• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Welfare state vs the night-watchmen state-which do you support?

Welfare state vs the night-watchmen state-which do you support?

  • Im a right leaning American, Welfare state.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Im a left leaning American, Welfare state.

    Votes: 16 48.5%
  • Im not American, Welfare state.

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • Im a right leaning American, Night-watchmen state.

    Votes: 13 39.4%
  • Im a left leaning American, Night-watchmen state.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Im not American, Night-watchmen state.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    33
So you won't answer those 3 simple questions will you? I didn't think you'd be honest enough to anyways. Here's the thing: People using those programs does not change who manages them. States manage those programs. States define their budgets and the federal government funds them. So why is it that red states don't slash their budgets to reflect their conservative fiscal policies? Well, it's mostly because they're not interested in it. They like the perks of federal funding. Why, hell another measure of just how little interest conservatives have in fiscal frugalism is pork spending:

RealClearPolitics - Senators Who Snagged the Most Pork in This Year's Spending - Mitch McConnell













Of the top 10 Senators responsible for bringing the most pork back to their state, 6 were Republican and 1 of them the new Senate Majority leader who said:

quote-the-fact-is-if-our-primary-legislative-goals-are-to-repeal-and-replace-the-health-spending-bill-mitch-mcconnell-123077.jpg


It's clear what the Republican Party and its leaders prefer. They prefer the welfare state. Proof:

- In the overwhelming majority of cases their budgets aren't cut to reflect conservative fiscal policies.
- 6 of the top 10 pork lovers in Washington are Republicans (one of them will be the new Senate Majority Leader)
- You can't even blame people who use these programs (like your blogspot link tried to do) as they have no control over which program the state makes available.

Hell, I can even go further. The organization Citizens Against Government Waste (a conservative think tank) has a monthly report on who loves that federal pork most. Guess who won last month?:

CAGW Names Rep. Mike Rogers November Porker of the Month | Citizens Against Government Waste



We done yet? Or you want another thrashing on whether Republicans prefer the welfare state or the night watchman state?

Politicians love pork, I never said otherwise.
When did we move the goalposts to who manages them? Ive never received govt funds, and I live in CA. Does that make me a welfare state advocate? It of course does not.
 
Politicians love pork, I never said otherwise.

And so do their states. As I mentioned earlier: Louisiana, a conservative state ranks pretty high not because people take advantage of these programs. It ranks high because politicians and Republican states budget these programs and take in more than they actually give. Its budget reflects that, not the number of people who use it. Do you get the point now? I'll make it even simpler. Republican politicians and Republican voters in Republican states have a choice to cut the budgets of their federally funded state programs and yet, they don't. Why? :)

When did we move the goalposts to who manages them? Ive never received govt funds, and I live in CA. Does that make me a welfare state advocate? It of course does not.

Nobody moved the goalposts anywhere. I asked you to answer three simple questions which made your blogspot link laughably dishonest ( if not entirely fiction, I take blogspot "polls" with a grain of salt). Politicians are responsible for what their states take in taxes. Republican politicians and the Republican masses, love their welfare states otherwise they wouldn't keep reelecting pork loving, welfare funding politicians. So with that said, this nonsense that there is such a thing as a 'night watchman state' is just laughable. What's even more laughable is that there is a sizeable percentage of conservatives who hate it.
 
And so do their states. As I mentioned earlier: Louisiana, a conservative state ranks pretty high not because people take advantage of these programs. It ranks high because politicians and Republican states budget these programs and take in more than they actually give. Its budget reflects that, not the number of people who use it. Do you get the point now? I'll make it even simpler. Republican politicians and Republican voters in Republican states have a choice to cut the budgets of their federally funded state programs and yet, they don't. Why? :)



Nobody moved the goalposts anywhere. I asked you to answer three simple questions which made your blogspot link laughably dishonest ( if not entirely fiction, I take blogspot "polls" with a grain of salt). Politicians are responsible for what their states take in taxes. Republican politicians and the Republican masses, love their welfare states otherwise they wouldn't keep reelecting pork loving, welfare funding politicians. So with that said, this nonsense that there is such a thing as a 'night watchman state' is just laughable. What's even more laughable is that there is a sizeable percentage of conservatives who hate it.

The blogspot "poll" was not his own, it was from official sources. Im sure you can figure that out.
 
The blogspot "poll" was not his own, it was from official sources. Im sure you can figure that out.

Lmao, it wasn't from official sources. He practically pulled a Grim17 and decided to make up his own numbers based on his interpretations of how data is quantified. Not only is that fishy, it's laughable that you'd try to pass it off as an official source. However, that is besides the point. The point, which you have failed to address because it doesn't fit your argument is that politicians and states run social programs in their states.

Let's take an example: Who runs medicaid in Louisiana? The Department of Health & Hospitals. Who funds Medicaid in Louisiana? Well, for the most part, the federal government. Who crafts the budget for Medicaid in Louisiana? The state of Louisiana. So with that said, your red herring about who actually uses these programs is just that, a red herring. Conservatives and Republicans don't actually want these 'night watchman' governments. They want to pretend they do, but aren't actually willing to give up federal funding for these programs. Can you tell us why? :)
 
Lmao, it wasn't from official sources. He practically pulled a Grim17 and decided to make up his own numbers based on his interpretations of how data is quantified. Not only is that fishy, it's laughable that you'd try to pass it off as an official source. However, that is besides the point. The point, which you have failed to address because it doesn't fit your argument is that politicians and states run social programs in their states.

Let's take an example: Who runs medicaid in Louisiana? The Department of Health & Hospitals. Who funds Medicaid in Louisiana? Well, for the most part, the federal government. Who crafts the budget for Medicaid in Louisiana? The state of Louisiana. So with that said, your red herring about who actually uses these programs is just that, a red herring. Conservatives and Republicans don't actually want these 'night watchman' governments. They want to pretend they do, but aren't actually willing to give up federal funding for these programs. Can you tell us why? :)

Look, YOU are the one who brought up red states using welfare, I have demonstrated who is using them (far out of proportion) so stop the dancing and cries about red herring.
 
Look, YOU are the one who brought up red states using welfare, I have demonstrated who is using them (far out of proportion) so stop the dancing and cries about red herring.

Still struggling are you? Red states do use welfare. What went over your head was the fact that individuals don't fund, run or budget welfare programs. That's why your statement dishonestly missed. Who runs/budgets state welfare programs? State politicians, state departments, and legislators do. Who funds them? The federal government. As such, that's what the welfare state designation is about.

It's about how many states (and their politicians) use far more than they give while advocating for smaller government. So I ask one last time before I'm done thrashing you as I normally do: Why is it that state budgets and state programs in Republican welfare states do not reflect the ideas of the politicians who have the power to defund them?
 
Last edited:
Still struggling are you? Red states do use welfare. What went over your head was the fact that individuals don't fund, run or budget welfare programs. That's why your statement dishonestly missed. Who runs/budgets state welfare programs? State politicians, state departments, and legislators do. Who funds them? The federal government. As such, that's what the welfare state designation is about.

It's about how many states (and their politicians) use far more than they give while advocating for smaller government. So I ask one last time before I'm done thrashing you as I normally do: Why is it that state budgets and state programs in Republican welfare states do not reflect the ideas of the politicians who have the power to defund them?

Your convolution betrays you. Give it up home boy-nobody is buying it.
 
Look, YOU are the one who brought up red states using welfare, I have demonstrated who is using them (far out of proportion) so stop the dancing and cries about red herring.

No you haven't. You have merely stated what you want to think is the case, but you have not provided any evidence. How can you claim to have demonstrated something without evidence?

Hatuey on the other hand has provided loads of evidence from different sources, And last I remember, RealClearPolitics doesn't conjure up information either (at least that I know of). You have completely failed to provide counter-evidence to dispute Hatuey. Because it is so persistent, you have firmly demonstrated how much you like to suck up to your own ignorance.
 
No you haven't. You have merely stated what you want to think is the case, but you have not provided any evidence. How can you claim to have demonstrated something without evidence?

Hatuey on the other hand has provided loads of evidence from different sources, And last I remember, RealClearPolitics doesn't conjure up information either (at least that I know of). You have completely failed to provide counter-evidence to dispute Hatuey. Because it is so persistent, you have firmly demonstrated how much you like to suck up to your own ignorance.

I did indeed provide a link to the Maxwell poll, consistent with prior polls. Dems simply use welfare at a rate 2-4+ times the republican population. Its hardly news worthy.
 
The welfare state requires that some people forcibly take the money from some in order to hand it over to others. I was always taught that it's wrong to take from others. Thus, I can't support the welfare state, as it requires robbing Peter to pay Paul.
 
The welfare state requires that some people forcibly take the money from some in order to hand it over to others. I was always taught that it's wrong to take from others. Thus, I can't support the welfare state, as it requires robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Thats exactly it, robbing from Peter to pay Paul...and thats somehow presented as virtuous.
In the mean time, polls show that these same advocates give less to charity-further undermining their argument.
In either case its unacceptable.
 
Thats exactly it, robbing from Peter to pay Paul...and thats somehow presented as virtuous.
It's not Robbing peter to pay Paul, it's Peter, Paul, and everyone else realizing they live in a society, and to create a society with the highest standard of living, they must pitch in. What is the point of society if not to obtain a higher standard of living for all members? Why not do that in the most universal and guaranteed way possible? We live in modern societies with vast resources, Why not funnel our enormous wealth to create a positive feed-back loop via welfare. It is senseless not to, especially in this era.

In the mean time, polls show that these same advocates give less to charity-further undermining their argument.
No it doesn't. Charities help selective groups of people. Welfarist would prefer more people, not less get helped at the same time, and in a guaranteed manner. Charities are highly dependent on the bias of the one giving charity, so Charities don't ensure that all the needy get help, especially when people don't care about a little-known disease.
 
It's not Robbing peter to pay Paul, it's Peter, Paul, and everyone else realizing they live in a society, and to create a society with the highest standard of living, they must pitch in. What is the point of society if not to obtain a higher standard of living for all members? Why not do that in the most universal and guaranteed way possible? We live in modern societies with vast resources, Why not funnel our enormous wealth to create a positive feed-back loop via welfare. It is senseless not to, especially in this era.

No, if a common thug decided to rob people to help his neighbors you would not say his actions were justified because he used what he stole to help others, but would instead see him as a thief. It is no different for the government. It does not change the nature of the act because the government uses what it has stolen to help people. It is still the actions of a thief and men and women are still robbed of their property no matter if the intent of the theft was for noble ends or not.
 
The welfare state requires that some people forcibly take the money from some in order to hand it over to others. I was always taught that it's wrong to take from others. Thus, I can't support the welfare state, as it requires robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Many people today think it is right to act in the public sphere in a way they would deem unacceptable in the private sphere.
 
No, if a common thug decided to rob people to help his neighbors you would not say his actions were justified because he used what he stole to help others, but would instead see him as a thief. It is no different for the government. It does not change the nature of the act because the government uses what it has stolen to help people. It is still the actions of a thief and men and women are still robbed of their property no matter if the intent of the theft was for noble ends or not.

That is a false comparison. A thief is not a democracy and does not represent you. When society requires your funds, you know where those funds are going. They go to maintain the very democracy that represents the people, and assuming welfare, they would go to maintaining the universal welfare institutions which benefit everyone, not just a thug - or his/her neighbors. it's a massive, incomparable difference.
 
It's not Robbing peter to pay Paul, it's Peter, Paul, and everyone else realizing they live in a society, and to create a society with the highest standard of living, they must pitch in.

Spare me the Orwellian spin. Peter has no say, and money is always flowing towards Paul. So its unfair to Peter and Paul has less incentive to take care of himself.

This experiment has been tried all over the world for the last century. It does not work-let the marxist dream die.
 
That is a false comparison. A thief is not a democracy and does not represent you. When society requires your funds, you know where those funds are going. They go to maintain the very democracy that represents the people, and assuming welfare, they would go to maintaining the universal welfare institutions which benefit everyone, not just a thug - or his/her neighbors. it's a massive, incomparable difference.

So what you are saying is the only difference is the amount of people involved in the crime. Alright.

You might think that voting to rob others changes the nature of the crime, but sorry, it doesn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom