I didn't bother watching the Republican Presidential debate. Here is a transcript.
I looked at the questions, and imagined what an honest answer would be like. I came up with two sets of responses, one sarcastic and one serious. Imagine if I were invited to the debate, and answered sarcastically or honestly.
(Notice how the person asking the question always has to give a mini-speech first.)
QUESTION: Yes. Mr. Gingrich said that 14 million people are unemployed. My question is this. The Democrats say that the Republicans don't have any plans to create jobs, and jobs -- and jobs in the private sector, not in the government jobs. I'd like to know, what are those plans?FSK (sarcastic): I'm creating jobs! ... for my bankster buddies and corporate owners!
Let's ship jobs to third world countries and give bailouts to the corporations that do it!
It hard work being a useless parasite. Do you realize how much energy we spend keeping the masses brainwashed and deluded and complacent?
FSK (serious): A pro-State troll says "$1 of government deficit spending creates $2 of wealth. Winning!" The reality is that $1 of government deficit spending creates less than $1 of wealth, and may even have overall negative value. That is, $1 of government deficit spending actually destroys $0.50 or more wealth.
This is pro-State troll economics "The economy is struggling because of too much corruption! I know what will fix it! Let's steal more!"
If government spends $1B on a road worth $2B, that is useful. Usually, it's $1B spent on something worth $0.5B or less, an overall negative. Sometimes, like the War on Raw Milk, it's money spent on harmful activities. No matter how many Amish farmers you kidnap, the economy won't get better.
Saying "Government is supposed to make jobs." makes as much sense as saying "A baseball umpires' job is to make sure players hit lots of home runs."
QUESTION: Yes. As a journalist who's written frequently about health care and medicine for both newspapers and for corporate publications, I'm very concerned about the overreach of the massive health care legislation that was passed last year. My question is, what would each candidate do? What three steps would they take to de- fund Obamacare and repeal it as soon as possible? Thank you.FSK (sarcastic): Lobbyists paid good money for that law! I'm not repealing it!
FSK (serious): At one time, the Republicans swore they would repeal Medicare and Medicaid. Now, Medicare and Medicaid are politically untouchable.
It's almost impossible to repeal a bad law. The people who profit from that bad law will always lobby against repeal.
Even with a majority in Congress and a Republican President, Republicans may not be able to achieve repeal. First, they would need to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Second, there will be too many lobbyists trying to preserve their pork.
A serious discussion of healthcare reform involves the State licensing cartel for doctors. The supply of doctors is artificially restricted via government licensing requirements. This restricts supply and drives up prices and reduces quality.
The correct answer is "There should be no government licensing requirements for doctors." Other partial reforms are possible. The supply of doctor licenses could be increased. Insurance corporations could license and train their own doctors.
Another example (cited by Ron Paul) is the law that forces hospitals to treat everyone, insured or not. This meant that that people who could afford care were subsidizing broke deadbeats. Rather than repealing that mandatory treatment law, instead the new law requires everyone to buy health insurance. One bad law is patched with an even worse law. That's a clear example of how state evil advances. In case, you didn't understand:
- Require hospitals to treat everyone, even those who can't pay.
- Surprise! Broke people are getting free medical care! Crisis!
- Require everyone to purchase health insurance.
QUESTION: Yes, sir. As a member of the Baby Boomer generation, I've been contributing to Medicare through payroll taxes for over 30 years. How do you propose to keep Medicare financially solvent for the next 50 years and beyond?FSK (sarcastic #1): HAHAHAHA!!! Sucker! You were robbed!
FSK (sarcastic #2): There's nothing wrong with Social Security and Medicare. Any politician who suggests otherwise is someone who doesn't want to get elected.
Move along! There's nothing to see here.
I might make vague statements about a problem. I'm not allowed to mention specific benefit cuts or tax hikes. Let's face it. If Congress thought they could raise taxes, they would have done it already.
FSK (serious): Social Security and Medicare are massive Ponzi scams. All Ponzi scams end in disaster. (Some pro-State trolls say "It's not a Ponzi scam. It's pay-as-you-go." "Pay-as-you-go" is a fancy word for "Ponzi scam".)
With Social Security, politicians can inflate their way out of it. If you give people a 1% COLA while inflation is 20%-30%+, then you can inflate away the value of the Social Security liability.
With Medicare, politicians can't inflate their way out of it. People expect tangible goods and services.
This is a problem. People are saying "I paid Social Security and Medicare taxes my whole life! Where's my benefit?!" Unfortunately, you were robbed. The money you paid is spent and gone. It was spent on other people's benefits and other government spending.
This is a common misconception. Social Security and Medicare taxes are taxes. They do not create a contract between slave and State. They were presented to the public as insurance programs. That is false. It's a tax. It's a wealth transfer from current workers to retirees. This Ponzi scam is no longer sustainable.
A default is inevitable. There's nothing you can do. You were robbed. Shame on you for trusting politicians.
I calculated "Social Security and Medicare taxes I paid" and concluded that's more than my parents' benefit. If I could opt out and directly pay for my parents, I'd be better off. Unfortunately, taxes are extortion. I am forced at gunpoint to pay.
It is unfair that you were robbed all your life, paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. Unfortunately, the scam can only be preserved with crushing tax hikes or severe benefit cuts. You should have known better, paying into an obviously-corrupt system.
QUESTION: As a naturalized American citizen who came here legally, I would like to know how you, as America -- as president, plan to prevent illegal immigrants from using our health care, educational, or welfare systems?FSK (sarcastic): Illegal immigrants are good enough to pick our tomatoes for slave wages, but they better not get any benefit from the Welfare State!
It's wonderful that people are focused on "illegal immigration", rather than the ass-raping me and my buddies are pulling off. You're angry about "illegal immigration" and not trillions of dollars in bailouts! I'm proud that our propaganda works so well.
FSK (serious): There are two simple answers:
- There should not be a Welfare State.
- There's no such thing as "illegal immigration".
Without the State, jobs would be more plentiful. It would be easier for a poor person to get a decent job, without the State. The Welfare State is an attempt to patch a corrupt system.
"Illegal immigration" is a fake issue, used to divide and conquer the slaves.
An "illegal immigrant" is actually an agorist hero. He's conducting arbitrage on the discrepancy in living conditions among various countries.
All political boundaries are arbitrary and enforced with violence. It is silly that a person gets a better or worse standard of living, based on where they were born.
Besides, "illegal immigrants" aren't lazy. They're actually the most ambitious and hardworking people, taking risks to get a better life for themselves and their children.
QUESTION: I'd like to know your opinion on your involvement with Libya.FSK (sarcastic): Wow! To distract people from failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've got people talking about Libya.
FSK (serious): President Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act. Congress is a bunch of sniveling cowards. They should impeach him for flagrantly violating the law.
Libya is not an "emergency".
Why should the USA be interfering with every other country?
War is the health of the State. A lot of money is wasted on pork projects. War is an excuse for higher taxes and less freedom. Politicians are eager to start wars, because war is very profitable.
Via taxation/extortion, the slaves are forced to pay for war, whether it's a good idea or a massive waste.
What happened to "no standing armies"?
I don't have to worry about getting invited to the debate, or getting a mainstream media job. It's amusing to imagine what journalists and politicians would say, if they weren't complete tools.