- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Even modestly? Are we arguing over net benefits to a population or are we arguing political philosophy?
Even net benefits is subjective. :shrug:
Even modestly? Are we arguing over net benefits to a population or are we arguing political philosophy?
Considering it exists that is pretty weird thing to say.
In moderated amounts, perhaps. Even then, your moderated ideas needed significant alterations.
I'm suggesting that your own feelings toward what you are doing is a lesser concern than the overall impact on a population.
Okay, well make a point then. Just telling me what "scholars" say doesn't prove anything. Make a point, tell me who made the US such an awesome country before entitlements if it wasn't the government, and why could't they have done the same or better than the government since the inception of entitlements?
Even modestly? Are we arguing over net benefits to a population or are we arguing political philosophy?
It may not be the greatest in history (that's a matter of debate, as you could swing to Rome), but it should be near the top at the very least.
Okay, well make a point then. Just telling me what "scholars" say doesn't prove anything. Make a point, tell me who made the US such an awesome country before entitlements if it wasn't the government, and why could't they have done the same or better than the government since the inception of entitlements?
I'm not against the government setting certain rules, I don't like the massive payments through transfer of wealth.
They really couldn't have done more in the same time period since the government has access to more resources and more power over the economy, but they could have pushed towards the same ends just fine.
I think their tied in together.
Don't you see "transfer of wealth" as one of the scary Conservative labels? What does it really mean?
And why is that?
It means taking from one person against their will and giving to another person.
So it sounds then like you would see any form of taxation as a transfer of wealth?
How do you know their lives were miserable and that the government made their lives better? Do you think Helen Keller was glad that Annie Sullivan came into her life? Was Sullivan sent by the government?
You're assuming that the great leaps in technology that have led us all to live more comfortable, safer lives are all due to the government. I think that the amazing ingenuity of America before there were even welfare and disability payments would've continued and we would've found ways to take care of each other without the government.
As I said earlier, I have read a great deal about it. I've been involved in the field at different levels local and state. I have taken classes, graduate classes concerning disability and disability law. I know about the history. There are a number of books and articles and research papers and magazines dealing with the subject of disability, disability history, disability law, individual disabilities. They are out there if you want to read them. It seems to me you haven't. One of my favorites is the Mask of Benevolence by Dr. Harlan Lane. There are many. If you'd like, I'll be glad to furnish you with some titles.
No, I'm sorry. I am speaking from fact based knowledge. You are the one assuming. If you want to provide factual sources please put them up here. I'll read them. I'm late for a dinner with friends. However, I'd love to discuss the paragraph above with you later if you want to bring your sources into discussion.
No, the roads for instance benefit everyone.
My factual source is the history of the United States.
Exit taxes mean that he will be taxed exorbitantly for attempting to remove his wealth from the country. He isn't free to "vote with his feet".
Which is exactly as it should be, in my opinion. He made his money here, in the country whose markets and economic climate made it possible-- if he wants to abandon ship because he doesn't like our economy, he should pay for the privilege.
Yes, but it isn't running out of money because of fraud-- at least, not disability fraud. One of the reasons it's running out of money is because the thieving whores in Congress took the money from the Social Security budget and spent it.
The other is simple demographics. The life expectancy is advancing faster than the retirement age and the birth rate is falling, so more and more people are collecting Social Security per person collecting-- disability (and disability fraud), as big of an issue as it is, is a drop in the bucket compared to that. As it is right now, people are only expected to work at a career for a little over forty years, and then collect retirement benefits for fifteen on average-- with some people collecting Social Security for as long, or longer, than they worked. That's unsustainable.
The top priorities, if we're to save Social Security, are to shore up flagging population growth rates and reform Social Security funding so that it's no longer vulnerable to legislative vultures.
No, but I'd bet that I've poured and finished more concrete basement floors than you will ever set foot on in your entire life. That is why I instantly knew you were full of Shiite when you started blabbing on about "100 pound bags of concrete".Do you live in a basement ?
I'm not advocating it, I'm saying that bad things are going to happen no matter what. I've heard some pretty bad stories of VA hospitals too.
Sullivan's description of her horrors sounds a lot like Shania Twains, from her autobiography. Another person who grew up in abject poverty with an abusive upbringing and went on to realize an incredible potential.
Will we ever put an end to the bad things that happen, I don't think so. We have to have negative to have positive in this world. Sullivan, Lincoln, and Twain in my opinion exemplify that.
With that said, would I have a desire to help the disabled if there were no government assistance? Yes. The difference between me helping and the government is that I'm giving a heartfelt, personal gift to them and they're often receiving it with humility and gratefulness and a desire to do as much on their own as they can. A government entitlement is a nameless check...not a gift, but something one should expect. Some do receive it with humility, buy many don't. After all, why...we're entitled to it.
Because protectionism worked,
regulations worked
the invisible hand never existed among its greatest proponents, and philanthropy had its unfortunate limits.
So it sounds then like you would see any form of taxation as a transfer of wealth?