saying there was nothing wrong with FC and FM and that they should be making even more loans to the poor. But of course now the poor are even worse off than if the government had never tried to help them in the first place.

Anyway, I think you and I want the same ends, we just disagree on the means to arrive there. Either way, I do appreciate the candid conversation.

I agree our country has healthcare problems. I think it’s a complex issue and I haven’t done the research to understand it so I can’t comment too much on it one way or the other. I can say that I believe healthcare is a privilege, not a right, but I already think our current program is socialistic and I doubt my ideal plan would ever get implemented so I’m open to looking at anything that is better than what we’ve got. The one thing I can say is I sure don’t want to put Michael Moore in charge.

Here are just a few counter-arguments to Sicko. Whether they’re viable or not is a matter of opinion.

‘SKiPO’: Michael Moore’s ‘SiCKO’ Skips Over Facts on Road to Government Medicine
‘Sicko’: Michael Moore’s Anemic Checkup
Sick Sob Stories

As for PBS, I take much of what I see there with a grain of salt, seeing as how it’s controlled by the extreme liberal side of our government and it takes too much research to figure out if what they’re showing me is factual or completely one-sided. At least with conservative talk radio they’re completely open about their agenda. With PBS and other mainstream media outlets they try to convince you they don’t have an agenda, that they’re objective, but they’ve got bigger agendas than conservatives do. They just know that if they were open about their agendas then people wouldn’t go for it, so they rely on a false air of objectivity to get their message out.

We seem to have fundamentally differing opinions of the purpose of our federal government. If by “basic services” you mean housing, food, healthcare, and retirement funds, then you’re right, I don’t believe that should be the role of our government because it’s not in our Constitution and because I don’t believe it works. I believe governments provide for the maximum amount of happiness for the greatest number of people when they keep their citizens from being killed or robbed, and regulate markets only to the point of providing stability and predictability. That’s it. I don’t believe governments should be involved in any way in healthcare, housing, food, or retirement planning. I believe non-governmental organizations and individuals themselves are better equipped to handle these challenges.

The caveat is that in my ideal world people can fail. People can suffer. Failure, poverty, and suffering are one side of the coin, and on the other side is success, wealth, and joy. I think any attempt by a federal government to completely remove failure and suffering goes against reality, and when governments try to go beyond the basics of providing “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” they inevitably end up infringing upon those basis rights and making everyone equally miserable.

It’s not that I want anyone to starve, be sick, or go homeless. but I’d rather see charities, churches, and individuals feeding people than the government. I’d rather see an anonymous millionaire step in and pay off a widow’s mortgage (which I have seen firsthand). I’d rather see a doctor generously choose to help a poor patient for free. When the government steps in and says “We’ll take care of everything” they not only are making a promise they won’t be able to keep, but they reduce incentives for people to help other people and they also reduce the incentive for personal responsibility. Fear of failure is a great motivator, but if you know you can fall back on the government then you might not try as hard to avoid failure.

My friend’s business may go under some day. But if his employees know the government is going to save them regardless do they have as much motivation to work hard and make sure the business succeeds? Ironically, by providing a safety net the government actually increases the likelihood of failure.

Your opinions about corporations seem to be based on political cartoons I’ve seen from the 1920s portraying business owners as grotesquely fat men taking advantage of everyone around them and running the government. Perhaps that was true 90 years ago, but I don’t think it is today. Sure, there are corrupt businessmen, and they are the ones who end up in the news and so it’s easy to develop the idea that all businessmen are corrupt. Such has not been my experience, and I’m inclined to believe it’s largely a myth. I believe that 99.99% of corporations and those who run them are honest and want to do the right thing. But those people rarely show up on TV or are portrayed accurately in movies.

The pilgrims understood that creating incentives for individuals led to increased prosperity for all, and that socialism had the opposite effect.

1. How do you arrive at the conclusion that the USSR failed due to corrupt dictators and that socialism itself had nothing to do with it? Bear in mind, I’m not arguing that there were corrupt dictators, but I think the country would have failed even with the most genuine, well-intentioned leaders.

2. Give me some evidence that there is a socialize health care program in another country that functions better than health care in the US. Give me three reasons why it’s better.

3. I’ve got an investment opportunity for you Larry. You give me $210,000 over the 45 years you work, and when you retire, I’ll pay you $1,800 per month until you die. When you die, if you have a living spouse, she may get part of that $1,800 per month, if she fits into our rules. Your kids might even qualify for a payment of $255 when you die! No, you can’t cash all that money out, no, your family can’t inherit it. Once you die and your spouse dies, we get to keep whatever we haven’t paid back to you. Sound like a good deal?

At $1,800 per month, assuming you paid $210,000 into Social Security, it would take 116 years for you to break even. You call this an important and proven social program? If an individual invested the same money in a 401K and put the money in very safe investments they’d easily be a millionaire when they retired.

Oh, and by the way, the government has already spent all the money they’ve collected from Social Security. The only way they’re paying for it is with the money being paid into the program by younger people. Trouble is, we’ve got this baby-boomer generation about to retire, which means they’re going to have to raise taxes on everyone to keep up with Social Security, not to mention Medicare/Medicaid, which is an even bigger problem (just another example of the failure of socialism).

4. As for only the “wealthiest few” prospering, have you ever lived in a third-world country? I have, and if you want to see examples of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer then go visit one. And guess what? They’ve got a lot of socialist policies in those countries. The Unites States has the highest standard of living by a long shot. Yeah, we’ve got more rich people here, but the poor people here are a lot richer than the poor in other countries. I don’t see people living in wooden shacks with nothing inside but a hotplate, a TV, and a satellite dish (somehow the poor in other countries can always afford a satellite dish). I don’t see kids playing in mud in front of their shack, right next to an open sewer. I don’t see double digit unemployment here. But I’ve seen that in other countries where it’s not just the exception but quite common.

The working class here is not downtrodden, that’s just the propaganda they’re fed every day. Their standard of living has increase over the past several decades faster than that of any other country in the world.

In this country anyone can get rich. You don’t have to have connections. You don’t have to know the right people. You just have to work hard and be creative. I know a lot of entrepreneurs who were poor at one point in their lives and are now millionaires. I know a guy who lived in a trailer park with his wife and two kids, and now he owns an Internet company that is publicly traded and he’s worth tens of millions of dollars. He’s also created several other millionaires while he was building his business, and he employs over a thousand people all of whom are paid very well.

He created that business out of nothing. It was just an idea in his head and he worked and struggled for years to make it happen and it finally did. There are thousands of similar stories across this country. But if the government controlled everything what incentive would he have had to create this business? If he knew the government would take whatever profit he made if he were successful, and that the alternative was to get a comfy, safe government job, then what incentive would he have had to start this business that employs 1,000 people and pays them all far more than they would make in a government job?

My friend got rich, but over a thousand other people either got rich or are doing quite well because of him. That’s trickle-down economics for you, and we’d have even more of these stories if the government got rid of Social Security, lowered taxes on businesses, and didn’t prop up failing companies.

Your attitudes and way of thinking sir are the epitome of what destroyed this country and the Republican party