First of all, roads would not be better maintained in the private sector. Roads are considered a public good since they are both not excludable to consumers nor rival in consumption. This means roads suffer from the free rider problem, which indicates consumers are not willing to pay for the good, but expect it to be provided. Therefore, the government is probably the only viable option in creating and maintaining roads. Second of all, the government heavily subsidizes the education sector, which means that higher education is attainable to many different segments of the population, including the low income, economically depressed demographic. Now, there may be an argument made that declares the government inefficient in providing the necessary education to different individuals. And generally, the government is usually less efficient in providing services to the public than the private sector due to the absence of the profit motive and the absence of competition because of monopolies resulting from legal restrictions, frequently due to lobbyists in Capitol Hill. Laws created by the government, such as the one that created the FDIC, provide incentives for citizens to trust financial institutions with their capital. If money was not insured by the FDIC, how could anyone be expected to place cash in financial institutions that may fail to be solvent in the future? I don't know enough about Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, so I can't make a reasonable argument for or against them. However, I do know that Social Security should be changed rather than discarded. These are all reasoned arguments for the establishment of a democratic republic government. I have excluded many other reasons, such as the maintenance of property rights, the binding nature of contracts, the criminal justice system, the accountability of public officials, the international recognition that comes from being a democratic government, the creation of treaties with other countries, the speedy mobilization of resources that are required in case of war, the extremely well-developed financial institutions in the United States that transfer funds between savers and lenders and in the process creating stability in the money markets and capital markets, and several other reasons I have not described. All of this is not to say the government is generally efficient in the production of goods and services, because it is not. Nor does the government always make the correct or moral decision from an economic or social point of view. Taxes on capital dividends, for example, usually provide incentives against investment in the financial markets. Also, there are several stances on certain social issues on which the government may be wrong. For instance, foreign policy is generally looked down upon due to recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore, economists agree that the government is too intrusive in the private sector for it to function optimally and efficiently. Nevertheless, governments are an essential requirement in society. Arguments may be made for which type of government, such as a democratic republic or parliamentary monarchy, is the optimal form needed to maintain productivity growth in the economy. In essence, anarchy is NOT the answer. Please, next time you feel like making such outlandish comments, create some semblance of an argument. But noting how people usually regard you in such high* esteem, I assume you rely more on misplaced emotions rather than logic anyway.

-blam!- you

But they couldn't do any of that because they can't tap phones or read emails unless they can demonstrate that phone or email account had been contacting known terrorists.

The NSA's seizure of phone records only tells them who a person has called. The most it could do is prove that someone talked to someone else who was participating in fraud. It wouldn't be able to build a case alone.

My solution? Disband the government.

Except financial institutions make their wealth by not using fraud but by using loopholes in place by Congress which technically doesn't make it illegal.

This has been going on since before Obama became president. I don't get why people blame.

How exactly would they prosecute fraud by comparing phone calls to a list of terrorist cell phone numbers? Do you even understand what info was collected and what was done with it? Because it seems obvious that you don't if you think that the idea presented in the picture would be possible.

Because Obama is NOT a progressive. Every competent progressive is not impressed by his decisions.

But.... Camnator is a total idiot.