The welfare state

[Tom]

Arguing government should be smaller is not the same argument as arguing there should be no government, so using the word anarchy to describe a plan for less government is nonsensical.

Looking at historical examples can lead to a lot of wrong conclusions, if you don't look at the whole picture.

Taking the Wild West as an example, I guess you forgot about the US Army vs the Native Americans, the US Marshalls, the railroads and land grants, the Panama canal, the geographical surveys, the mine claim agencies, the non-federally guaranteed banks which frequently absconded with everyone's money, the federally funded dams which enabled the expansion that exists today, without those the West would still be a backwater, not one of the most powerful economic regions in the world.

 

[Vic]

Socialism = mass enslavement.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have a well defined and controlled target.

I'm also against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have checks in place to judge and quantify actual RESULTS(not intent).

I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that are hand-outs instead of hand-ups. The purpose of programs such as these is to help, not make them reliant.

CsG

I agree, I would perfer like the "real life " equivilent to a "work-study" program, because it helps people and helps society. I believe their was a program like that, but it was struck down as unconstitutiuonal in the 1930's

Originally posted by: Condor
Welfare:

1. Destroys ambition and lets people who aren't naturally motivated languish
2. Destroys pride in accomplishment.

sorry but i doubt many people are proud to be on welfare.

3. Doesn't provide any margin of marginal income.
4. Can't provide marginal income.

I agree that the lack of marginal income in the current system is a signifigant problem. However it is not a proble that can't be addressed.

5. Is percieved as being blatantly unfair as it leverages the labor of one class to support another.

As opposed the poor supporting the rich.

6. Develops a layered society.

Society has been much more layered for a very long time. I don't see how the welfare state can make it worse.

7. Drives a wedge between the do's and the do nothings.
8. Creates discontent in both classes.

As opposed to just one class?

9. Provides one class more opportunitity for political activism, giving the economically impaired class an advantage.

I see as more of a leveling of the playing field, to which the economic elite are already extremely advantaged.

10. Forces people into blocs that are bought and sold like chattel for political gain.
11. Fosters crime in that an idle class will endeavor to better themselves economically and must do so in a subversive manner.
12. Prohibits the impaired class from bettering themselves economically as there are penalities for doing so.
13. Fosters an uneducated sub class.

I agree with #12, and #11 as well when considering the benefits to working in the black market in the current system, which relates to the lack of marginal income.

14. Destroys the productivity of thousands of people and the nation.

But also makes many lives much less unpleasant.

Originally posted by: Condor
[
I don't know what your major is, but it surely isn't economics. It doesn't appear to be history either.

Ironic because my major is economics and a minor is history Now if it could tell me how I'm wrong and not just that i'm wrong, that would be nice

The root of my comment was your analysis that the war is removing money from our economy. Economics is somewhat circular. The military spending that we do is rolled in significient part directly back into our national economy. Fuel procured overseas from overseas companies is a loss as is the food that is procured outside our agricultural production. Sort of like "What did it cost to go to the moon?" Answer: The hardware that was left there and the fuel to get there. The cost of labor for the research, the production and the operations was paid directly into the national economy. Even the cost of the food required by the crew can be considered null as they would have had to eat anyway and probably close to the same quantity of our national production. My comment on your history skills was pretty weak and kind of impulsive. Sorry! Just because I like you so much, I won't spell check this!

I'm not sure where your getting the part where money spent on the military is "rolled in significient part directly back into our national economy." Military spending seems like a deadend to me. It does not produce (and only destroys, which is the means by which war is conducted). And the analogy is good, although there is a difference between police and amry IMO.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Tom
Arguing government should be smaller is not the same argument as arguing there should be no government, so using the word anarchy to describe a plan for less government is nonsensical.

Looking at historical examples can lead to a lot of wrong conclusions, if you don't look at the whole picture.

Taking the Wild West as an example, I guess you forgot about the US Army vs the Native Americans, the US Marshalls, the railroads and land grants, the Panama canal, the geographical surveys, the mine claim agencies, the non-federally guaranteed banks which frequently absconded with everyone's money, the federally funded dams which enabled the expansion that exists today, without those the West would still be a backwater, not one of the most powerful economic regions in the world.

I don't have a plan for less government, and if I did, I currently do not have the resources to enact such a plan. Presenting theories as to why we ought to have less government or no government is different than saying you actually have a plan to bring it about. Hence, anarchy is not a plan for less government. It is a theory as to why we ought to have no government.

Your claim is highly dubious. Yes, we have had government programs for hundreds of years, but the fact that they existed during times of economic growth and expansion does not automatically mean that they aided this growth and expansion, they could have very well slowed it down. The fallacy you are committing here is known as post hoc ergo propter hoc. You can read about that here. On interpreting history in general I suggest you read this article here.

 

[imported_Condor]

Like they say in detective novels, follow the money. If you still don't understand how military spending rolls back into our economy by now, you should consider a change of majors.

Anniston, AL is a small city 30 miles south. They produce with American labor and materials the strike vehicle. They have just celebrated the production of the 1,000th vehicle - 60% of which were built in Anniston. All of that production was financed by the military spending that you can't see being rolled back into the nation. All of the labor payments to those personnel went directly into the economy of the town except the part that was held back and sent to the IRS to be rolled back into the central fund. Most of the employees are in at least the 20% bracket. That means that you can reduce the expenditure against military spending by a fractionalized 20%. That is direct. The spin off economy would be difficult to calculate, but it is substantial. Pretty simple and I can't see where you are having a hard time with it.

A note on welfare transfers - Welfare recipients DO NOT PAY back into the central fund via income tax withholdings. Welfare is a one way shot. A lot of welfare transfers goes directly to Columbia, not to Anniston or Peoria or Chicago or San Antonio.

Have you considered Bioliogy as a major. You may find it easier.

By the way, I love HalosPuma's quote and am glad that you use it in your sig as it saves me having to go back over past threads to enjoy it. I think Napalm in Fallujah would be better. I envision having the population of the city come out late in the afternoon for a demo of Napalm. Put a herd of sheep out there and let them watch the Napalm dance for an hour or so. Then tell them that if they don't produce the list of following named individuals, it's downtown tomorrow. I would bet we would get the right people and collaterial damage would be minimal!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have a well defined and controlled target.

I'm also against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have checks in place to judge and quantify actual RESULTS(not intent).

I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that are hand-outs instead of hand-ups. The purpose of programs such as these is to help, not make them reliant.

CsG

I agree, I would perfer like the "real life " equivilent to a "work-study" program, because it helps people and helps society. I believe their was a program like that, but it was struck down as unconstitutiuonal in the 1930's

Originally posted by: Condor
Welfare:

1. Destroys ambition and lets people who aren't naturally motivated languish
2. Destroys pride in accomplishment.

sorry but i doubt many people are proud to be on welfare.

3. Doesn't provide any margin of marginal income.
4. Can't provide marginal income.

I agree that the lack of marginal income in the current system is a signifigant problem. However it is not a proble that can't be addressed.

5. Is percieved as being blatantly unfair as it leverages the labor of one class to support another.

As opposed the poor supporting the rich.

6. Develops a layered society.

Society has been much more layered for a very long time. I don't see how the welfare state can make it worse.

7. Drives a wedge between the do's and the do nothings.
8. Creates discontent in both classes.

As opposed to just one class?

9. Provides one class more opportunitity for political activism, giving the economically impaired class an advantage.

I see as more of a leveling of the playing field, to which the economic elite are already extremely advantaged.

10. Forces people into blocs that are bought and sold like chattel for political gain.
11. Fosters crime in that an idle class will endeavor to better themselves economically and must do so in a subversive manner.
12. Prohibits the impaired class from bettering themselves economically as there are penalities for doing so.
13. Fosters an uneducated sub class.

I agree with #12, and #11 as well when considering the benefits to working in the black market in the current system, which relates to the lack of marginal income.

14. Destroys the productivity of thousands of people and the nation.

But also makes many lives much less unpleasant.

Originally posted by: Condor
[
I don't know what your major is, but it surely isn't economics. It doesn't appear to be history either.

Ironic because my major is economics and a minor is history Now if it could tell me how I'm wrong and not just that i'm wrong, that would be nice

The root of my comment was your analysis that the war is removing money from our economy. Economics is somewhat circular. The military spending that we do is rolled in significient part directly back into our national economy. Fuel procured overseas from overseas companies is a loss as is the food that is procured outside our agricultural production. Sort of like "What did it cost to go to the moon?" Answer: The hardware that was left there and the fuel to get there. The cost of labor for the research, the production and the operations was paid directly into the national economy. Even the cost of the food required by the crew can be considered null as they would have had to eat anyway and probably close to the same quantity of our national production. My comment on your history skills was pretty weak and kind of impulsive. Sorry! Just because I like you so much, I won't spell check this!

I'm not sure where your getting the part where money spent on the military is "rolled in significient part directly back into our national economy." Military spending seems like a deadend to me. It does not produce (and only destroys, which is the means by which war is conducted). And the analogy is good, although there is a difference between police and amry IMO.

Oh, I forgot to mention the economenies produced by our use of American companies and contractors to rebuild the destruction.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Condor
Welfare:

1. Destroys ambition and lets people who aren't naturally motivated languish
2. Destroys pride in accomplishment.
3. Doesn't provide any margin of marginal income.
4. Can't provide marginal income.
5. Is percieved as being blatantly unfair as it leverages the labor of one class to support another.
6. Develops a layered society.
7. Drives a wedge between the do's and the do nothings.
8. Creates discontent in both classes.
9. Provides one class more opportunitity for political activism, giving the economically impaired class an advantage.
10. Forces people into blocs that are bought and sold like chattel for political gain.
11. Fosters crime in that an idle class will endeavor to better themselves economically and must do so in a subversive manner.
12. Prohibits the impaired class from bettering themselves economically as there are penalities for doing so.
13. Fosters an uneducated sub class.
14. Destroys the productivity of thousands of people and the nation.

That sounds just like communism <gasp>, but I think communism comes with a health plan.