Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Frisivisia]

Wait, what's so bad about welfare? Keeping the poor from starving and being out on the streets is a bad thing now? Shit. I should really be tossed out on the streets and denied anything but scraps I manage to dig out of a garbage dumpster, then.

Welfare is a symptom of a failed society that offers no economic dynamism or opportunity.

The most effective social tool known to man is a private sector paycheck, not a welfare check.

Bullshit. Just... just bullshit.

[Obamacult]

If you challenge any of the economic history I have presented, then provide facts of your own. It would be appreciated and it would add knowledge to the subject matter.

However, your personal opinion, while appreciated, is not valid and reliable without facts, logic and empirical evidence.

Off the high horse, dear. We've done this little dance before. You talk a whole lot about logic, facts and empirical evidence, but you have not once in this thread acknowledged when you've been refuted, or you've been given facts, data or arguments that contradict yours.

I have no desire to engage with you, because you're a charlatan of the worst kind who hides behind pretense, while doing nothing but citing propaganda from people who have no academic legitimacy, like the von Mises charlatans, while ignoring the vast array of evidence that's been marshaled against you.

You should really stop, because it's not fooling anyone. Either you're aware of this, and you jut don't care, or you are seriously unaware of he irony of condemning your opponents as being brainwashed by Marxists while citing trash from Mises.org.

I am sorry, but your personal opinion presented ad nauseam and fallaciously as a 'vast array of evidence', while appreciated, is not considered valid and reliable evidence.

Indeed, if you challenge the problem of economic calculation proposed by Mises, Hayek, et al -- then present your argument absent the ad hominems.

It would be greatly appreciated.

[Frisivisia]

Off the high horse, dear. We've done this little dance before. You talk a whole lot about logic, facts and empirical evidence, but you have not once in this thread acknowledged when you've been refuted, or you've been given facts, data or arguments that contradict yours.

I have no desire to engage with you, because you're a charlatan of the worst kind who hides behind pretense, while doing nothing but citing propaganda from people who have no academic legitimacy, like the von Mises charlatans, while ignoring the vast array of evidence that's been marshaled against you.

You should really stop, because it's not fooling anyone. Either you're aware of this, and you jut don't care, or you are seriously unaware of he irony of condemning your opponents as being brainwashed by Marxists while citing trash from Mises.org.

I am sorry, but your personal opinion presented ad nauseam and fallaciously as a 'vast array of evidence', while appreciated, is not considered valid and reliable evidence.

Indeed, if you challenge the problem of economic calculation proposed by Mises, Hayek, et al -- then present your argument absent the ad hominems.

It would be greatly appreciated.

You're clinging to HAYEK?! What a disturbed little Bill Mahr-ian Conserva-bubble (tm) you inhabit.

[TomKirk]

I am sorry, but your personal opinion presented ad nauseam and fallaciously as a 'vast array of evidence', while appreciated, is not considered valid and reliable evidence.

Indeed, if you challenge the problem of economic calculation proposed by Mises, Hayek, et al -- then present your argument absent the ad hominems.

It would be greatly appreciated.

You're clinging to HAYEK?! What a disturbed little Bill Mahr-ian Conserva-bubble (tm) you inhabit.

Don't have a cow, man!

[Trotskylvania]

I am sorry, but your personal opinion presented ad nauseam and fallaciously as a 'vast array of evidence', while appreciated, is not considered valid and reliable evidence.

The unreliability of the scholarship of von Mises, and his fanclub is not a personal opinion. It's an objective fact; it's why they form their little ideological circlejerk and don't publish in peer reviewed journals. It's why their "scholarship" is not cited by people working in the academic disciplines. It is not worth the paper it is printed on.

You keep pretending that people haven't presented arguments, data, or valid evidence against you. You should really stop that, because it's pretty transparent.

Indeed, if you challenge the problem of economic calculation proposed by Mises, Hayek, et al -- then present your argument absent the ad hominems.

Why should I? We've already done this once, and you didn't even understand von Mises's economic calculation argument, or how it was a) vastly different from Hayeks b) relied upon pseudoscience or c) isn't really considered a good argument against planning by academic economists, regardless of their ideological affiliation.

It would be greatly appreciated.

No it wouldn't. Stop lying.

[Obamacult]

Welfare is a symptom of a failed society that offers no economic dynamism or opportunity.

The most effective social tool known to man is a private sector paycheck, not a welfare check.

Bullshit. Just... just bullshit.

Your 'brilliant' post reminds me that I have to add another fallacy to my list:

Fallacy #1 -- empowering the individual states to manage health care, education, retirement, transportation, etc. is a return to the Articles of Confederation

This is a typical strawman argument from the peanut gallery because Washington would still be responsible for national defense and insuring unrestricted commerce between the individual states. Hence, the Bill of Rights would remain intact and life, liberty, private property and contracts would still be protected by the Federal government. The only difference is that governance of most economic issues would return to the states or the individual as was the case for over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's.

Fallacy #2 -- The Federal government is doing just fine managing health care and retirement.

The United States government paid over $400,000,000,000 per year on the average to service a debt of over $16,000,000,000,000 over the last four years. Moreover, the average interest payment for the last ten years is over $350,000,000,000 and growing!

If this doesn't expose the peanut gallery argument that 'the debt doesn't matter' as pure deluded and destructive bullshit, then nothing will. To illustrate the opportunity costs of this expenditure (in 2008 dollars), it would pay the salaries of 4,000,000 teachers, 25,000 junior highs, 8000 hospitals (4-8 stories), 100,000 nursing homes, etc.

Fallacy #3 -- It is incredibly bad to have a short-lived private sector monopoly within a single industry, but the Mother of All Monopolies represented by a leviathan government that lords over virtually all commerce with unchallenged monopolistic tax and regulatory policy is hunky dory?!!

This pretty much exposes the ridiculous house of cards ideological foundation upon which statism rests. For example, they become apoplectic when faced with a single monopoly within a single industry that can easily be overcome with competition, boycotts, substitution goods, etc. In contrast, statists fawn over the monopoly in Washington that is protected from competition, boycotts, and substitution goods by threat of violence. If you examine the way Washington does business and how it deals with the citizenry -- it is a textbook example of an unyielding, coercive and destructive monopoly that no private sector monopoly has ever or will ever approach in the size and scope of coercion.

Fallacy #4 -- Profit is bad.

Profit informs a free society where capital and labor must be allocated to provide the most benefits based on the preferences of free people and NOT some politician or bureaucrat acting in his own interest. Indeed, firms that make the most profit best satisfy consumer preferences in a free society through voluntary exchanges that always benefit everyone involved in the exchange or the transaction would never have occurred.

Without profit, society has no idea of where to allocate scarce resources. Government cannot efficiently or rationally manage societal resources due to the economic calculation problem outlined below:

Economic Calculation Problem of Command Economies

Fallacy #5 -- Statists say we should downsize banks so they are not too big to fail, but a huge monopolistic government in Washington that borrows 40 cents on every dollar and is paying interest on debt of over 100% of GDP and growing is fine the way it is??!!

Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues. Washington still maintains its role protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts by control of the armed forces, federal law enforcement and legal arbiter of last resort. Moreover if a state went bankrupt, the Feds would treat this the same as any large scale private bankruptcy and assume temporary ownership and restructuring responsibility until the state could get back on its feet.

Fallacy #6 -- The debt doesn't matter because who owe it to ourselves or it won't effect us ?!!

The debt must be addressed and there is only a few ways this can happen:

1) higher taxes that will cause capital and talent to offshore thereby further eroding the tax base. Indeed, there are some drones who say this isn't a problem despite the fact that Obama mentioned numerous times during the recent campaign that it is A PROBLEM.

2) print money that will debase the currency causing interest rates to rise, inflation that is the cruelest tax of all on the poor, debt payments to rise, loss of confidence in the US government and ultimate capitulation.

3) more borrowing that will cause America's credit worthiness to decline, interest rates to rise, debt to increase, further leading to a series of debilitating economic decision that will ultimately be thrust on the lap of Main Street in significantly reduced growth, decreases in discretionary income and declining living standards.

4) eliminate or reduce promised benefits in social security and health care leading to lower standards of living. Indeed, this is generational theft since young people paying into the system today will never get anything close to what they contribute into the system.

Fallacy #7 -- Smaller populations and smaller states have less efficient governments ???!!

Absurd, the geopolitic has myriad examples of governments smaller than most US states that function very well within societies of small populations. Indeed, the ten least corrupt states (Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Singapore, Canada, etc.) all have populations less then many US states. Moreover, many small nations have strong records of economic growth, civil and political rights (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, Norway, etc.)

Fallacy #8 -- Government that governs closest to the people is NOT the best governance ??!!

How anyone can logically conclude that a one-size fits all solution emanating from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington is more accountable and responsive than government from a state capital far closer to the people and more intimate with each states unique problems?

Unfortunately, it is true that many leftwing ideologues think that a bureaucrat or politician thousands of miles removed from society in Washington is better able to decide what a citizen needs or wants than that citizen himself.

This is the very definition of arrogance and tyranny. Nonetheless, I am sure that these leftists can find a state that suits their needs and be comforted in the fact that their state of choice will provide the highest standards of living. Yet we all know that they won't accept this bargain because deep down they fear competition and free choice because it will expose the absurdity and bankruptcy of their ideology.

In contrast, Jefferson was RIGHT that government that governs closest to the people governs best. It is obvious, these politicians will be serving their constituents with money from their district for their district. They know best how to fund and where to fund and what projects to fund. Indeed, every state and community has its own unique problems and strengths that require local experts to address, not some clueless bureaucrat thousands of miles removed from the problem.

Fallacy #9 -- Choice and competition are not beneficial??!!

This is the typical sentiment of tyrants and their dupes. They reject competition because they know their coercive and destructive schemes would fall like a house of cards if faced with freedom of choice by the citizenry. Indeed, it would be extremely beneficial to have a United States in which the economic services currently mismanaged by the coercive monopoly in Washington was suddenly downsized and broken-up into 50 disparate and competing state enterprises.

We have seen that smaller states can function and manage public goods as efficiently as any large state and in many cases far more efficiently and with less corruption and more accountability. Moreover, the United States would have a supreme advantage over these smaller states in Europe, Latin American and the Asian Pacific Rim in that our competing states would still share the same language, legal system, national defense, and all of its citizens and commerce could travel unrestricted from state to state.

Indeed, the only change would be to transfer economic management of responsibilities to the individual states that all rational, objective and independent thinking citizens recognized that our large and unresponsive Federal government has failed to deliver with any measure of financial responsibility.

Moreover, if a citizen does not trust or appreciate the level of government services provided, it is far easier to move across state lines than to move to another nation. Indeed, the Federal government would insure that commerce and labor could travel unrestricted across state lines (commerce clause).

In sum, it is manifestly absurd and delusional to think that 50 states competing for the favors of the citizenry would be less responsive and accountable than a single massive coercive central government monopoly in Washington.

Fallacy #10 -- Obamacult is a intolerant and rigid ideologue.

This is laughable and hypocritical coming from a forum that is universally dominated by leftwing dogma while I am generally the only conservative-libertarian arguing for a particular point of view.

In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber, and yet amusingly, I am called intolerant?!!

Fallacy # 11 -- My vote during Federal elections matters.

This is really an indictment on the absurdity of voting in Presidential elections when your vote is worth 1/120,000,000 and to make matters worse, it is for the lesser of two evils.

Indeed, if power was transferred to the states, your vote would be demonstrably more valuable since it would be among far less competitors. Moreover, it is far easier for a third party candidate or party to make inroads within a targeted state then in a national election. Hence, a transfer of economic power to the states would lend itself to a more responsive and dynamic political competition that would make it easier for third party candidates to leverage an advantage in a couple states with electorates favorable to their policies. Moreover, your vote, while still hardly a determining factor, would still account for more weight than national elections where it is virtually useless, particularly in the 80% of the states that represent non-battleground states.

Fallacy #12 -- I benefit more when the federal government spends my taxes.

Wrong, when taxes go to the federal government the benefits are dispersed among 310 million citizens among a land mass that is demonstrably larger than any single state. In contrast, taxpayers at the state level are far more likely to directly benefit from tax expenditures for obvious reasons.

Fallacy #13 -- The federal government can more effectively and impartially promote and preserve civil and political rights while managing myriad economic responsibilities at the same time.

Of course, the opposite is true. When the federal government oversees redistribution of trillions of dollars in tax and regulatory policy -- it invites the kind of corruption that rots and destroys nations from the inside out in a mountain of corruption and cronyism. Indeed, by removing the money from the federal government -- it can more effectively accomplish its primary beneficial responsibility of protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

To use an analogy, the federal government is the preeminent 'referee' in the economy in particular and society in general -- however when this referee enters the game as a profit-seeking 'player' -- then its ability to make accurate and fair calls is severely and irreparably compromised to the detriment of society.

[Grenartia]

You assume that I've been 'programmed by Marxists in academia'. This is a fallacious assumption on your part.

What you posted may address the bit about the robber barons, but it still doesn't address my other points (also, don't expect me to watch a youtube video, my computer doesn't handle them well).

Also, whenever you get the time, I'd appreciate a response to my other post.

Your ideological framework is built on a house of cards, namely your notion that we need to empower a coercive and bankrupt Mother of all Monopolies -- the federal government -- to oversee small short-lived monopolies with a single sector or industry of the economy.

This is absurd. More so because in the absence of preferential tax and regulatory policies bought and paid for by the same private sector firms that you fear is the primary source of a coercive and destructive monopoly.

In contrast, within a truly free market, the instant that a monopoly in any industry fails to satisfy consumer preferences -- it will immediately suffer an irreparable and fatal loss of reputation, immediate competition, lost sales due to substitution goods, boycotts, etc.

In contrast, the most destructive, coercive, unresponsive and inefficient monopolies are those managed by government -- education, health care, retirement, transportation, etc.

Indeed, the two most likely causes of accidental death in the USA are auto accidents (on govt. roads) and prescription drug deaths (FDA approved drugs).

Not even heroin and cocaine combined kill more people then prescription drugs approved by the FDA.

So much for your trust in govt.

YOU'RE SO RIGHT. OH MY GAWD HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND!

I will begin to reform my horrible ways by dragging my sorry ass off the government teat, and starting my own business to earn enough money to live. I have nothing to sell, and I can't depend on those "too big to fail" banks, so I will procede to sell the only thing I can (myself) on the streets. THANK YOU for letting me see the light of my horrible, horrible ways!

Wait, what's so bad about welfare? Keeping the poor from starving and being out on the streets is a bad thing now? Shit. I should really be tossed out on the streets and denied anything but scraps I manage to dig out of a garbage dumpster, then.

Motivation. Start a business, scrimp and save breadcrumbs.

See above. I'm a prostitute now!

If there is any doubt, let it be known that this entire post is sarcasm.

[Grenartia]

Wait, what's so bad about welfare? Keeping the poor from starving and being out on the streets is a bad thing now? Shit. I should really be tossed out on the streets and denied anything but scraps I manage to dig out of a garbage dumpster, then.

Welfare is a symptom of a failed society that offers no economic dynamism or opportunity.

The most effective social tool known to man is a private sector paycheck, not a welfare check.

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of people on welfare aren't lazy bums (in fact, the last I heard, you needed a job to get welfare benefits), and that the small percentage who manage to get benefits while not working are being made out to be the overwhelming majority of people, right?

But, lets assume that everybody on welfare doesn't work. What about those who can't find or hold a job? Should they be out on the streets, and left to starve?

-snip-

I know I've pointed this out before, but you do realize that there is a certain irony in railing against a "one size fits all" government policy, and your using a "one size fits all" response to our points, don't you?

Its like constantly complaning about Papa John's pizza, and then throwing a party, and only serving, you guessed it, Papa John's.

[Obamacult]

Your ideological framework is built on a house of cards, namely your notion that we need to empower a coercive and bankrupt Mother of all Monopolies -- the federal government -- to oversee small short-lived monopolies with a single sector or industry of the economy.

This is absurd. More so because in the absence of preferential tax and regulatory policies bought and paid for by the same private sector firms that you fear is the primary source of a coercive and destructive monopoly.

In contrast, within a truly free market, the instant that a monopoly in any industry fails to satisfy consumer preferences -- it will immediately suffer an irreparable and fatal loss of reputation, immediate competition, lost sales due to substitution goods, boycotts, etc.

In contrast, the most destructive, coercive, unresponsive and inefficient monopolies are those managed by government -- education, health care, retirement, transportation, etc.

Indeed, the two most likely causes of accidental death in the USA are auto accidents (on govt. roads) and prescription drug deaths (FDA approved drugs).

Not even heroin and cocaine combined kill more people then prescription drugs approved by the FDA.

So much for your trust in govt.

YOU'RE SO RIGHT. OH MY GAWD HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND!

I will begin to reform my horrible ways by dragging my sorry ass off the government teat, and starting my own business to earn enough money to live. I have nothing to sell, and I can't depend on those "too big to fail" banks, so I will procede to sell the only thing I can (myself) on the streets. THANK YOU for letting me see the light of my horrible, horrible ways!

Motivation. Start a business, scrimp and save breadcrumbs.

See above. I'm a prostitute now!

If there is any doubt, let it be known that this entire post is sarcasm.

As welfare spending has increase ten fold -- poverty levels are pretty much the same as they were in the 1960's.



At some point, rational, independent thinking and objective citizens must recognize that throwing trillions at a social ill without any appreciable change in outcomes necessitates a reexamination and change in policy.

[Grenartia]

YOU'RE SO RIGHT. OH MY GAWD HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND!

I will begin to reform my horrible ways by dragging my sorry ass off the government teat, and starting my own business to earn enough money to live. I have nothing to sell, and I can't depend on those "too big to fail" banks, so I will procede to sell the only thing I can (myself) on the streets. THANK YOU for letting me see the light of my horrible, horrible ways!



See above. I'm a prostitute now!

If there is any doubt, let it be known that this entire post is sarcasm.

As welfare spending has increase ten fold -- poverty levels are pretty much the same as they were in the 1960's.



At some point, rational, independent thinking and objective citizens must recognize that throwing trillions at a social ill without any appreciable change in outcomes necessitates a reexamination and change in policy.

I don't trust that graph. I mean, shit like that can be falsified.

Also, welfare DOES help individuals. There was a time when my mother and I would have literally starved to death if not for the food stamp program.

[Kazarogkai]

Not exactly yet, but I think we need to make plans for such an event for I see it coming soon not like next year but possibly within a few decades that the USA may collapse. If we dont there will be much bloodshed(remember Yugoslav) but if done right this can be a relatively peaceful process. Main reason the federal government needs to die is because the USA is way too large encompassing too many people and too much land. A country should be no more larger than say your average European country in my opinion otherwise it makes it impossible to form a humongous nation. I have been preparing(Survival preparedness) for such an event though I stock up for a global wide catastrophe not just a national one. If it is only a national catastrophe then I wont have much difficulty surviving and thriving. I would look around for which country I would prefer to join out of the new ones For I dont really have much allegiance to any one area(not much of a dixie nor do I identify much with my California home). It will be interesting.

[Obamacult]

Welfare is a symptom of a failed society that offers no economic dynamism or opportunity.

The most effective social tool known to man is a private sector paycheck, not a welfare check.

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of people on welfare aren't lazy bums (in fact, the last I heard, you needed a job to get welfare benefits), and that the small percentage who manage to get benefits while not working are being made out to be the overwhelming majority of people, right?

But, lets assume that everybody on welfare doesn't work. What about those who can't find or hold a job? Should they be out on the streets, and left to starve?

-snip-

I know I've pointed this out before, but you do realize that there is a certain irony in railing against a "one size fits all" government policy, and your using a "one size fits all" response to our points, don't you?

Its like constantly complaning about Papa John's pizza, and then throwing a party, and only serving, you guessed it, Papa John's.

See graph above -- trillions spent on reducing welfare is not working. The goal of society would be to reduce welfare payments, welfare recipients and increase the number of private sector jobs than increase tax revenues rather than consume tax revenue.

Indeed, only growth can pay down the survival level threat that the debt and deficit no represent. Moreover, within this scenario the government will not have enough money to pay the interest on the debt, much less fund welfare and other social programs.

Moreover, virtually everybody now on welfare would be much happier, healthier and productive if they were working in an economically sustainable private sector job. We all would be. First, because the job would be based on economic sustainability. Second, it would produce tax revenue rather than consume it thereby assisting in paying down the debt. Third, workers are happier when they know that their job is gained by merit rather than being part of a pampered political constituency like public sector workers or teachers.

As for welfare, capitalism is the bounty that has brought the highest standards of living to the societies that practice it to a higher degree because society is based on economic merit rather than political connectedness. Indeed, to quote Churchill, the 'vice of capitalism is unequal sharing of blessings, and the virtue of socialism is equal sharing of misery'. When society grows stronger and faster under capitalist systems, it has far more surpluses from which to satisfy the requirements of the downtrodden.

In contrast, note the condition of the poor and downtrodden as our federal government begins paying down the debt with more than just $400,000,000,000 per year. Indeed, the interest the federal govt. pays on its debt today would pay for millions of private sector teachers and physicians or thousands of schools and hospitals.

[Free Detroit]

I don't trust that graph. I mean, shit like that can be falsified.

Also, welfare DOES help individuals. There was a time when my mother and I would have literally starved to death if not for the food stamp program.

The graph is likely accurate, for what it's worth. The trouble is that it's not worth much, because it fails to take into account a host of other variables including: general economic health over the listed timespan, unemployment levels, population increases (it's measuring population in percentile, remember), inflation, etc, etc. It's a typically weak bit of evidence to support a lopsided argument.

That said, social welfare programs in the US are highly inefficient and failing - that's true. Our health care programs, for example, are crippled by their dependence on an under-regulated private sector. There's no good argument for the US welfare system - it sucks, and is broken. That's not, however, an argument for doing away with social welfare, which most other developed countries in the world tend to do better than us... some much better than us. There are other models. Most involve cutting the influence of the private sector on government policy and operations, rather than increasing it.

[Free Detroit]

Indeed, to quote Churchill, the 'vice of capitalism is unequal sharing of blessings, and the virtue of socialism is equal sharing of misery'.

And, like most Churchill quotes... it manages to be both empty and hyperbolic, essentially meaningless.

[Obamacult]

As welfare spending has increase ten fold -- poverty levels are pretty much the same as they were in the 1960's.



At some point, rational, independent thinking and objective citizens must recognize that throwing trillions at a social ill without any appreciable change in outcomes necessitates a reexamination and change in policy.

I don't trust that graph. I mean, shit like that can be falsified.

Also, welfare DOES help individuals. There was a time when my mother and I would have literally starved to death if not for the food stamp program.

The regions and states that experienced the most mass starvation were command economies beset by rationing and shortages brought on by the problem of economic calculation associated with government inefficiency, corruption and waste.

Indeed, before the advent of capitalism on a grand scale in the Western world -- poverty and starvation were common place. They still are in areas in which capitalism is not practiced. See what a tiny injection of capitalism has done in India and China in which a generation ago, hundreds of millions of peasants were on the razor edge of starvation.

and the graph is accurate, hence you don't want to go there.

[Free Detroit]

The regions and states that experienced the most mass starvation were command economies beset by rationing and shortages brought on by the problem of economic calculation associated with government inefficiency, corruption and waste.

Indeed, before the advent of capitalism on a grand scale in the Western world -- poverty and starvation were common place. They still are in areas in which capitalism is not practiced. See what a tiny injection of capitalism has done in India and China in which a generation ago, hundreds of millions of peasants were on the razor edge of starvation.

So, the only alternative to a command economy is more-or-less unregulated capitalism? Enlighten me, Obamacult.

[Obamacult]

I don't trust that graph. I mean, shit like that can be falsified.

Also, welfare DOES help individuals. There was a time when my mother and I would have literally starved to death if not for the food stamp program.

The graph is likely accurate, for what it's worth. The trouble is that it's not worth much, because it fails to take into account a host of other variables including: general economic health over the listed timespan, unemployment levels, population increases (it's measuring population in percentile, remember), inflation, etc, etc. It's a typically weak bit of evidence to support a lopsided argument.

That said, social welfare programs in the US are highly inefficient and failing - that's true. Our health care programs, for example, are crippled by their dependence on an under-regulated private sector. There's no good argument for the US welfare system - it sucks, and is broken. That's not, however, an argument for doing away with social welfare, which most other developed countries in the world tend to do better than us... some much better than us. There are other models. Most involve cutting the influence of the private sector on government policy and operations, rather than increasing it.

The nations that manage social programs are smaller. Hence, government that governs closer to the people, governs best. IN contrast, federal government meddling and regulation has undermined the ability of the states and private individuals and enterprises to address poverty.

Indeed,non-profit private charity provides far more bang for the buck when compared with the profit seeking government solutions. And if you are naive enough to think that the trillions spent on welfare and health care are not making politicians and politically connected crony capitalists rich --- I got a bridge to sell you in the East River.

And I can destroy you government argument with two words --- people mover.

tens of millions in federal matching dollars to fund a demonstrably stupid and wasteful crony capitalist boondoggle and you and other progressive talk about the poor !!??

How does wasting hundreds of billions on government spending help anyone?

And the following is just health care whose waste will continue and continue until the nation is bankrupt and no social program however necessary will be funded:

In fiscal year 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)--the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid--estimated that these programs made a total of over $70 billion in improper payments.

In contrast, when a private sector firm fails to this degree, the managers of this waste are removed from their control of vital labor, capital and wealth to the benefit of society.

[Frisivisia]

I don't trust that graph. I mean, shit like that can be falsified.

Also, welfare DOES help individuals. There was a time when my mother and I would have literally starved to death if not for the food stamp program.

The regions and states that experienced the most mass starvation were command economies beset by rationing and shortages brought on by the problem of economic calculation associated with government inefficiency, corruption and waste.

Indeed, before the advent of capitalism on a grand scale in the Western world -- poverty and starvation were common place. They still are in areas in which capitalism is not practiced. See what a tiny injection of capitalism has done in India and China in which a generation ago, hundreds of millions of peasants were on the razor edge of starvation.

and the graph is accurate, hence you don't want to go there.

Capitalism is a step up from feudalism. That doesn't make it perfect, or magic, it just means that feudalism sucks ass.

[Frisivisia]

The graph is likely accurate, for what it's worth. The trouble is that it's not worth much, because it fails to take into account a host of other variables including: general economic health over the listed timespan, unemployment levels, population increases (it's measuring population in percentile, remember), inflation, etc, etc. It's a typically weak bit of evidence to support a lopsided argument.

That said, social welfare programs in the US are highly inefficient and failing - that's true. Our health care programs, for example, are crippled by their dependence on an under-regulated private sector. There's no good argument for the US welfare system - it sucks, and is broken. That's not, however, an argument for doing away with social welfare, which most other developed countries in the world tend to do better than us... some much better than us. There are other models. Most involve cutting the influence of the private sector on government policy and operations, rather than increasing it.

The nations that manage social programs are smaller. Hence, government that governs closer to the people, governs best. IN contrast, federal government meddling and regulation has undermined the ability of the states and private individuals and enterprises to address poverty.

Indeed,non-profit private charity provides far more bang for the buck when compared with the profit seeking government solutions. And if you are naive enough to think that the trillions spent on welfare and health care are not making politicians and politically connected crony capitalists rich --- I got a bridge to sell you in the East River.

And I can destroy you government argument with two words --- people mover.

tens of millions in federal matching dollars to fund a demonstrably stupid and wasteful crony capitalist boondoggle and you and other progressive talk about the poor !!??

How does wasting hundreds of billions on government spending help anyone?

And the following is just health care whose waste will continue and continue until the nation is bankrupt and no social program however necessary will be funded:

In fiscal year 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)--the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid--estimated that these programs made a total of over $70 billion in improper payments.

In contrast, when a private sector firm fails to this degree, the managers of this waste are removed from their control of vital labor, capital and wealth to the benefit of society.

Borderline unreadable walls of text, non sequiter sources, and strawman politicals?

Must be Obamacult!

[Obamacult]

The regions and states that experienced the most mass starvation were command economies beset by rationing and shortages brought on by the problem of economic calculation associated with government inefficiency, corruption and waste.

Indeed, before the advent of capitalism on a grand scale in the Western world -- poverty and starvation were common place. They still are in areas in which capitalism is not practiced. See what a tiny injection of capitalism has done in India and China in which a generation ago, hundreds of millions of peasants were on the razor edge of starvation.

So, the only alternative to a command economy is more-or-less unregulated capitalism? Enlighten me, Obamacult.

Allow the federal government to continue its beneficial and necessary job of protecting and promoting the common defense, civil and political rights -- but transfer the economic and social responsibilities that have bankrupt and corrupt the federal govt. to the states or the individual citizen:

Fallacy #1 -- empowering the individual states to manage health care, education, retirement, transportation, etc. is a return to the Articles of Confederation

This is a typical strawman argument from the peanut gallery because Washington would still be responsible for national defense and insuring unrestricted commerce between the individual states. Hence, the Bill of Rights would remain intact and life, liberty, private property and contracts would still be protected by the Federal government. The only difference is that governance of most economic issues would return to the states or the individual as was the case for over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's.

Fallacy #2 -- The Federal government is doing just fine managing health care and retirement.

The United States government paid over $400,000,000,000 per year on the average to service a debt of over $16,000,000,000,000 over the last four years. Moreover, the average interest payment for the last ten years is over $350,000,000,000 and growing!

If this doesn't expose the peanut gallery argument that 'the debt doesn't matter' as pure deluded and destructive bullshit, then nothing will. To illustrate the opportunity costs of this expenditure (in 2008 dollars), it would pay the salaries of 4,000,000 teachers, 25,000 junior highs, 8000 hospitals (4-8 stories), 100,000 nursing homes, etc.

Fallacy #3 -- It is incredibly bad to have a short-lived private sector monopoly within a single industry, but the Mother of All Monopolies represented by a leviathan government that lords over virtually all commerce with unchallenged monopolistic tax and regulatory policy is hunky dory?!!

This pretty much exposes the ridiculous house of cards ideological foundation upon which statism rests. For example, they become apoplectic when faced with a single monopoly within a single industry that can easily be overcome with competition, boycotts, substitution goods, etc. In contrast, statists fawn over the monopoly in Washington that is protected from competition, boycotts, and substitution goods by threat of violence. If you examine the way Washington does business and how it deals with the citizenry -- it is a textbook example of an unyielding, coercive and destructive monopoly that no private sector monopoly has ever or will ever approach in the size and scope of coercion.

Fallacy #4 -- Profit is bad.

Profit informs a free society where capital and labor must be allocated to provide the most benefits based on the preferences of free people and NOT some politician or bureaucrat acting in his own interest. Indeed, firms that make the most profit best satisfy consumer preferences in a free society through voluntary exchanges that always benefit everyone involved in the exchange or the transaction would never have occurred.

Without profit, society has no idea of where to allocate scarce resources. Government cannot efficiently or rationally manage societal resources due to the economic calculation problem outlined below:

Economic Calculation Problem of Command Economies

Fallacy #5 -- Statists say we should downsize banks so they are not too big to fail, but a huge monopolistic government in Washington that borrows 40 cents on every dollar and is paying interest on debt of over 100% of GDP and growing is fine the way it is??!!

Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues. Washington still maintains its role protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts by control of the armed forces, federal law enforcement and legal arbiter of last resort. Moreover if a state went bankrupt, the Feds would treat this the same as any large scale private bankruptcy and assume temporary ownership and restructuring responsibility until the state could get back on its feet.

Fallacy #6 -- The debt doesn't matter because who owe it to ourselves or it won't effect us ?!!

The debt must be addressed and there is only a few ways this can happen:

1) higher taxes that will cause capital and talent to offshore thereby further eroding the tax base. Indeed, there are some drones who say this isn't a problem despite the fact that Obama mentioned numerous times during the recent campaign that it is A PROBLEM.

2) print money that will debase the currency causing interest rates to rise, inflation that is the cruelest tax of all on the poor, debt payments to rise, loss of confidence in the US government and ultimate capitulation.

3) more borrowing that will cause America's credit worthiness to decline, interest rates to rise, debt to increase, further leading to a series of debilitating economic decision that will ultimately be thrust on the lap of Main Street in significantly reduced growth, decreases in discretionary income and declining living standards.

4) eliminate or reduce promised benefits in social security and health care leading to lower standards of living. Indeed, this is generational theft since young people paying into the system today will never get anything close to what they contribute into the system.

Fallacy #7 -- Smaller populations and smaller states have less efficient governments ???!!

Absurd, the geopolitic has myriad examples of governments smaller than most US states that function very well within societies of small populations. Indeed, the ten least corrupt states (Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Singapore, Canada, etc.) all have populations less then many US states. Moreover, many small nations have strong records of economic growth, civil and political rights (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, Norway, etc.)

Fallacy #8 -- Government that governs closest to the people is NOT the best governance ??!!

How anyone can logically conclude that a one-size fits all solution emanating from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington is more accountable and responsive than government from a state capital far closer to the people and more intimate with each states unique problems?

Unfortunately, it is true that many leftwing ideologues think that a bureaucrat or politician thousands of miles removed from society in Washington is better able to decide what a citizen needs or wants than that citizen himself.

This is the very definition of arrogance and tyranny. Nonetheless, I am sure that these leftists can find a state that suits their needs and be comforted in the fact that their state of choice will provide the highest standards of living. Yet we all know that they won't accept this bargain because deep down they fear competition and free choice because it will expose the absurdity and bankruptcy of their ideology.

In contrast, Jefferson was RIGHT that government that governs closest to the people governs best. It is obvious, these politicians will be serving their constituents with money from their district for their district. They know best how to fund and where to fund and what projects to fund. Indeed, every state and community has its own unique problems and strengths that require local experts to address, not some clueless bureaucrat thousands of miles removed from the problem.

Fallacy #9 -- Choice and competition are not beneficial??!!

This is the typical sentiment of tyrants and their dupes. They reject competition because they know their coercive and destructive schemes would fall like a house of cards if faced with freedom of choice by the citizenry. Indeed, it would be extremely beneficial to have a United States in which the economic services currently mismanaged by the coercive monopoly in Washington was suddenly downsized and broken-up into 50 disparate and competing state enterprises.

We have seen that smaller states can function and manage public goods as efficiently as any large state and in many cases far more efficiently and with less corruption and more accountability. Moreover, the United States would have a supreme advantage over these smaller states in Europe, Latin American and the Asian Pacific Rim in that our competing states would still share the same language, legal system, national defense, and all of its citizens and commerce could travel unrestricted from state to state.

Indeed, the only change would be to transfer economic management of responsibilities to the individual states that all rational, objective and independent thinking citizens recognized that our large and unresponsive Federal government has failed to deliver with any measure of financial responsibility.

Moreover, if a citizen does not trust or appreciate the level of government services provided, it is far easier to move across state lines than to move to another nation. Indeed, the Federal government would insure that commerce and labor could travel unrestricted across state lines (commerce clause).

In sum, it is manifestly absurd and delusional to think that 50 states competing for the favors of the citizenry would be less responsive and accountable than a single massive coercive central government monopoly in Washington.

Fallacy #10 -- Obamacult is a intolerant and rigid ideologue.

This is laughable and hypocritical coming from a forum that is universally dominated by leftwing dogma while I am generally the only conservative-libertarian arguing for a particular point of view.

In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber, and yet amusingly, I am called intolerant?!!

Fallacy # 11 -- My vote during Federal elections matters.

This is really an indictment on the absurdity of voting in Presidential elections when your vote is worth 1/120,000,000 and to make matters worse, it is for the lesser of two evils.

Indeed, if power was transferred to the states, your vote would be demonstrably more valuable since it would be among far less competitors. Moreover, it is far easier for a third party candidate or party to make inroads within a targeted state then in a national election. Hence, a transfer of economic power to the states would lend itself to a more responsive and dynamic political competition that would make it easier for third party candidates to leverage an advantage in a couple states with electorates favorable to their policies. Moreover, your vote, while still hardly a determining factor, would still account for more weight than national elections where it is virtually useless, particularly in the 80% of the states that represent non-battleground states.

Fallacy #12 -- I benefit more when the federal government spends my taxes.

Wrong, when taxes go to the federal government the benefits are dispersed among 310 million citizens among a land mass that is demonstrably larger than any single state. In contrast, taxpayers at the state level are far more likely to directly benefit from tax expenditures for obvious reasons.

Fallacy #13 -- The federal government can more effectively and impartially promote and preserve civil and political rights while managing myriad economic responsibilities at the same time.

Of course, the opposite is true. When the federal government oversees redistribution of trillions of dollars in tax and regulatory policy -- it invites the kind of corruption that rots and destroys nations from the inside out in a mountain of corruption and cronyism. Indeed, by removing the money from the federal government -- it can more effectively accomplish its primary beneficial responsibility of protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

To use an analogy, the federal government is the preeminent 'referee' in the economy in particular and society in general -- however when this referee enters the game as a profit-seeking 'player' -- then its ability to make accurate and fair calls is severely and irreparably compromised to the detriment of society.

I got to get back to work.

Later --- Spartans and Wolverines in Final Four -- or better yet -- an all Michigan national championship this March.

[Frisivisia]

So, the only alternative to a command economy is more-or-less unregulated capitalism? Enlighten me, Obamacult.

Allow the federal government to continue its beneficial and necessary job of protecting and promoting the common defense, civil and political rights -- but transfer the economic and social responsibilities that have bankrupt and corrupt the federal govt. to the states or the individual citizen:

This is a typical strawman argument from the peanut gallery because Washington would still be responsible for national defense and insuring unrestricted commerce between the individual states. Hence, the Bill of Rights would remain intact and life, liberty, private property and contracts would still be protected by the Federal government. The only difference is that governance of most economic issues would return to the states or the individual as was the case for over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's.



The United States government paid over $400,000,000,000 per year on the average to service a debt of over $16,000,000,000,000 over the last four years. Moreover, the average interest payment for the last ten years is over $350,000,000,000 and growing!

If this doesn't expose the peanut gallery argument that 'the debt doesn't matter' as pure deluded and destructive bullshit, then nothing will. To illustrate the opportunity costs of this expenditure (in 2008 dollars), it would pay the salaries of 4,000,000 teachers, 25,000 junior highs, 8000 hospitals (4-8 stories), 100,000 nursing homes, etc.



This pretty much exposes the ridiculous house of cards ideological foundation upon which statism rests. For example, they become apoplectic when faced with a single monopoly within a single industry that can easily be overcome with competition, boycotts, substitution goods, etc. In contrast, statists fawn over the monopoly in Washington that is protected from competition, boycotts, and substitution goods by threat of violence. If you examine the way Washington does business and how it deals with the citizenry -- it is a textbook example of an unyielding, coercive and destructive monopoly that no private sector monopoly has ever or will ever approach in the size and scope of coercion.



Profit informs a free society where capital and labor must be allocated to provide the most benefits based on the preferences of free people and NOT some politician or bureaucrat acting in his own interest. Indeed, firms that make the most profit best satisfy consumer preferences in a free society through voluntary exchanges that always benefit everyone involved in the exchange or the transaction would never have occurred.

Without profit, society has no idea of where to allocate scarce resources. Government cannot efficiently or rationally manage societal resources due to the economic calculation problem outlined below:

Economic Calculation Problem of Command Economies



Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues. Washington still maintains its role protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts by control of the armed forces, federal law enforcement and legal arbiter of last resort. Moreover if a state went bankrupt, the Feds would treat this the same as any large scale private bankruptcy and assume temporary ownership and restructuring responsibility until the state could get back on its feet.



The debt must be addressed and there is only a few ways this can happen:

1) higher taxes that will cause capital and talent to offshore thereby further eroding the tax base. Indeed, there are some drones who say this isn't a problem despite the fact that Obama mentioned numerous times during the recent campaign that it is A PROBLEM.

2) print money that will debase the currency causing interest rates to rise, inflation that is the cruelest tax of all on the poor, debt payments to rise, loss of confidence in the US government and ultimate capitulation.

3) more borrowing that will cause America's credit worthiness to decline, interest rates to rise, debt to increase, further leading to a series of debilitating economic decision that will ultimately be thrust on the lap of Main Street in significantly reduced growth, decreases in discretionary income and declining living standards.

4) eliminate or reduce promised benefits in social security and health care leading to lower standards of living. Indeed, this is generational theft since young people paying into the system today will never get anything close to what they contribute into the system.



Absurd, the geopolitic has myriad examples of governments smaller than most US states that function very well within societies of small populations. Indeed, the ten least corrupt states (Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Singapore, Canada, etc.) all have populations less then many US states. Moreover, many small nations have strong records of economic growth, civil and political rights (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, Norway, etc.)



How anyone can logically conclude that a one-size fits all solution emanating from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington is more accountable and responsive than government from a state capital far closer to the people and more intimate with each states unique problems?

Unfortunately, it is true that many leftwing ideologues think that a bureaucrat or politician thousands of miles removed from society in Washington is better able to decide what a citizen needs or wants than that citizen himself.

This is the very definition of arrogance and tyranny. Nonetheless, I am sure that these leftists can find a state that suits their needs and be comforted in the fact that their state of choice will provide the highest standards of living. Yet we all know that they won't accept this bargain because deep down they fear competition and free choice because it will expose the absurdity and bankruptcy of their ideology.

In contrast, Jefferson was RIGHT that government that governs closest to the people governs best. It is obvious, these politicians will be serving their constituents with money from their district for their district. They know best how to fund and where to fund and what projects to fund. Indeed, every state and community has its own unique problems and strengths that require local experts to address, not some clueless bureaucrat thousands of miles removed from the problem.



This is the typical sentiment of tyrants and their dupes. They reject competition because they know their coercive and destructive schemes would fall like a house of cards if faced with freedom of choice by the citizenry. Indeed, it would be extremely beneficial to have a United States in which the economic services currently mismanaged by the coercive monopoly in Washington was suddenly downsized and broken-up into 50 disparate and competing state enterprises.

We have seen that smaller states can function and manage public goods as efficiently as any large state and in many cases far more efficiently and with less corruption and more accountability. Moreover, the United States would have a supreme advantage over these smaller states in Europe, Latin American and the Asian Pacific Rim in that our competing states would still share the same language, legal system, national defense, and all of its citizens and commerce could travel unrestricted from state to state.

Indeed, the only change would be to transfer economic management of responsibilities to the individual states that all rational, objective and independent thinking citizens recognized that our large and unresponsive Federal government has failed to deliver with any measure of financial responsibility.

Moreover, if a citizen does not trust or appreciate the level of government services provided, it is far easier to move across state lines than to move to another nation. Indeed, the Federal government would insure that commerce and labor could travel unrestricted across state lines (commerce clause).

In sum, it is manifestly absurd and delusional to think that 50 states competing for the favors of the citizenry would be less responsive and accountable than a single massive coercive central government monopoly in Washington.




This is laughable and hypocritical coming from a forum that is universally dominated by leftwing dogma while I am generally the only conservative-libertarian arguing for a particular point of view.

In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber, and yet amusingly, I am called intolerant?!!



This is really an indictment on the absurdity of voting in Presidential elections when your vote is worth 1/120,000,000 and to make matters worse, it is for the lesser of two evils.

Indeed, if power was transferred to the states, your vote would be demonstrably more valuable since it would be among far less competitors. Moreover, it is far easier for a third party candidate or party to make inroads within a targeted state then in a national election. Hence, a transfer of economic power to the states would lend itself to a more responsive and dynamic political competition that would make it easier for third party candidates to leverage an advantage in a couple states with electorates favorable to their policies. Moreover, your vote, while still hardly a determining factor, would still account for more weight than national elections where it is virtually useless, particularly in the 80% of the states that represent non-battleground states.



Wrong, when taxes go to the federal government the benefits are dispersed among 310 million citizens among a land mass that is demonstrably larger than any single state. In contrast, taxpayers at the state level are far more likely to directly benefit from tax expenditures for obvious reasons.



Of course, the opposite is true. When the federal government oversees redistribution of trillions of dollars in tax and regulatory policy -- it invites the kind of corruption that rots and destroys nations from the inside out in a mountain of corruption and cronyism. Indeed, by removing the money from the federal government -- it can more effectively accomplish its primary beneficial responsibility of protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

To use an analogy, the federal government is the preeminent 'referee' in the economy in particular and society in general -- however when this referee enters the game as a profit-seeking 'player' -- then its ability to make accurate and fair calls is severely and irreparably compromised to the detriment of society.

I got to get back to work.

Later --- Spartans and Wolverines in Final Four -- or better yet -- an all Michigan national championship this March.

TL;DR, disregarding brick of text...

Oh, and which libertarian copypasta factory did you get that off of?

[Obamacult]

The nations that manage social programs are smaller. Hence, government that governs closer to the people, governs best. IN contrast, federal government meddling and regulation has undermined the ability of the states and private individuals and enterprises to address poverty.

Indeed,non-profit private charity provides far more bang for the buck when compared with the profit seeking government solutions. And if you are naive enough to think that the trillions spent on welfare and health care are not making politicians and politically connected crony capitalists rich --- I got a bridge to sell you in the East River.

And I can destroy you government argument with two words --- people mover.

tens of millions in federal matching dollars to fund a demonstrably stupid and wasteful crony capitalist boondoggle and you and other progressive talk about the poor !!??

How does wasting hundreds of billions on government spending help anyone?

And the following is just health care whose waste will continue and continue until the nation is bankrupt and no social program however necessary will be funded:

In fiscal year 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)--the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid--estimated that these programs made a total of over $70 billion in improper payments.

In contrast, when a private sector firm fails to this degree, the managers of this waste are removed from their control of vital labor, capital and wealth to the benefit of society.

Borderline unreadable walls of text, non sequiter sources, and strawman politicals?

Must be Obamacult!

Amusingly, you ad hominem me for 'walls of text, sources, and politicals' -- when all you ever offer is inane retorts devoid of a shred of factual, logically or empirically supported arguments.

[Frisivisia]

Borderline unreadable walls of text, non sequiter sources, and strawman politicals?

Must be Obamacult!

Amusingly, you ad hominem me for 'walls of text, sources, and politicals' -- when all you ever offer is inane retorts devoid of a shred of factual, logically or empirically supported arguments.

When my argument doesn't require a source, I don't put a source, and last I checked, I used logic. Sticking a graph in a long-winded, unreadable wall doesn't magically make your argument sooper-fact-empirical driven, it makes your wall even harder to read.

And picspam is not allowed on this forum, you ought to know.

[Grenartia]

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of people on welfare aren't lazy bums (in fact, the last I heard, you needed a job to get welfare benefits), and that the small percentage who manage to get benefits while not working are being made out to be the overwhelming majority of people, right?

But, lets assume that everybody on welfare doesn't work. What about those who can't find or hold a job? Should they be out on the streets, and left to starve?



I know I've pointed this out before, but you do realize that there is a certain irony in railing against a "one size fits all" government policy, and your using a "one size fits all" response to our points, don't you?

Its like constantly complaning about Papa John's pizza, and then throwing a party, and only serving, you guessed it, Papa John's.

1. See graph above -- trillions spent on reducing welfare is not working. The goal of society would be to reduce welfare payments, welfare recipients and increase the number of private sector jobs than increase tax revenues rather than consume tax revenue.

Indeed, only growth can pay down the survival level threat that the debt and deficit no represent. Moreover, within this scenario the government will not have enough money to pay the interest on the debt, much less fund welfare and other social programs.

2A. Moreover, virtually everybody now on welfare would be much happier, healthier and productive if they were working in an economically sustainable private sector job. We all would be. 2B. First, because the job would be based on economic sustainability. Second, it would produce tax revenue rather than consume it thereby assisting in paying down the debt. 2C. Third, workers are happier when they know that their job is gained by merit rather than being part of a pampered political constituency like public sector workers or teachers.

3. As for welfare, capitalism is the bounty that has brought the highest standards of living to the societies that practice it to a higher degree because society is based on economic merit rather than political connectedness. 4. Indeed, to quote Churchill, the 'vice of capitalism is unequal sharing of blessings, and the virtue of socialism is equal sharing of misery'. When society grows stronger and faster under capitalist systems, it has far more surpluses from which to satisfy the requirements of the downtrodden.

In contrast, note the condition of the poor and downtrodden as our federal government begins paying down the debt with more than just $400,000,000,000 per year. Indeed, the interest the federal govt. pays on its debt today would pay for millions of private sector teachers and physicians or thousands of schools and hospitals.

1. See my response to the graph, immediately below the graph.

2A. Didn't I JUST tell you that you have to have a job to get welfare benefits?
2B. I highly doubt anybody really gives a fuck if their job is 'economically sustainable', whatever the fuck it means. If nobody gives a fuck about it, how can it make them happier?
2C. Um, what the fuck are you talking about? Not even mentioning that teachers are far from 'pampered'. Ask any teacher for yourself.

3. I absolutely fail to see the connection between the underlined and the italicized. Its like saying "Poodles are good dogs because semi trucks can hold a lot of shit."

4. Of course, the only form of socialism anybody in Churchill's day knew of was the Soviet Union, and the many puppet regiemes it supported. We call this authoritarian socialism. If you are trying to use this quote to tell me that the form of socialism I subscribe to (which is a cross between libertarian socialism and that form of socialism fount in Scandinavia, which you might recall has produced countries with rather high per capita GDP rates), then just know that its rather like using a quote by Harriet Tubman on slavery to condemn BDSM.

[Grenartia]

I don't trust that graph. I mean, shit like that can be falsified.

Also, welfare DOES help individuals. There was a time when my mother and I would have literally starved to death if not for the food stamp program.

The regions and states that experienced the most mass starvation were command economies beset by rationing and shortages brought on by the problem of economic calculation associated with government inefficiency, corruption and waste.

Indeed, before the advent of capitalism on a grand scale in the Western world -- poverty and starvation were common place. They still are in areas in which capitalism is not practiced. See what a tiny injection of capitalism has done in India and China in which a generation ago, hundreds of millions of peasants were on the razor edge of starvation.

and the graph is accurate, hence you don't want to go there.

Yet again, with your allusions to the failures of 'command economies', you seem to be assuming that I am an authoritarian socialist. The system I advocate for is far from a command economy.