They are dealing primarily in cash and hiding as much of it as possible, so little to none taxes from them. Also, family members who don't work suck social services dry.

It's outrageous all right, it's just that not many people seem to know about the private scheming to take over basic service you talk about. It's been established since Roman times that private basic services such as courts, firefighters, police, schools, etc. are "bad" idea for many reasons, not the least of which is that it eventually leads to a very screwed up society ready to collapse. However, most people nowadays seem to forget what happened last week, and cannot be bothered by long-term history.

If you ever have enough brains, curiosity, and determination to go to a decent college, they will teach you that it is workers who create the wealth, not "business". "Business" steals from workers, adds its own markup, and sells to a greater fool. Your post is just a moronic right-wing propaganda straight from your right-wing study notes, no imagination whatsoever. Stupid and boring.

Why should they care if this goes against their hateful ideology? According to them, if you cannot make enough money to feed you and your children in the screwed-up economic system they built, you are not worthy of survivor.

Your delusional fascistic musings are a mixture of non sequitur and ad absurdum logical fallacies with a healthy mixture of pure craziness on top. Get psychiatric help; it's cheap or free in Canada.

For those who don’t know this nut, he resides in Canada and enjoys their universal health care, extensive social safety net and strong labor laws. He likes to bark across the border about beauties of free-for-all capitalism while being too much of a coward to even cross the border to be subjected to the beauties of his ideology, including (lack of) health insurance, (lack of) social safety net, and the ability of employer to throw you out without a cause like a dog you are to them.

You are a typical brainwashed Western idiot. There was much more to life in the Soviet Union than dictatorship. As a matter of fact, you had more freedom there as you did not need the money to get decent education, unlike the U.S. Poor but talented kids from the countryside would routinely come to big cities and enroll in major universities to have great careers.

Before someone jumps up with "counterexample," I am sure you could dig up a few such cases in the U.S. These cases are few and far between, and require a great amount of planning ahead or dumb luck. In the Soviet Union, it happened much more often; they actually had large quotes for children of workers as opposed to privileged classes.

Source: Grew up there.

>>In the U.S. the "right" actually proposes reducing government power and, to the extent it actually does so, thus opens greater opportunities for those who are not yet wealthy.

>>As government power increases and it regulates ever more minutely the opportunities for those who do not have wealth and/or political connections are diminished.

Both statements are non sequitur. Your logic is faulty.

Indeed, I always forget that I have the FREEDOM to be homeless, live under the stars with my wife and children, enjoy the nature, you know. Republican dream for working people.

>> I WORK for that agency

So, you are a repuglican saboteur troll that takes public money and then badmouths the hand that feeds them.

The government needs to fire repuglicans that don't believe in the system, and hire more democrats who cares and gets things done.

The problem with the government isn't intrinsic, it's the scum that saboteurs the system on a daily basis and then walks around screaming how "it's not working". Get rid of the scum, hire decent people that believe in public good, and things work marvelously.

>> Capitalism is very effective in what it does

Pumping the money from the poor to the rich.

You are mixing things up, and you are incorrect. The plan was to take the Caucasus oil fields [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Caucasus], not Ural. There was no way Germans could take Ural in 1943, and there was no oil there anyway.

The real story is that Hitler needed to take Caucasus oil to keep his war machine running. He had to take Stalingrad to keep his flanks safe. Look at the map [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Eastern_Front_1942-05_to_1942-11.png]. It wasn't a detour, Hitler had to take Stalingrad to keep the front stable, and he failed. He failed due to his underestimation of Russian heroism and overestimation of Wehrmacht.

What you call "Central Planning" is also known as top-down design. It's a valid design method, it certainly works and is used regularly. Done properly, it produces cleaner designs than bottom-up alternative. You seem to argue for the bottom-up design to be the single correct method because it fits your right-wing ideology.

Amen to that.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

That's an empty soundbite. Just because something was done before in no way implies that a quite different thing can be done in the future. Society has advanced dramatically since crossing the Atlantic, and nobody will tolerate hundreds of lost ships and thousands of missing crew members. As far as expenses, surely, the private enterprise will spare no expense after governments around the worlds sink trillions in funding for fundamental science in technology for 50-100 years. Then the proud private entrepreneurs will bravely step forward, take all the risks (of which most have been already taken at society's expense), skim off all profits, and lecture the rest of us how "private enterprise" solves all problems.