Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

Your reading comprehension continues to disappoint. It wasn't a "rant against Keynes" at all... you claimed that I wanted to return to the economic ideas of the past, and that it "didn't seem to make sense" that I was saying economic theories that "hadn't been thought up yet hadn't been tried and so didn't work"...

It was a rant showing you how ridiculously false your claim was, and how old, played out, and far back the ideas you're promoting actually go.

So instead of simply admitting that you were incorrect, you (once again) misrepresent my post by saying it was a "rant against Keynes", when not once in my post did I say anything for or against his ideas.... simply that they far predate my own.

Which is another shining example, on top of all the others that I've given you, of a blatant misrepresentation. If you have to make up false meanings to my posts, whats the point in responding to them at all?

I've agreed with you in prior posts, that yes.. there has never been a completely 'free market'. However, there have certainly been times, and places, where the market has been much more 'free' then others. It's not an on/off switch, it's a scale. My point is that the greatest increases of wealth and prosperity have come during the periods when the market was left alone, and government was the smallest. The intervention of the 19th century was much less, the problems that we faced during that time was a result of the little intervention that there was, however.. because the market was allowed to properly function in most industries... the overall increase of wealth, and improvement of people's lives was the greatest then any other period in history.

lol... what's more simplistic, the explanation I gave.. or you saying that businesses "crash and burn" when they go bankrupt?

Banks wouldn't often collapse if they were allowed to suffer the consequences of their actions. It's because they can expect to be bailed out and propped up that they continue to engage in these fraudulent practices (credit expansion or an over-issuance of bank notes). It's a classic example of Moral Hazard.

Our banking industry is the equivalent of a shoe maker who makes horrible, wooden shoes that everyone hates. He makes them this way because it's cheaper for him, and it maximizes his profits. In a 'free market', this business would obviously fail and no-one would be selling crappy wooden shoes to anyone. However the government dictates that no one can use any other shoes besides those made by this one shoe maker, and because of this... the shoe maker is permitted to stay in business and thrive.

Because it's recent, and it's EXTREMELY comparable to other businesses that have received bailouts.

Businesses that run into "temporary trouble" have no problem receiving credit via voluntary channels. For instance, Hostess received MULTIPLE loans / "buy ins" via this channel before it finally went under.

Hostess is a PERFECT example of a company that could potentially qualify for a bailout. You must not know the history of companies that have received government bailouts... You think GM, AIG, Goldman Sachs, etc just suddenly got into temporary trouble because of the mysterious "economic downturn"? You don't think that was years in the making?

For someone who constantly accuses people of simplistic thinking, your views sound like something straight out of a children's picture book.

Also, your view presupposes that the government is magically omnipresent and knows the inner workings of every business. How does the government know which businesses get into "temporary trouble", and which are just participating in bad business practices? The way ANYONE must qualify for a bailout, is via lobbying (which you've spoken out against).. which involves the company pitching the idea to the government much like they'd pitch it to any other lender. The only difference is the government is investing other people's money and not it's own... which means it has no vested interest in success and/or return on it's investment. History shows that "buy ins" or bailouts that the government has participated in always go to those who are most well connected, and are almost always losing ventures.

 

You've provided ZERO evidence to support this...

Now you're resorting to ad hominem attacks... attacking someones character isn't refuting their argument. We can add that to the ever growing list of logical fallacies that you're so fond of.

God I hope you're joking about this.. Normally I wouldn't question it, but you're prior posts have made me believe you could actually be serious.

Do you actually think anyone would PAY anyone else to spread their evil ideas to people on hipforums.com....

You actually beleive that the 30 or so people who might actually read the politics portion of this forum are high-up on the value scale of the powers-that-be? That they'd send one of their evil henchmen out onto this forum to ensure that we're all properly indoctrinated in their evil ideology?

 

More bullshit- taxes are paid by everyone with every dollar earned and spent.

 

Only those who earn money pay taxes, not necessarily those who spend money. Which is exactly what he was saying...

How is that bull shit?

 

everyone that drinks, drives, smokes, phones, etc..pays federal tax.

 

Jobs for any and all who want them and decent pay for those jobs,then welfare would be un-necessary,except for those who really need it. Seems really simple to me.

And don't put your money in Swiss bank accounts or the Cayman Islands. Invest right here.

 

If they didn't work for the money they buy the vehicle, cigarettes, or phone with, then they aren't really paying the tax... Whoever worked for the money originally is the one paying it.

Money is simply a medium of exchange, and represents the value of people's labor. If I give you money, you're spending a portion of my labor that I wanted you to have. Any taxes that are imposed on the things you buy, are being imposed on my labor, and so it is me who is paying the tax.

I think we all agree on this... just disagree on how to best make it happen.

 

That last sentence reminds me of an Escher drawing.

 

So, can you point to the portion of the Constitution where, using the context and direction provided by the Preamble, the federal government is authorized or has the responsibility to provide relief or assistance of any kind? Or, does the absence of such leave that authority and responsibility to the states?

I don’t believe the argument that people would starve without federally mandated assistance can be substantiated.

“Corporate thievery”? That seems like a buzz-word -- likely very popular in some circles, but intended only to denigrate without real knowledge or understanding of the issue. Can you be more specific?

 

You been in hibernation? Amazing that you're 57 and you want this explained at this point in time. I'm not going to do it. Anyone?

 

"not going to do it" or is "can't" more accurate? If it's all that simple, it should be easy as well.

 

You win. Night all.

 

What did you find?

 

Is it an unwillingness or an inability to recognize and accept facts?

While it is true that taxes are being collected in most every instance money is being spent, the ones who have made the money available through their labors are the ones paying them.

When you're spending other peoples money, the taxes being collected are also other peoples money.

 

"Jobs for any and all who want them and decent pay for those jobs,then welfare would be un-necessary,except for those who really need it. Seems really simple to me."

There was a BBC story a while back "Jobs without pay", about a State of New Hampshire program called "Return to work", in which 70% of the participants who after a 6 week unpaid trial period became permanent employees.

Actually, government welfare programs should be returned private run charities who could much more efficiently and cost effectively provide aid and assistance in accordance with the circumstances relating to individual cases of needs to those who are are trying, but unable to find work and those who who are incapacitated and unable to work. Those who fall outside those categories, would either be motivated to become more responsible members of society or rightfully become outcasts from society, and dealt with in accordance with the laws if necessary.

 

Says the guy who's collecting a social security check made available through my labor.

Also you're falsely characterizing all welfare recipients as unemployed.

More Individual Bullshit!

 

dont worry there will be one for you at the expense of someones labor that is just like him. and if there isnt its the governments fault not his.

 

You can always opt out of paying for social security if you want to. Oops, no you can't, if you work and earn a paycheck.

I didn't say that at all.

If you don't like Bullshit, quit posting it!

 

So be the bigger man. Nobody's making you collect that check. It's a system that can't continue in the way it currently is, because of people like you, who should be dead at 60, which is why the system was set up how it is.

So..... No, I figured money attracted you more than your own (alleged) principle.... typical of people of your viewpoint.

 

Says the guy who's supposedly opposed to all forms of government coersion (except the coersive force necessary to enforce his contracts).