One of the most offensive things that a politician can say to you is that it's OK for government to take what's yours because "you can afford it." Obama's used that exact language, and it's, in simplest and most direct term, decisively anti-liberty.
How could they know what you can afford? It's quite conceivable that the people who make more than $250,000, or even $2.5 million, a year -- that Obama wants to raise taxes on -- cannot afford to pay more taxes, because they are already using all their money. Maybe it's on investing in businesses, maybe it's on a nice house for your family, maybe it's on a hobby you love, maybe it's just buying as much gold as possible because you think the dollar-based economy is going to completely collapse.
Oh, you reply, but they are spending their money on things they "don't need." But in a free country, who are you to authoritatively tell anyone what they don't need? Why should your opinion that I don't need something have any effect on me at all? If I think I need to spend all my spare money on gold, who are you to tell me I am wrong?
On what objective basis can you assert that I can afford to not use my money how I want to use it?
There isn't one, of course. In order to make the claim you have to either claim that there is no private ownership of anything, and give government the ultimate power to decide what everyone should have, or else draw a completely arbitrary line based on your subjective (and often religiously motivated) belief that there's more important things to use my money for than what I want to use my money for, and that you can force that belief on me.
Obama and Biden say they don't want to force their religion on people when it comes to abortion, but when it comes to "charity," they will force whatever they can on whomever they can. Neither hypocrisy nor assaults on liberty are new in politics.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 29, 2008 09:00 PM | Email ThisAnd speaking of the "you can afford it" argument, I'll never forget back in '93 when at a town hall meeting with my then-state senator Kathleen Drew, a tax-increasing liberal democrat. She and her democrat comrades had just raised our family's B&O tax rate 41+ percent that year. I asked her why service businesses were hit so hard with that kind of increase.
"Because you have it," was her 'genius' answer. Her rapacious attitude toward small business families was what propelled me to get angry at Olympia and take any action I could to get rid of her. Four years later, I did some volunteer work for her opponent, in order to get that woman out of office for what she'd done to us. The opponent's name? Dino Rossi.
He was the one she'd originally beaten to get that seat. And yes, four years later--Dino Rossi defeated her and the rest is history.
Posted by: Michele on September 29, 2008 09:44 PMI also always enjoy your commentary. I hope we meet one of these days so I can buy you a beer and shake your hand.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on September 29, 2008 10:05 PMYeah I suppose you are right. They technically are both about the same in their repugnance. I guess I just feel like the 700 billion bailout is going to hurt me more because that is essentially an inflation tax that will hurt more directly than a tax on the rich.
Glad to hear someone appreciates my comments. It often seems I have far more enemies here. It upsets me some because I am really not trying to make enemies, just have a good political discussion!
I have two kids so I do not get out often for drinks but I would love to sit down some day and buy you a beer as well. I have to warn you though... According to unnamed sources of Eric Earlings... I am apearantly a very unpleasant person to be around!!! :)
Posted by: Lysander on September 29, 2008 10:12 PMMany of us agree with you most of the time, but if we disagree with you on anything, you treat us like crap. And then you lie about us consistently: you are pretty much always attributing views to me that I don't have.
If you don't want to make enemies, don't be such a jerk.
If any of this is untrue or if it some other thing I do that makes you feel that I am some how mistreating you please let me know where I have done so (with examples rather than accusations please) so that I can try and avoid doing so in the future. Thanks.
Posted by: Lysander on September 29, 2008 10:32 PMI would rather not get into a big discussion about who has been a jerk and who has not.
I don't care.
But I would like for my own gain to understand why you think I treat you poorly.
I am not your psychiatrist, I don't know why you treat me, and most everyone else, poorly.
I may disagree, but I do try to always keep things civil and polite.
Self-deception is never pretty.
I try not to attribute things to you you have not said.
Yet, you almost always do just that.
You're unhinged.
And I now go back to ignoring you.
I only saw the last bit of it.... I forgot... and didn't get a SP reminder...
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 29, 2008 11:01 PMI am glad you have not forgotten the incident, but it appears you have forgotten the details. The chair did not deny me. He gave me his word I was a PCO and reneged on his word when he found out I supported a candidate he did not like.
To this day I still support all Republican candidates that support limited government. I do support limited government over the party however.
I have never made any claims of you being part of any conspiracy, nor have I twisted any of your words. If you feel I did I am sorry and I will now publically repudiate any previous statements of mine that indicate I think you are part of a conspiracy.
As for your claim that I post lies about Dino... Perhaps you could point to an example?
Posted by: Lysander on September 29, 2008 11:20 PM
The chair did not deny me. He gave me his word I was a PCO and reneged on his word when he found out I supported a candidate he did not like.
You're lying, of course. That did not happen. What happened is that he found out you were not a Republican. You were told this. You know this. And you are lying now by saying it was about Ron Paul when it was in fact about YOU. You had no history of supporting Republican candidates. You even said you'd never voted for a Republican before.
You had no intention of supporting Republican candidates in general, and your lack of support for Dino Rossi proves that they were right to deny you.
To this day I still support all Republican candidates that support limited government.
You're lying. For example, you don't support Dino Rossi.
As for your claim that I post lies about Dino... Perhaps you could point to an example?
Your claim that Dino Rossi doesn't support limited government.
Good-bye.
My claim that Dino does not support limited government is not a lie. It is at worst a sign that you and I have differing definitions of limited government.
I do not think that supporting a government that does all the things that our state government does is limited. Rossi does not propose cutting one agency or program. I do not think that a budget the size that he supports now, in 2004 or even the one he is proud of is an example of limited government. I think they are all examples of increased government.
You disagree and think that he supports limited government. We can disagree on this without getting nasty right?
Posted by: Lysander on September 29, 2008 11:57 PMIn some sense, the wealthy get more from government -- private property rights are enforced by government for example, and those with more would have more to lose if, say, government did not enforce those laws.
A totally market driven system would have no government enforcement. Who is to say, for example, how long a patent should last or other IP? If someone writes something down, an idea, on paper, is that something I can use or not? Those laws that govern such things are conceptual.
if McCain would use this as his outline for the debate, Barack would be toast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY
watch this! it is devastating!
Just hope and pray your "wealthy" employer will decide to let you hang onto your job rather than cutting the dead weight in order to balance the budget when forced to pay those higher tax rates imposed by B-uh-rack Obam-uh.
Talk about linear thinking.
I guess the only reason I don't despise the "rich" is because I've never been offered employment from a poor person. Think about it.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 30, 2008 06:33 AMI doubt that most conservatives will become impoverished IF the economy collapses. Conservatives don't rely on the government to provide for them. They take care of themselves and don't take wealth from others to meet their basic needs. I would suspect that Dave has never worked at a job that he created. IF the economy collapses he will rely on others to save him.
Posted by: Silkworm on September 30, 2008 07:22 AMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008214804_adwatch30m.html
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 30, 2008 07:46 AMGet with the program, man.
I DO get it.
My laugh was reading the Seattle times who doesn't get it.
I agree with you, but you may wish to ease back on the coffee. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 30, 2008 08:43 AM"Just hope and pray your "wealthy" employer will decide to let you hang onto your job rather than cutting the dead weight in order to balance the budget when forced to pay those higher tax rates"
What does my CEO's personal tax rate on his $36 million compensation have ANYTHING to do with my compensation, or job? The corporation pays my salary, NOT the CEO.
Do you have any clue how corporate America works? Any idea at all?
Yes, I suppose for small businesses that are not incorporated, it could be an issue. Not incorporating a business however is sheer stupidity, so its a moot point.
Posted by: Proteus on September 30, 2008 09:21 AM"Damn" dude, stop confusing me. LOL
Now I'm all mocked up?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 30, 2008 09:33 AMUmm, yeah einstein, that's why I used the term 'employer' and not "CEO". Are YOU mental?
So let's soak the "rich", according to Obama and co.; "we'll only raise tax rates on the wealthiest" what, 5% of Americans? The ones that already are paying a rate of what, 30% or so?
And we'll give checks to those that pay NO federal income taxes? Smells like wealth redistribution to me.
We all should be worried about our jobs, even those that work for gov't. Because the crypto-Marxists may just be running the White House come January.
BTW, what percentage of total federal income tax revenue is already being paid by the richest Americans? Anybody? Bueller?
Posted by: sasquatch on September 30, 2008 10:02 AMObama is lying every time he says that. Lots and lots of people (like me) are not in the top 5% AND have equity investments, and Obama has stated that he will raise the capital gains tax, despite the fact that it's a net negative for government revenue.
Posted by: Palouse on September 30, 2008 10:21 AMOh..and like the vast majority of American workers, my employer is a corporation, NOT an individual. So, individual tax rates mean nothing. Obama plans to LOWER corporate tax rates, and increase write offs for capital investment, which is a very good thing. We will see a net INCREASE in corporate tax revenue, as existing loopholes are closed. What's not to like?
Posted by: Proteus on September 30, 2008 10:30 AMSo what. McCain has proposed the same thing for corporate tax rates and write offs, but without increasing capital gains taxes and income tax rates.
And if you believe that Obama and the Democrats would not let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, which will raise taxes on everyone, I have a bridge to sell you.
Posted by: Palouse on September 30, 2008 10:44 AMHe's talked about a "donut" for some of these tax increases he wants, but last I checked exemptions for these were not in his plan.
According to the liberals, any tax which takes proprtionally more from a lower income group over a higher one is "regressive." You're wrong.
Anyone making above $100,000 a year can afford to pay more taxes
How old are you? You clearly don't have a real job and pay real bills and taxes, because $100K is firmly in the middle class ... and not even the upper middle class, depending on where you live. Even Saint Obama would tell you you're stupid here.
It is time for the United States of America to redistribute wealth, too.
Yeah. Screw rights, screw liberty, screw freedom. That's the motto of the modern Democrats.
I was wondering about this very thing. In the debate Obama claimed that those making more than 250k "don't need a tax break" or something to that affect.
Don't NEED a tax break?!! That is MY MONEY!! I earned it, not the government. The government should tax as little as possible to do as little as possible and then get the (beep) out of the way!!
Posted by: Amyzzon on September 30, 2008 11:36 AMMany revolutions have started to do just that. They all failed in the end. With no incentive to earn there is no progress. You wind up with countries like Cuba.
Posted by: Vince on September 30, 2008 12:15 PMEh ... those making $100,000 a year are "lower income"?
Um, those of us who know remedial math know that 100,000 is less than 250,000. I'm sorry this is causing you trouble.
Democrats think that if a person makes a lot of money, they should be taxed to bring them down to the level of the other people.
Republicans think, that if a person makes too little money, he should use his intelligence and business sense to raise himself up to the level of the other people.
No, it's because you write long, rambling, incoherent posts, and I get bored with you quickly. I am, of course, far more intelligent than you are.
Posted by: pudge on September 30, 2008 01:16 PMFalse.
I'm not. I'm telling *you.* Everyone else already knows I'm more intelligent than you.
"Rick's a conservative racist."
ah yes, the old stand by for the left-the race card. We can't reference Obama's south side district that as a Community Organizer (hold laughter), he improved not one iota. If Obama can't change it from the inside, why would you think that my/our tax money shoved at the problem would help from the outside young, ignorant David? It's worse off today than when Obama was there in the 1980's gathering signatures.
...I'll bet you were one of those turnips that thought those million dollar toilets downtown Seattle were a good idea too, right?
Posted by: Rick D. on September 30, 2008 02:32 PMHere is the part the wingnuts don't seem to understand. Nobody WANTS higher taxes. In fact, we'd prefer no taxes at all. Unfortunately, we have this thing called government. We've got almost $700 billion to spend on national defense. We have to spend money on critical infrastructure like roads, schools, bridges, air traffic control, etc. We've got all these government institutions, over 2 million employees (not including the military). And you know what? They cost money! Amazing! Yes..and unfortunately, they have been costing MORE money than we've been raising via taxes.
So..we have two intelligent choices to make. We can either RAISE taxes (keeping the Laffer curve in mind of course, so keep taxes moderate, and make sure that those who can most afford it are taxed), and/or CUT spending. Its the old "guns and butter" show.
So..like all brilliant conservatives, we'd like to ask. Where would you like to cut? Can YOU balance the budget? The last guy to do it was Bill Clinton, and he pissed off both sides of the aisle. Yes, we can cut earmarks..but then we still have a gaping $400 billion/year hole. How would you like to address it?
Oh..lets not forget, we actually spend about $400Bil/year in interest payments on the national debt! You know, that lovely legacy left to use by Ron Reagan and GW Bush?
Posted by: Proteus on September 30, 2008 02:52 PMYou're a liar.
Look, we've worked smartly and we deserve to keep our money. However, as people who have been able to work the system to our advantage, we become the stewards of that system. You've worked your way up the system and it is your responsibility to uphold that system. Enlightened self-interest right?
Take healthcare. It is in my best interest to help fund universal healthcare. Not because I can't afford healthcare, but because I would live in a healthier society, extending people's lives and productivity. This benefits me directly as it would inevitably lead to a stronger economy on the whole. Not to mention we would waste less money lining the pockets of obscenely wealthy insurance executives who make money off of denying people healthcare. It's a scam and should be socialized for the same reason law enforcement is socialized. Imagine the power cops would have over us if the victims of crimes had to pay them every time they showed up.
My point about being rich is that you wouldn't be rich without the services government provides because they create the conditions of the economy that you got rich on.
It seems to me this it's actually self-serving (in a good way) to socialize certain services. Those of us with wealth are the ones who can make those programs happen. We should be far sighted enough to see the benefits of them.
Posted by: Cale on September 30, 2008 03:00 PMNobody WANTS higher taxes.
Both false AND irrelevant.
[Government programs] cost money! Amazing! Yes..and unfortunately, they have been costing MORE money than we've been raising via taxes.
So we SHOULD HAVE LESS OF THEM.
So..like all brilliant conservatives, we'd like to ask. Where would you like to cut?
Every department except for the military.
Can YOU balance the budget?
Yes.
The last guy to do it was Bill Clinton
No, in fact, he didn't. The Republicans in Congress did. And it was only possible because of the tech boom, which was not the result of anything either party, or any politicians, did.
How would you like to address it?
Cutting spending.
You guys understand only 20% or so of Americans earn $100,000 right?
You say that like it's not a lot. it is a lot.
And that only about 1.5% make over $250,000... explain to me how this is middle class?
No one ever said $250,000 is middle class.
However, as people who have been able to work the system to our advantage
I never worked any system to my advantage. I just worked. And hard.
It is in my best interest to help fund universal healthcare.
It certainly isn't in my best interest.
I would live in a healthier society, extending people's lives and productivity.
So would I, but I cannot see how universal health care is a good way to reach that goal.
Not to mention we would waste less money lining the pockets of obscenely wealthy insurance executives who make money off of denying people healthcare. It's a scam and should be socialized for the same reason law enforcement is socialized.
Sure! And while we're at it, we should socialize all grocery stores and auto repair shops.
Imagine the power cops would have over us if the victims of crimes had to pay them every time they showed up.
Yeah, or if we had to pay auto mechanics every time our car needed fixed.
My point about being rich is that you wouldn't be rich without the services government provides because they create the conditions of the economy that you got rich on.
That is, of course, entirely false. (Not that I am rich, though I hope to be someday.)
Those of us with wealth are the ones who can make those programs happen. We should be far sighted enough to see the benefits of them.
Those of us with education and perspective should see the terrible problems involved with taking away the liberty of the people by force in order to accomplish goals that can be better accomplished through the free acts of those people.
Ahem. In fact, you displayed an incredible hatred of science by saying that science is actually capable of justifying itself, which every intelligent scientist knows is literally impossible.
Yes, we are both far more intelligent than you are: this is proven again by your belief that degrees people have are in any way related to their level of intelligence.
Posted by: pudge on September 30, 2008 03:14 PMIf Obama is elected, yes, he will steal from me all he can.
Got those number for Obama's district yet, David? Can you prove that Obama's time as a "community organizer" actually improved the district? Of course, you can't.
It's all about "hope,change and the easter bunny" with you clueless liberals. McCain/Palin is your future...if you don't like that, I suggest you start drinking heavily and recycle.
No you won't.
I notice you contribute to Slashdot. Funny, because Slashdot is a pretty sweet website. The Web, as I'm sure you know was developed by a European socialist institution, CERN. Based on technology originally developed by the US government (NSF, DARPA to be exact). Guess we don't need any of that government scientific research, eh?
I'm sure you drive on an interstate highway system. Another huge government project. Like many Americans, you probably got a government education in a public school, or government help to pay for your journalism degree. If you didn't, millions of other Americans did. I guess you can take care of yourself if you, or your family gets sick or disabled. Or perhaps you decide to retire one day.
We are no longer a frickin frontier society anymore bud. We NEED government to build our roads, educate our kids, police our neighborhoods, run our markets, engage in scientific research, protect our borders, etc.
Don't be a fool. There is a reason the libertarian party typically gets less than 2% of the vote.
Posted by: Proteus on September 30, 2008 06:18 PMThanks for conceding the point,David.
"...the only numbers which are relevant are the polling numbers and they incidate that Senator Senile and Governor Clueless aren't going to win in November. "
Wow, if McCain were senile he'd me making asinine comments like having "visited 57 states, with one left to go" ...if Palin is "clueless", what does that make Obama's training wheels Joe Biden asking a wheelchair-bound man to "Stand up chuck, let 'em see ya"
Clueless, boneheaded or taunting the differently-abled?
...there's more but you get the point, David. As for November, I'm sure you were singing the same tune back in 2000 and 2004 as well. Popping the bubbly before the results are in is a very precarious position to put yourself in don't you think?
Afterall, You may just be in need of a saw once you're out on that limb...
Posted by: Rick D. on September 30, 2008 07:12 PMYou made the comment about Senator Senile and Governor clueless, then I proceeded to give you video examples of both of your chosen candidates fitting that exact description. If you can't bring anything to the table David, why bother posting? You merely squeal on like Henny Penny declaring that the "sky is falling" , America is dead and you're voting Obama.
Given some of your posts in here, I'm wondering if you aren't a "Motivational speaker" in your day job./sarcasm
Posted by: Rick D. on September 30, 2008 08:04 PMDM's comment about capitalism being dead is may be dead on if Hussein gets his way. He has had numerous choices in life and has shown that underneath his chameleon-like exterior he is narcissistic, cynical and has an identity problem. He is hollow inside and the problem is that there may be enough people who worship idols that will elect such a person. The inmates will soon be running the asylum if this happens, but there are five more weeks to go.
I have reason to believe that the poster on this blog that goes by the handle of David Matthews has direct connections to ACORN and I will not hesitate to contact the FBI if my follow-up sources turn up evidence. Stay tuned.
Come on man! You have to try harder.
I got Pudge past the one word responses like 'false' and 'liar' and on to the clever two liner ways of ignoring my posts that are SOOO much more interesting for the rest of to read without even trying. :)
Posted by: lysanders on September 30, 2008 09:03 PM..."From each according to their ability to those according to their need" is what you are desperately trying to say. If you want it, you can find it in a little island nation 90 miles off of the Florida keys. Before leaving, you may want to talk with some of the Cuban refugees down in Miami that left the island paradise back in the 80's for a better life in America...where they see themselves as truly free.
hasta luego
Or you might just be exposing your misogynist persona masked in indignation for a woman that is smarter, more athletic and more succesful than yourself. That'd be my educated guess behind the unfounded vitriol directed towards her from the left.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 1, 2008 05:28 AMHaving a hard time facing reality, eh Pudge?
Not at all.
So..lets see. You want to cut back the entire federal government.
Of course. Every non-socialist does.
I guess you must be one of those wacko Ron Paul libertarian types.
False. I was opposed to Ron Paul.
I notice you contribute to Slashdot.
I've been employed at Slashdot since January 2000. I am a senior programmer for the site. I make it go. I used to write and post stories on the site, but my time is too valuable as a programmer.
The Web, as I'm sure you know was developed by a European socialist institution, CERN. Based on technology originally developed by the US government (NSF, DARPA to be exact). Guess we don't need any of that government scientific research, eh?
Ah yes, here we get into the obviously illogical argument that just because the government did something, that we therefore need government to do that thing. It's stupid, and I won't waste time responding to it.
I'm sure you drive on an interstate highway system. Another huge government project.
As above.
Like many Americans, you probably got a government education in a public school
Unfortunately. And, as above.
or government help to pay for your journalism degree.
Nope.
I guess you can take care of yourself if you, or your family gets sick or disabled.
Yes, absolutely. I prepare for these things myself.
Or perhaps you decide to retire one day.
I will not rely on government cheese to retire. I prepare for these things myself.
We NEED government to build our roads, educate our kids, police our neighborhoods, run our markets, engage in scientific research, protect our borders, etc.
No, we do not. We need government for law enforcement, only because the alternative is chaos and a loss of rights. The rest, no, we do not need. This is clearly true. You WANT the government for those things. And some of them, I'd even agree with, to some degree.
But we do not NEED government for them, and what's more, for everything you mentioned -- except for border enforcement and, perhaps, some portion of interstate highway costs -- are absolutely unconstitutional for the federal government to pay for.
In order to pay for public schools, the federal government must violate the Tenth Amendment. This is just as bad as if they violate the First or Fourth Amendment. This is why I couldn't care less when Democrats whine about Bush and the Bill of Rights, because Democrats want to, literally, destroy the Bill of Rights.
No, they aren't.
Pudge, you have taken Obama's statement out of context.
I absolutely did not, Bruce, as you prove below.
He said it in the context of taxes that are necessary to have the type of society we want.
Yes, and?
Most people agree that the more money you earn/have, the more taxes you should pay, because in general you can afford it
Yes, that is what I said Obama said. And that is the idiotic nonsense I am attacking. Did you actually read my post? The thinking you express here is exactly what I am saying is liberty-hating, because it actually IS liberty-hating, and I explained why in my post.
Sure, most people would rather do other things with their money, but your incessant equating of taxes with liberty-haters is getting old.
Yours, and Obama's, attempts to steal my liberty got old a long time ago.
"Ah yes, here we get into the obviously illogical argument that just because the government did something, that we therefore need government to do that thing. It's stupid, and I won't waste time responding to it."
Since the logic seems to escape you, I'll clear it up for you. Government is absolutely necessary for large scale infrastructure and research projects. Why?
Because capitalism is by very nature, short sighted. Industry only cares about profit. They are certainly not concerned with benefits to citizen, unless those benefits are profitable to the company. A governments job is ALWAYS to put people first. A corporations job, in modern society, is ALWAYS to maximize shareholder profits, usually at the expense of consumers and their customers. Big Pharma for example will always charge as much as they can possibly get away with, in order to maximize profits. They will always develop the most profitable cures, and will ignore the simple cures that help the majority of people. This is why government, and regulation is necessary.
This is the fundamental difference between right-wingers like you, and moderates like me.
You guys believe that everyone should fend for themselves in some Darwinian struggle for survival (although many of you don't believe in Darwin).
We moderates and progressives believe that we are civilized people, who live together with others. We believe that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts..that the good of the many supersedes the good of the few. Obviously, there has to be a balance, which historically is based on population density. As the US gets more urban, and less rural, we're going to continue this shift towards a more civilized, and less individualistic society. The rural, fiercely independent types are just going to have to live with it.
You live in this society, you benefit from it, so you have to pay. Your entire career is possible courtesy of European and US government "socialist" projects. Without government, you'd probably be chopping wood somewhere.
This is the fundamental philosophical difference between us.
Government is absolutely necessary for large scale infrastructure and research projects.
False. Nothing you said on this topic was remotely true or accurate.
Like all wingnuts, it appears that FACTS seem to be hard to deal with.
But go ahead, please enlighten us as to how private industry can successfully engage in large scale infrastructure and R&D projects. You know, things like the Internet...or the Interstate Highway system. Apollo.
Have you ever visited Europe or Japan? Ever seen how superior the average standard of living in France or Germany is? If not, you really need to travel, and see the world a bit. Canada would be a good place to start, Vancouver BC puts us to shame from a livability and infrastructure perspective.
Posted by: Proteus on October 3, 2008 11:13 AMReally Pudge?
Yes.
Sounds like you are in denial. I give you specifics, and you have absolutely nothing to refute them with.
There was nothing to refute. You made unsubstantiated assertions. Like "capitalism is by very nature, short sighted." Obviously false. You can't back it up. Nothing to refute. "You guys believe that everyone should fend for themselves in some Darwinian struggle for survival." Obviously false. You can't back it up. Nothing to refute.
Like all wingnuts, it appears that FACTS seem to be hard to deal with.
You offered no facts, only unsubstantiated and false assertions.
But go ahead, please enlighten us as to how private industry can successfully engage in large scale infrastructure and R&D projects.
So Windows doesn't exist?
Ever seen how superior the average standard of living in France or Germany is?
It's not.