• 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
I dont recall saying "I know it can work!" but I do support the minimal functions of govt. The welfare state has proven to be a poor solution, and my example was the USSR, where supposedly all of ones needs would be provided for.

And you're still comparing apples and oranges. The USSR was NEVER a socialized democracy. What you're doing is like pointing at the Chicago Cubs and saying that's why the NFL can't be a success. While they both might be sports teams, what they do is wildly different.
 
I'm with you, but alas, according to US Conservative, that means we both vote welfare state.

That is because you do. I'm not really sure why people think they just change the name to safety net and somehow not support the welfare state.
 
FYI, it wasn't only 'freedom' that enabled people to prosper. It was also government-funded roads, government-funded schools, government-funded military might protecting our commerce, government-funded diplomacy smoothing the way for overseas commerce, government-funded police and fire protection, government-funded access to space for our satellites...and a LOT of government-funded regulation that gave us safer places to live and work.

YES, freedom is essential to success...but freedom by itself isn't enough. Gotta have that government-funded INFRASTRUCTURE, too. Without that strong infrastructure, you can't have real national prosperity no matter how 'free' the people may be.

And those prosperous people you resent so much for being prosperous are the ones paying for the flawless and sainted government. Still, I gotta say, having such complete faith in the government must be a much easier way to go through life.
 
Government-Teat.jpg
 
Neither of which even came close to what happened in 1982, 1987, and 2008.

Well, I guess if we are going to do a compare and contract between two time periods with liberal economic policies in place you win. :lol:
 
And those prosperous people you resent so much for being prosperous are the ones paying for the flawless and sainted government. Still, I gotta say, having such complete faith in the government must be a much easier way to go through life.

You really gotta watch those assumptions - I don't resent the prosperous, because I am prosperous myself.

But I'm still waiting - as I have for years - for the small-government crowd to show me ANY first-world nation that has the conservative trifecta of small government, low effective taxes, and little or no regulation. After all, if the almighty market forces are as strong as we all know they are, then NONE of the big-government welfare states would be first-world nations...

...but instead, ALL of the first-world nations are big-government welfare states.

Why is that?

And if you can't answer, don't let that worry you...because no other small-government conservative has ever been able to answer that, either.
 
Well, I guess if we are going to do a compare and contract between two time periods with liberal economic policies in place you win. :lol:

Huh? We had high taxes from 1951-1980...and the recessions we had then were not nearly so bad as the recessions we've had under Reaganomics...and yes, we're are still under low-tax Reaganomics.
 
That is because you do. I'm not really sure why people think they just change the name to safety net and somehow not support the welfare state.

I believe it's because when people use buzz words like "welfare state", and the like, they are referring a system of socialism far most left than what we would like, in terms of social welfare.

My idea of a good social safety net, instead of unemployment, is employment. I mean, we're gonna pay these people...may as well put them to work.

Does that make me a pinko dirty socialist bastard? A welfare statist?
 
Huh? We had high taxes from 1951-1980...and the recessions we had then were not nearly so bad as the recessions we've had under Reaganomics...and yes, we're are still under low-tax Reaganomics.

Do you think low taxes leads to recessions?
 
I believe it's because when people use buzz words like "welfare state", and the like, they are referring a system of socialism far most left than what we would like, in terms of social welfare.

My idea of a good social safety net, instead of unemployment, is employment. I mean, we're gonna pay these people...may as well put them to work.

Does that make me a pinko dirty socialist bastard? A welfare statist?

Welfare state - a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits. The foundations for the modern welfare state in the US were laid by the New Deal programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

:shrug:

It sounds like you're talking about job programs, which is Keynesian in origin. There might be others that believe in such things, but I can't recall any of them right now.
 
It's not a binary choice
 
Welfare state vs the night-watchmen state-which do you support?

false dichotomy.
 
More reading can be found at the provided links. Please read them and using the provided definitions vote.


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


No middle? No state of reason where the welfare of citizens IS a consideration and those who work it can have it, while those incapable of doing so are provided for in an efficient manner?

No state of logic where the asinine idea of zero tolerance is not an option, where judges have discretion?

I think I am beginning to see the problem
 
FYI, it wasn't only 'freedom' that enabled people to prosper. It was also government-funded roads, government-funded schools, government-funded military might protecting our commerce, government-funded diplomacy smoothing the way for overseas commerce, government-funded police and fire protection, government-funded access to space for our satellites...and a LOT of government-funded regulation that gave us safer places to live and work.

YES, freedom is essential to success...but freedom by itself isn't enough. Gotta have that government-funded INFRASTRUCTURE, too. Without that strong infrastructure, you can't have real national prosperity no matter how 'free' the people may be.

We did fine, arguablly better before big govt.
 
FYI, it wasn't only 'freedom' that enabled people to prosper. It was also government-funded roads, government-funded schools, government-funded military might protecting our commerce, government-funded diplomacy smoothing the way for overseas commerce, government-funded police and fire protection, government-funded access to space for our satellites...and a LOT of government-funded regulation that gave us safer places to live and work.

YES, freedom is essential to success...but freedom by itself isn't enough. Gotta have that government-funded INFRASTRUCTURE, too. Without that strong infrastructure, you can't have real national prosperity no matter how 'free' the people may be.

The problem with your statement is that when you say infrastructure I think roads and bridges, not entitlements and a dependent citizenry.
 
And you're still comparing apples and oranges. The USSR was NEVER a socialized democracy. What you're doing is like pointing at the Chicago Cubs and saying that's why the NFL can't be a success. While they both might be sports teams, what they do is wildly different.

The USSR was a welfare state. By the provided definitions and otherwise.
 
Capitalism is more accurately an economic system. China has some capitalist traits.

"It is like saying..." it was a comparison, not a statement confusing systems of government and systems of economy.
 
And those prosperous people you resent so much for being prosperous are the ones paying for the flawless and sainted government. Still, I gotta say, having such complete faith in the government must be a much easier way to go through life.

Of course its easier. People want to be taken care of. The problem with freedom is it requires responsibility and its not guaranteed (though as we see in europe, neither are govt handouts).
 
You really gotta watch those assumptions - I don't resent the prosperous, because I am prosperous myself.

But I'm still waiting - as I have for years - for the small-government crowd to show me ANY first-world nation that has the conservative trifecta of small government, low effective taxes, and little or no regulation. After all, if the almighty market forces are as strong as we all know they are, then NONE of the big-government welfare states would be first-world nations...

...but instead, ALL of the first-world nations are big-government welfare states.

Why is that?

And if you can't answer, don't let that worry you...because no other small-government conservative has ever been able to answer that, either.

I know several prosperous lefties who hate themselves. :lol:
They also dont like the rich. Its that modern guilt thing and its really more a lefty thing.
 
No. I dont know how I can spell this out any more clear. Taxation is a transfer of wealth to the govt for legitimate purposes, not to enable another citizens poor choices.

One deals with funding operations dealing with carrying out law like police and courts, while the other deals with using funding to help people meet their needs.

If the argument for taxation is that the state needs the funds so they can deal with criminals and the sort then there is no way you can fit the welfare state into the scope of the argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom