Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Prayerfails, I am incredibly sad that one with so much natural intelligence, which you obviously display being the only one even remotely capable on this site, amidst this flurry of anarchism, to actually be able to continue defending this position against the onslaught of logic, facts and statistics which prove beyond any mere human reasonable doubt, that you are in fact quite incorrect on your basic summation that all government = evil.I would even go so far as to say that if it were not for your odd government turret syndrome, that you are better at debating politics than myself... granted politics is my least favorite subject but I as a citizen of government feel a need to defend it, and the human specie's best example of it, democracy, as best I can.While it is obvious that on these debates that you regularly set up as a strawman, others do the brunt of the work in disclaiming your assertions, and while, it is quite true by this debate in itself, that you and you alone answer every challenge to this logic that you hold that some evil, all powerful, destructive government exists. With logic, patience, and astute understanding of the overall condition of man (and the luck man has at being born now within this democracy and not some anarchy) most see that you are quite incorrect. Most see frankly, that you sound a bit insane with your accusations. Look at this debate.Of active debaters your lot out numbers myself and the Mohollinder's, Caspers, Aves, etc. at least 2 to 1.Yet, when the debate gets complex, the other anarchists abandon you.Look at this debate. You are answering alone.Why are you the only one to come to this conclusion? While the rest give their bumper sticker response and bail?Am I stupid, as you imply? I don't think you think that. Certainly you don't think Ave or Mohollinder are. Look at our debates. None of us are stupid.Yet, of the one's who consistently give solid, well-thought debates, you stand alone in this position.I'm not saying I'm right. There is always wiggle room.But you are so outstandingly wrong in this issue, that it makes me wonder if it possibly could be from your own thought, as bright as I know you are, or if it must be the result of something. Honestly it is irreconcilable to me that one so otherwise intelligent could be so obviously at fault in one specific area.I'm humoring you for the last time. Numbers equal your bolded points. Perhaps I was tricked and simply over-estimated your ability, but I really think you're quite bright from what I've seen.1. The point was an overall gravitation toward this site, quite suddenly, by the oddest group once Obama was President. All preaching fiscal responsibility. Yet not one of them was here when this deficit was created. It is an odd thing. I am curious what caused this migration of what is definitely an overall drop in the quality of debate since the inauguration of a new president.Obama ran specifically on ending Iraq, and concentrating on Iran. He's done exactly that. He has been true exactly to the letter to his word, on all things war. I don't know what information you are looking at.Bush took us from the largest surplus in US history, to the largest deficit. One can do a couple of things. They can claim the Executive Branch has little to do with economy, in which case they can no more blame Bush than Obama. Or they can accept that indeed the Executive Branch plays a role. In which case they have to admit that since Obama took office the deficit has dropped, the rate of unemployment is down, and the GDP has increased significantly.What one cannot do is say Bush was good minus the war, then blame Obama from what is in reality, an economy that is improving. It's madness frankly.2. Actually I'm an independent contractor. This means I pay a higher tax rate than the general population, and since i make less than six figures, I have very few tax loopholes to play with.Personal attacks aside. I've made quite clear that I love capitalism, but am aware that capitalism simply does not and cannot work without corporate oversite and social programs.3. I'm aware you support military, law enforcement, and courts. I never said you didn't. What I'm curious about though is how, without checks and balances, you propose to ensure the corporate world does not exert undue influence on these things.I don't argue that for instance, food stamps or welfare could logically be eliminated. And sure, some would "rise to the occasion" as you seem to assert would happen if Government simply "quit giving handouts." I disagree, I think programs like this are necessary. But I understand the theory.What does not make sense is, if companies are allowed to run whatever they can afford to run, from media to political ads, what is to ensure that military, government police system, and the judicial branch, are not simply bought? You know humans are in these positions of power. What checks are put on them, in a pure capitalism, if there is no check on the money? None I say. The rest, I get the theory though I disagree with. This though is pure lunacy. Any judge, jury, cop, or military could be bought in a pure capitalist society and none would be there to stop it from happening.4. No, you consistently think the worst of my position. To highlight this, I say "eat babies" basically the worst thing I could think off hand. I was putting your stance on the liberal side of issues... which is an actual side many Americans born and raised agree with, into perspective. You villify. I highlight the absurdity of your vilification.5. Are you suggesting that our votes are not tallied at the end of the day? This sounds like conspiracy hogwash, but if true, you certainly should do something to uncover the truth. Consquently, I've no proof I'm writing this and any who show me this post which I'm not writing may very well be "in on it."Fact: We vote, people are elected by our vote. Hate or love who at the end is elected (God knows if Angle is elected in Nevada I will dislike it) but at the very least it is the people, and not some shadowy group or a couple billionairs who've decided the election.6. Obama killed the public option because Republicans would not have allowed it to pass otherwise. I disagree with the desicion to kill it, but I understand democracy is messy and requires compromise.Next, Obama buys votes... really? Actually this blog is talking exactly about the public option, and the lack there of. And it's called a compromise, give and take, no money was exchanged. And this blog is a slilly joke. Here's the homepage http://centristnetblog.com/. There's nothing "centrist" about it. The whole thing is one long hit job on Obama. Are you taking source lessons from Terminator?Next, Job offer to Sestak. Another Blog naturally, that's where you go when you want fiction without fact interfering. Here though the blogger, despite his racey headline, had a bit of integrity. Here's a direct quote from the article you provided - copy and pasteI looked through it," Steve Bunnell of the firm O'Melveny & Myers, said of the job-offering related document released by the White House on Friday. "I don't see anything criminal about what happened. Basically you are talking about political horse-trading, which strikes me as an inherent part of democracy. There is nothing inherently bad about it unless you think politics and democracy are bad." And I love how at the end of these silly sources which I so quickly, easily, and drunkenly dissprove, that you assume what my reaction will be. No, this section I did not mention Bush, I simply debunked your sources. I only mention Bush when you bring up the economy and blame Obama, because all the facts show that the economy has improved thus far since Obama took office, so it is very relevant.7. Already explained. That you believe your vote isn't counted isn't my problem. I vote, I have a say, as does everyone.8. This shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what govenrment is. Look it up. You don't understand that humans naturally create governments, as do all social animals. We name ours and have choice in ours, because we are complex. Hit the world with an Asteroid, a week later, people will be forming governments. It is what we do naturally.... Ugh, this is silly. Like Warlin you're really not worth my time on this anymore. Your last one about minimum wage and standard of living. Here is my disproof of your proof...http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/04/ 14/countries-without-minimum-wage-law/ tada, it's the article you linked. Read it. Those countries with a higher living standard have different means of ensuring a minumum wage which is simply not called a minumum wage. The reality is, if it were called minimum wage, theirs would be higher. And they all, to a one, have a higher standard of living.So often in these anarchy debates the very links you all provide are the proof against your position... if you would only actually read them.