Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maverick74, Jul 4, 2011.
Don't be stupid stubby. It's not a good look for you.
Don't laugh Mav. Don't laugh. If you build it, they will come.
The Artful Racist drew a quote from V-dare. Nuff said
i note that i did not say that not enough handouts have been given to the poor over the years. handouts don't solve anything. the charity funds need to be spent wisely. Teach man to fish, etc.
If we actually try to count the money, where did it go? Naturally, my question was ignored. Was more $$ spend on improving the quality of life and the competitiveness of American citizens or on Wars overseas?
It's not even close shortie. I'm a huge proponent of cutting overseas spending but the social welfare we have spent since FDR's Great Society dwarfs that of the military spending. Especially when you take into account that as much as I hate to admit it, but military spending actually creates jobs and in many cases adds to GDP. When adjusted for that, it's not even close. There, I addressed it. Carry on.
You have to look at the ROI of both. Welfare expenditures, like military expenditures, create demand. They have the advantage that they do not result in materiel being left in the ground overseas, like military spending. They also have the advantage of suppressing social unrest, which is costly. We pretty well know the advantages of military expenditures, I think, though some folks don't realize the returns they bring to businesses not directly supplying the military machine.
You are also not discounting the co-dependency factor the government has created through welfare. How many of those people would have actually made something of themselves if they never got on the welfare drug to begin with. Maybe not most, maybe not even half, but some. And what could have their contribution have been to society net net. It's really sad. Wasted talent.
True enough. You almost can't count all the ways that stratified societies suck. One thing to consider, if they could have made something of themselves, why aren't the unemployed worldwide, including our crisis created unemployed, making something of themselves? Some societies have welfare, others don't, but the unemployed everywhere are for the most part helpless.
There is a difference between helping a man in need and creating a lifestyle. Nothing wrong with temporary welfare. It's when you make it permanent when you see the erosive factor on society.
Do you think technology, as its ingenuity advances, making constant gains in meeting our basic needs and then going on to meeting our luxury "needs", can result in some permanent rate of unemployment?
Separate names with a comma.