Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

Indie

Thing is that you have basically stopped trying to refute them, as I’ve said many many many times – if you could you would but you don’t seem able to.

I mean I’ve not tried to evade your criticisms of my views you evade all the time, this post of yours is just another evasion.

Yes I think governance should be about promoting the interests of everyone and you seem to want to have governance that works mainly in the interests of wealth.

I have set out and explained why I think that and you seem unable to address those criticisms of your views.

To repeat what I said just above –

We have been through the whole localism things and its drawbacks

We have been though the whole ideology thing and how your right wing outlook doesn’t change with scale or level.

We have been through your arguments opposing democracy and that you have suggested giving much greater voting power to wealth.

Can you please stop restating stuff and actually address the criticisms of it.

LOL – I’ve catalogued, demonstrated, explained and many many many times even quoted your evasions.

I’ll ask again is it rational and reasonable to hold let alone promote views that you seem totally unable to defend from criticism.

We went through all that in the Small Government thread some 2 years ago and I’ll repeat what I said back then – I’m not interested in ‘small’ government or ‘big’ government, I’m interested in good governance and I’ve explained why I think any sane person would be. To repeat when examined -

the whole ‘small government’ argument just seems a smokescreen, and once the smoke has been cleared it quickly become obvious that what its trying to hide is the same old right wing political agenda which is about preserving or increasing the power of those with advantage at the expense of everyone else.
It’s not about better government but cutting their taxes, it’s not about efficient government but about cutting the benefits going to the disadvantaged and it’s not about ‘freeing’ people but about trying to perpetuate their own wealth and influence.

Again we have been through this many many many many times can you stop restating stuff and actually address the many criticisms of them?

I’ve set out and explained how your ideas would vastly increase the power of wealth across the board from local to national and even beyond. Criticisms that are still outstanding.

 

Wrong

So did he address the outstanding criticisms?

LOL once again with the straw man, ok same routine – can you point out where the supposed straw man is and can you actually explain why you think it a straw man?

OH hell just restating something doesn’t mean the criticisms of it go away.

Once again please read my posts – I have never said my views are ‘enlightenment’ what I was pointing out was that although I was seeking some enlightenment (like Indie addressing the many outstanding criticisms) all I seem to get is hollow rhetoric.

In other words he seems to prefer giving us hollow rhetoric to giving us enlightenment.

 

Bal,

You continually avoid the thread topics, and expand the subject matter to include everything but what is being discussed.

If you wish to post related to topics of other threads, why not post in those threads rather than post multiple pages unrelated to the current thread?

I might point out one nice thing about small governments is that they allow individuals the freedom to escape from under a government which they find unacceptable for reasons of their own. A small government tends to provide the governed a more effective usefulness of the democratic process, with the results of their choices being imposed upon them directly allowing the consequences, good or bad to be seen by others who then copy or avoid doing the same things. A large part of what Americans view as freedom is the ability of individuals to makes choices differing from one another, and NOT so much as you seem to wish from government, the equality of outcome. Recognize as fact that those who would like to eliminate totally the possibility of failure, as you have pointed out there are European nations available to provide that type of life and government. I assume you would welcome them with open hands, and pocketbook, would you not?

 

It's a damn good thing republicans won't be asking for government help. That would really cost us.

 

Now if only the democrats would stop spending so much of the Governments sources so inefficiently we would be alright.

 

I guess you told me!!

It's too bad the wars have eaten up so much your and my money---New York will need a bunch.

 

^ I concur

 

The GOP owns the house. That's where all spending bills have to start.

Nice apologism, though.

 

What?

 

And nearly 40 bills passed in the House remain stalled in the Democrat controlled Senate, not to mention a budget which in order to eliminate the possibility of cuts in spending has not been allowed to come to the floor in the Senate by Reid.

 

So tell me, how are the dems spending money without the GOP's help?

 

Article I, section 7 of the US constitution, Sparky:


Section 7
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills.

 

And after the House passes a budget bill, is then sent to the Senate for passage after which it must be approved and signed by the President to become law. As the Democrat controlled Senate under Reids leadership refuses to act on the budget bills, as well as many others, passed by the Republican majority House they never even get voted on, and then spending continues with no cuts under threat of a shutdown if continuing resolutions are not agreed to by the House.

 

So, wait. You're saying that the senate, controlled by the dems, should bow to the house, controlled by the GOP?

Fuck that. Let the GOP be the reasonable ones for once. The GOP has had it's way for too long, and they've failed.

 

I didn't say that at all, what I said is that the Senate is not allowing some of the House passed bills, including the budget, to be discussed which they could then bring up the areas in which they disagree with the House version making changes before returning the bill to the House where they would then do the same, initiating a bi-partisan process in which the differences might be able to be resolved. The Democrat led Senate appears to be unwilling to compromise in any way at all by sending a message to the House that they will not even allow a budget bill discussion to take place unless it is one they can appear to be making compromises on without giving up anything.

The only reasonable and rational ones considering the situation that now exists are those who are being fiscally conservative, be they Democrat, Republican, or Independent.

And I agree somewhat, the GOP has allowed the Left to have its way far too long now, and the failings are becoming much too difficult to ignore by a growing number of taxpaying voters. The Lefts solution to this problem is to create a population in which a majority of voters feel they are receiving more from government than they are being made to provide to government. It's those evil rich versus those angelic poor.

 

Man. That last paragraph is about as cynical as I've seen anywhere.



"The differance between a welfare state and a totalitarian one is a matter of time"

You did see the fact mentioned that Rand took welfare? Seems she was helping her "proposition /theory" out herself. Guess she believed in the former. Or was it the latter? Hmmmm. Hard to tell who are hypocrites without a program.

 

Indy,

I started with those links but life happened and I didn't get through them all.

I saw the first two; the second actually emphasised something I suspected; while modifications linking welfare to attempts to work seem positive, it is the type of welfare that matters, not that welfare is inherently bad. Same as the first. As far as I can tell the 96 welfare model seems good, which is very different to asserting 'welfare is bad'.

I saw there was a link to a Heartland institute page btw. Good grief.

So we're back to where we started; you've not yet linked me to anything that backs up your assertation that removing welfare is a good idea, or been able to quote any economic theorist doing the same. I'm off to flip through those pervious links to see if I'm mistaken but I can't think I am.

This anti-welfare thing seems a religion to you, where evidence matters less than faith. Which is ok, but don't act like you can back it up if you can't.

 

I am familiar with the US Constitution, 'Sparky'.

If you remember, your statement was in regard to "spending" bills rather than those for "raising revenue".

 

You're making this up. What post are you referring to?

So like a tradesman setting up shop in the aftermath of a hurricane and does shoddy workmanship only to reap profits for himself should be allowed "freedom to escape from under a government which they find unacceptable for reasons of their own?"

Individual:
How do you answer the criticism of small government being a smoke screen which is about preserving or increasing the power of those with advantage at the expense of everyone else?

 

Cynical? Hmmmm. "Unfortunately true" seems a better description.

Welfare for Rand? Other than Social Security and Medicare, which, according to all I've read, she refused for sometime before reluctantantly accepting?